scene, described the resolution as resembling "a vote of censure
by the criminal classes on the police." The Statute Book applied
to the action of the Unionists language far stronger than any they
had the wit to use against Ministers. The Conservative party was
committed to naked revolution, to tampering with military and naval
discipline, obstructing highways and telegraphs, overpowering police
and coastguards, piratical seizure of ships, and imprisonment of the
King's servants. The democracy, who were urged to be patient, were
learning how the party of law and order cared for law and order when
it stood in the way of their wishes. And what of India, in view of the
"devastating doctrine" of the Opposition leader? He did not wonder the
old Conservatives were uncomfortable, but there was another section,
which had instigated the resolution, and postponed "law and order"
till it had to deal with Nationalists and Labour men. This section's
lawlessness, if it succeeded, might convince Irish Nationalists that
Ireland never gained anything except by force. The Orange Army was
being used to destroy Liberal reform by setting up the veto of the
force in place of that of the Peers. Coming to the substance of the
motion, the First Lord treated the precautionary measures as consequent
on the failure of the Prime Minister's offer for a settlement.
Those who were preparing civil war were aiming at the subversion of
Parliamentary government. The movement of the Fleet, decided upon on
March 11, had reference to the general Irish situation. The protection
of the depots was a separate question; they contained from thirty to
eighty-five tons of ammunition, and were scattered about unprotected.
The only ships used were two scouts, to avoid moving troops through
Belfast, and two boys' training cruisers were diverted in the belief
that the Great Northern Railway of Ireland would refuse to carry the
troops, which it ultimately consented to do. The Government also made
a confidential survey of the whole military position in Ireland. The
War Office and Admiralty were constantly considering quite hypothetical
contingencies, but here Sir A. Paget thought that the authorised
movements might lead to far larger consequences. The Government did
not accept his views, but it was a good fault to be over-cautious. He
scornfully declined to give details of the precise measures to be taken
against potential insurgents, but said the contingencies considered
were: (1) an armed attack on the depots or the troops marching to
protect them; (2) the measures to be taken if a Provisional Government
were set up at Belfast. No movements were authorised, but Sir A. Paget
was assured of support in any contingency, and if British troops
were attacked it would be the duty of the Government to chastise the
assailants. The use of force rested with the Opposition. The Government
would not use it till it was used against the representatives of law
and order. They had an absolute right to make much greater movements.
The talk of Civil War came from the Opposition. Did they think it
was to be all on one side? References had been made to his Bradford
speech; he held to it, but asked whether they could not reach a better
solution. Let them look at the danger abroad; foreign countries did
not know that at a touch of external menace we should lay aside our
domestic quarrels, but why could men only do so under the influence of
"a higher principle of hatred"? Why could not Sir E. Carson say boldly,
Give me the amendments I ask for to safeguard the dignity and interests
of Protestant Ulster, and I in my turn will use all my influence and
goodwill to make Ireland an integral unit in a Federal system?
This suggestion made a good impression, but the speech was followed by
stormy scenes. Mr. Mitchell Thomson (U., _Down, N._) endeavoured to
fix a charge of untruth on the Home Secretary, who had said, before
the revised White Paper was published, that there was nothing further
to add; Lord Charles Beresford (U.) described the First Lord as "a
terrible failure" when in the Army; and Sir R. Pole-Carew (U.) also
made a very provocative speech. Later Colonel Seely stated that Sir
John French had told him the day before that "As part of a strategic
movement such movements [as the precautionary movements taken] would
be idiotic," and that Sir A. Paget had been assured in reply to an
inquiry that he should have all the troops necessary if grave disorder
arose. If that were a plot, no Government which did not make it was fit
to remain in office. A new situation, however, had been caused by the
gun-running, and the law must be vindicated at all costs.
The debate was resumed next day in a much more conciliatory tone.
The Prime Minister said that the First Lord's closing suggestion
had been made on his own responsibility; but he added that he was
personally in sympathy with it. Mr. Balfour (U.), however, was less
conciliatory. He described the First Lord's speech as "an outburst of
demagogic rhetoric," and reviewed the history of the "plot" from his
own standpoint, saying that the Government had found it necessary to
protect the stores by preparations almost as extensive as those of the
United States in Mexico. He found discrepancies in the accounts, and
intimated that the Government had adopted the odious _rôle_ of the
_agent provocateur_. Challenged by the First Lord to produce evidence
of provocation, he said the evidence was in his speech, and they might
have an inquiry. Civil war would be alike justifiable and ruinous; but
the First Lord's suggestion seemed to have the promise and potency
of a settlement which would avoid it. He thought nothing could do so
save the total exclusion of North-East Ulster. The Government seemed
afraid lest this should be regarded as a party triumph. He would not so
regard it. For the greater part of his own political life he had been
defending the Union. He had hoped for the removal of grievances, for
the growth of a common hope, a common loyalty, confidence in a common
heritage, between the islands, under a common Parliament. For that he
had striven and worked; if the result was that a separate Parliament
should be established in Dublin, he should regard it as the mark of the
failure of his life's work.
Later, Sir E. Carson (U.) after reading from a Belfast trade unionist
manifesto to show the gravity of the crisis, and laying stress on the
weakening it entailed in the position of Great Britain abroad, said
that he would not quarrel with the matter or the manner of the First
Lord's proposal. He referred to his speech at Manchester (A.R., 1913,
p. 249) to show that they would not complain if Ulster got equal
treatment with other parts of the United Kingdom, and said that he
was not very far from the First Lord. He would say that, if Home Rule
passed, his most earnest hope would be that it might be such a success
that Ulster might come in under it, and that mutual confidence and
goodwill might arise in Ireland rendering Ulster a stronger unit in
the Federal Scheme. But that could only be brought about by goodwill.
All he wanted was loyally to carry out his promises to those who had
trusted him, and to get for them terms preserving their dignity and
their civil and religious freedom.
Subsequently Mr. Bonar Law (U.), after defending his own strong
language by reference to that of the Unionist leaders in 1886 and 1893,
and the action of Ulster and the Unionist support of it by the American
War of Independence, and Mr. Gladstone's concession to the Boers after
Majuba, urged the Government to realise and meet the position before
bloodshed came. Restating the Opposition view of the "plot," and
criticising discrepancies in the official accounts, he described one of
the orders as "suited to the Napoleonic genius of the commander at the
Sidney Street siege" (A.R., 1911, p. 2). But the Unionists were really
thinking of the finding of any tolerable way out of an impossible
position. They were ready to consider seriously the Federal solution,
and he was quite prepared to agree to a renewal of the "conversations"
(p. 5). If the Prime Minister preferred to deal with Lord Lansdowne or
another Unionist, he would let no _amour propre_ stand in the way.
The Prime Minister said that they had learnt from the Opposition
leader the flimsy and contemptible character of the Opposition case.
An undefined and unknown body was to be set up to inquire into
a mare's nest. The grounds alleged were that the Government had
withheld information and had given misleading information. Since his
re-election he had answered at least 500 questions on this matter;
the time-honoured practice of the House had been degraded in a manner
reminiscent of the worst traditions of the Old Bailey. Having gone
through that experience with as much good temper as the conditions
permitted, he gave fair notice that after the next day he would
answer no further questions on the matter. As to the charge of giving
misleading information (through _The Times_) he had not mentioned that
besides the small cruisers there were eight destroyers. The Cabinet
had authorised the ordering of the battle squadron to Lamlash ten days
earlier than the precautionary movements, and the two movements were
independent of one another. He heard that the order had actually been
given on Saturday (March 21) and suggested, in view of the public
excitement, that it should be countermanded. This was done, and his
statement on Sunday night was the strict truth. He did not know about
the destroyers till some days later. After defending himself as to a
charge of misleading the public as to the questioning of officers, he
described the "plot" as one of the absurdest stories in the annals of
mankind. Having made a conciliatory offer to the Ulstermen, would the
Government, have engineered a plot for their provocation? He briefly
summarised the Government's account of the measures described as the
"plot," and remarked that an Opposition whose leader said it might be
the duty of officers to disobey the law, and which had been admiring
a "piratical adventure," had never presented a flimsier case against
a responsible Government. But the debate would be remembered for the
speeches of Mr. Balfour and Sir E. Carson. He did not think settlement
would be successfully attempted by bargaining across the House, and
every one must be brought in, Ulstermen and Nationalist. It must be
accepted with sincerity by all the parties concerned. He took note
of Mr. Bonar Law's statements, and fully recognised that his speech
was meant to help a settlement. That spirit the Government entirely
reciprocated. He would never close the door on any means of reaching
a settlement, provided it secured the sincere assent of those mainly
interested.
The motion was rejected by 344 to 264. The Nationalists were said to be
rather disquieted at the tone of the Ministerial speeches.
The negotiations for a settlement were now privately resumed, and the
hopes of their success had been strengthened by the smooth passage
through the Upper House of the Army (Annual) Bill (April 27, 28). There
had been frequent rumours that the extreme Unionist Peers would either
throw it out or seek to insert a clause forbidding troops to be used
to force Home Rule on Ulster--a course which would have so delayed the
measure as gravely to imperil the discipline of the Army throughout the
Empire; but the design, if it had ever been seriously contemplated,
was abandoned, possibly because of the explosion of wrath occasioned
by the belief that the Army was being used as a political instrument
by the Unionists. But the Marquess of Lansdowne, at the annual
meeting of the Primrose League at the Albert Hall (May 1), was not
altogether encouraging. The first part of his speech was an elaborate
attack on the Government. He detected signs of a "chastened spirit"
among Ministers, but they were not sufficiently their own masters to
make an effective proposal. He carefully defined the attitude of the
Opposition, insisting that they maintained their objection to Home Rule
and the temporary exclusion of Ulster, but they were ready to examine
a federal solution provided that Ulster could find an honourable and
acceptable place in it, and that it was consistent with the interests
of the rest of the United Kingdom. And Mr. Balfour and Viscount Milner,
at a meeting next day at Coventry, were pessimistic. Mr. Balfour spoke
of the recognition by some Ministers of "the clean-cut separation of
the North-East of Ireland from any scheme of Home Rule"; and "the clean
cut" passed into a catchword.
One of the stock bases of attacks on Ministers, meanwhile, had been
further undermined by the unanimous Report (issued April 30) of the
Select Committee of the House of Lords which had investigated the
charges against Lord Murray of Elibank (p. 32). The accusers, the
proprietors of the _Morning Post_ and Mr. Leo Maxse of the _National
Review_, had been required by the Committee to formulate their charges,
and did so in print. No other charges were considered, though letters
were received making allegations against Lord Murray which no one
attempted to substantiate. The principal charge was substantially that
in regard to his purchase of American Marconi shares at 2_l._ each from
Sir Rufus Isaacs on April 17, 1912 (A.R., 1913, p. 72), he had acted
in a way which in his position was dishonourable; in this and in his
other purchases (for his own account in the open market on May 22,
and for the Liberal party fund on April 18, 1912) the Committee found
that he had acted without sufficient thought, but acquitted him of
dishonourable conduct. The latter purchase was not, as was suggested,
made from any one representing the English company. With his choice
of trust investments the Committee had no concern. He ought, however,
to have given his successor as Chief Whip full information as to his
purchase of shares for the party fund, and to have had full information
as to his dealings in American Marconis laid before the Commons
Committee. Three other charges were wholly rejected: (1) that he used
his position as Chief Whip to avoid discussion of the Marconi contract
in Parliament; (2) that he bought railway stock for the party funds
during the coal strike, knowing that a settlement was pending which
would send it up; and (3) that he had given time to Mr. Fenner, the
stockbroker, in order to avoid inconvenient disclosures. He had taken
on himself a loss of 40,000_l._ He had admittedly committed errors, but
had done nothing reflecting on his personal honour. But there ought to
be an absolute rule prohibiting stock speculation to any person holding
public office.
To return to Parliament, the Post Office Estimates were discussed
in the Commons on April 30. The Postmaster-General stated that the
expenditure was 26,150,000_l._, an increase of 1,770,000_l._, due
to the increased pay of the employees. The estimated revenue was
31,750,000_l._, but the debt was 31,600,000_l._ The postal service
proper showed a profit of 6,250,000_l._; the telegraphs a loss of
350,000_l._, the telephones a profit of 300,000_l._ Pay of employees
would be increased by about 2,000,000_l._ partly because of the Report
of the Holt Committee (A.R., 1913, p. 255). But there would also be a
minimum wage of 22_s._ per week for every full-time employee in Great
Britain. The Post Office dealt with 3,470,000,000 letters yearly,
and the surplus of its savings bank deposits over withdrawals was
12,000,000_l._ and the profit 160,000_l._ annually. He recommended
legislation against the transmission of betting circulars, of which
vast quantities were sent by English bookmakers established in
Switzerland. The subsequent debate dealt mainly with the alleged
inadequacy of the Holt Report; the Committee had found that the cost
of living had risen 11.3 per cent., but had awarded a rise of wages
averaging 4-1/2 per cent. at once, and eventually 7 per cent. Mr.
Pointer (Lab.) said the postal servants would accept the decision of
a Board of Arbitration on this portion of the Report. Mr. Holt (L.),
Chairman of the Committee, condemned the claim of the employees for a
15 per cent. increase. The discussion was resumed later (_post_, p.
116).
The next business of importance in the Commons was the Budget; but,
before proceeding to it we must, as usual, supplement the particulars
already given by a brief view of the Civil Service Estimates,
summarising from the accompanying Memorandum of the Secretary to the
Treasury.
CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Net Total, 1914-15. Original Estimates, 1913-14. Increase.
57,065,816_l._ 54,988,318_l._ 2,077,498_l._
In the Abstract and throughout the detailed Estimates comparison
was made, according to the usual practice, with the total grants
made for the service of the year 1913-14 in the Appropriation
Act, 1913; these grants, including the Supplementary Estimates
for 578,555_l._ presented to the House of Commons on July
24,1913, showed a net total of 55,566,873_l._, and on this basis
of comparison the Estimates for 1914-15 showed an increase of
1,498,943_l._
The number of classes had been reduced by one, Class VIII. (Old Age
Pensions, Labour Exchanges, Insurance, etc.), which had appeared
for the first time in 1913, having been merged in Classes VI. and
VII., but the number of votes was the same as the original number
for 1913-14. There were a number of minor readjustments of the
Votes.
CLASS I.--PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
1914-15. 1913-14. Increase.
3,744,769_l._ 8,617,459_l._ 127,310_l._
The figures for 1913-14 included supplementary grants of 31,930_l._
and 197_l._ transferred from Class IV. (Education, Science,
and Art). The large public offices in course of erection for
the Board of Agriculture, the Public Trustee, a new Stationery
Office, etc., and the growth of the Postal Service, had made a
substantial increase of expenditure inevitable. In conformity with
an undertaking given to the Public Accounts Committee, "Urgent and
Unforeseen" works were differentiated in the various Votes from
those of a minor character. In regard to the Houses of Parliament,
provision was made for additional accommodation for members on the
upper floor, and for the repair of the roof of Westminster Hall.
A sum of 2,800_l._ was allotted in respect of the maintenance of
Tintern Abbey, recently transferred to the custody of the Office of
Works.
CLASS II.--SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
1914-15. 1913-14. Increase.
4,690,433_l._ 4,448,534_l._ 241,899_l._
The 1913-14 figures included supplementary grants for 32,550_l._
and transfer of 45_l._ from Class IV., 1. The increase was mainly
due to the Boards of Control for England and Scotland respectively,
to be set up under the Mental Deficiency Acts of 1913. The Estimate
for Mercantile Marine Services included 13,000_l._ to cover the
cost of British participation in the proposed International ice
service in the North Atlantic. Increases on other votes were
due respectively to expenditure on schemes recommended by the
Development Commission (to be repaid out of the Development Fund),
to increase of staff at the Friendly Societies Registry and the
Office of Works, and to provision against foot and mouth disease in
Ireland.
CLASS III.--LAW AND JUSTICE.
1914-15. 1913-14. Increase.
4,768,634_l._ 4,642,346_l._ 126,288_l._
This increase was almost accounted for by the additional provision
for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and by the growth of
charges connected with land purchase in Ireland.
CLASS IV.--EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND ART.
1914-15. 1913-14. Increase.
19,911,506_l._ 19,799,388_l._ 112,118_l._
The 1913-14 figures included supplementary grants of nearly
155,000_l._ net. The increase was due to the growth of the cost of
education throughout the United Kingdom. Part of it was due to the
expansion of the work of the school medical service. In the Vote
for Scientific Investigation 5,000_l._ was provided as a first
instalment of a grant of 10,000_l._ to Sir Ernest Shackleton's
Antarctic Expedition.
CLASS V.--FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
1914-15. 1913-14. Increase.
1,836,917_l._ 1,514,349_l._ 322,568_l._
In the Vote for Colonial Services there was an increase of nearly
40,000_l._, due largely to an augmented grant in aid to Somaliland
for defence against the Mullah. Only 10,000_l._, however, was
required as a grant in aid to Uganda. A vote of 220,000_l._ for the
Persian loan represented the amount required to make good the sums
advanced to the Persian Government in the three preceding financial
years, to provide the funds needed to maintain order.
CLASS VI.--NON-EFFECTIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS.
1914-15. 1913-14. Decrease.
1,076,907_l._ 1,083,321_l._ 6,414_l._
Several Votes had been transferred to Class VII., and the title
altered. Under International Exhibitions 19,750_l._ was included
in respect of the Exhibitions at Leipzig (books) and Paris (art
furniture).
CLASS VII.--OLD AGE PENSIONS, LABOUR EXCHANGES, INSURANCE, ETC.
1914-15. 1913-14. Increase.
21,036,650_l._ 20,460,926_l._ 575,724_l._
The figures for 1913-14 included supplementary grants of
347,650_l._ and 14,653_l._ transferred from Class VI. The Votes
connected with National Health Insurance showed a net increase
of 512,211_l._ Part of this was due to the increased grants for
treatment of tuberculosis, part to provision for a large temporary
staff to deal with the claims of societies for reserve values--a
work taking eighteen months to two years. The increase in the Old
Age Pensions Vote was 110,000_l._ as compared with 400,000_l._
in the previous year, and the anticipated increase of pensioners
16,000 as against 27,000. The increases in earlier years were
exceptional.
REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
1914-15. 1913-14. Increase.
30,847,915_l._ 28,898,720_l._ 1,949,195_l._
The Inland Revenue Estimate showed a net increase of 176,670_l._,
mainly due to acceleration of the completion of the valuation under
the Finance (1909-10) Act of 1910. The Post Office Estimate showed
a net increase of 1,772,510_l._, due largely to increases in pay
following the recent recommendations of the Holt Committee.
The Budget, which had been postponed because the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had temporarily lost his voice, was taken on May 4. It had
been awaited with special interest in view of the Prime Minister's
pronouncement at Oldham as to the income tax (A.R., 1913, p. 252) and
of the promises of a revision of the system of Imperial grants in
aid of local taxation (A.R., 1913, p. 58; 1911, p. 22). In view of
the Ministerial attitude to food taxes, insurances had been effected
against reduction or abolition of the sugar duty at premiums rising
since March from 10 to 30 per cent., and also, at lower rates, against
reduction or abolition of the tea, coffee, and cocoa duties, and
increase of those on alcoholic liquors. But the Budget proved to be
less sensational than was expected.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer began by pointing out that his
forecast of 1913 had been more than justified (A.R., 1913, p. 102).
Trade had reached its highest point, unemployment its lowest, and
hardly any other country had had a like experience. He had estimated
an increased revenue of 6,000,000_l._; the increase had been
unprecedented--9,441,000_l._ He had had, however, to meet Supplementary
Estimates of 3,371,000_l._, against which were set savings in
various departments of 1,500,000_l._ The deficiency he had to face
was 1,860,000_l._ The increase of revenue enabled him to pay the
Supplementary Estimates, wipe out the deficit, leave the 1,000,000_l._
which he had proposed to take from the Exchequer balances, and end
with a surplus of 750,000_l._ The new taxes of 1909 had yielded
27,215,000_l._, the national income had increased since that year by
140 to 150 millions, and the national savings by 1,750,000,000_l._
The revenue from these taxes had sufficed for all their proposed aims
except the relief of local taxation, and, but for increased naval
expenditure, it would have sufficed for that likewise. In the current
year the estimated expenditure was increased by 8,492,000_l._ and
the conditions of revenue were very difficult to forecast. The total
estimated revenue from existing sources was 200,655,000_l._, the total
expenditure, apart from the new projects, 205,985,000_l._, leaving
a deficit of 5,330,000_l._ But the readjustment of the relations of
Imperial and local finance had long been imperative. He referred to the
Commission which reported in 1901, and to the pledge of the Government
in 1908 (A.R., 1908, p. 42). Local authorities had immensely wide
functions, but inadequate means; Parliament for forty years had almost
annually imposed new powers on them, making hardly any provision to
meet the cost. Rates in some districts had doubled in twenty or thirty
years; slums could not be cleared because the cost was prohibitive
(though this was not altogether a question of rates), and education
demanded assistance. The existing system of rating was indefensible,
discouraging improvements and very unequal in its incidence. A workman
in a town paid about 5 per cent. of his income in rates, a supertax
payer 1 or 2 per cent., a tradesman 9 and (in London) 13 per cent. The
basis of taxation was too narrow, and the system of assigned revenues
and of the Agricultural Rating Act had failed. Further and substantial
aid from the Exchequer was necessary to save the municipalities from
bankruptcy; but mere subsidies without conditions would be pernicious.
There should be a national system of valuation for local taxation,
involving the taxation of site values; the machinery for this existed
already, and the effect would be to relieve owners who had spent
heavily on improvements; but there must be a time-limit, or one might
go back to the Roman period. The distribution of relief would give the
greatest proportion of it to the most hard-pressed areas; the grants
would bear a direct relation to the expenditure; the assigned revenues
would be abolished, and efficient service would be a condition of the
grant. These grants, for England and Wales in the first full year,
would be: Poor law, 3,615,000_l._; police, 3,400,000_l._; criminal
prosecutions, 120,000_l._; suppression of cattle disease, 71,300_l._;
mental deficiency (optional provisions), 45,000_l._ additional; small
grants under Shops and Employment of Children Acts, 22,500_l._;
Reformatories and Industrial Schools, 22,000_l._ additional; Public
Health, 4,000,000_l._ (first year, l,300,000_l._); Tuberculosis,
Nursing, and Pathological Laboratories, 750,000_l._ The Education
grant would be reconstituted on the principles sanctioned by the Kempe
Committee (_post_, Chron., March 30), so as to give the greatest
relief to the poorest districts and to those where the expenditure
was highest. For the current year the increase--2,750,000_l._ for
England and Wales only--would be confined to the necessitous areas.
But besides this, the Exchequer would contribute half the cost of
feeding necessitous school children, and give further grants for
health work--physical training, open-air schools, crippled and
feeble-minded children, and maternity centres, and for technical,
secondary, and higher education. These grants for the first year
would be 560,000_l._, the health grants 282,000_l._ For insurance,
also, there would be further assistance, 1,250,000_l._ for the whole
United Kingdom. Something would be done for deposit contributors, and
health lectures would be established. The grant would be distributed
on the "Goschen principle"--80 per cent, for England and Wales,
11 per cent. for Scotland, and 9 per cent. for Ireland, omitting
education and police, which were almost exclusively paid for there by
Imperial grants. The grant would begin on December 1, subject to the
condition that legislation as to the basis of distribution, including
valuation, should have passed in time. For the current year the new
grants would increase the deficit by 4,218,000_l._, and he needed a
margin of 252,000_l._ He had, therefore, to find 9,800,000_l._ The
best method of equalising the burden was by a graduated income tax.
A local income tax, according to experts, would not work; in Germany
it drove away the men with large independent incomes. He would not
interfere with earned incomes up to 1,000_l._ a year, but after that
the scale would be: 1,000_l._ to 1,500_l._, 10-1/2_d._ in the pound;
1,500_l._ to 2,000_l._, 1_s._; 2,000_l._ to 2,500_l._, 1_s._ 2_d._;
2,500_l._ to 3,000_l._, 1_s._ 4_d._ On unearned income and all income
above 3,000_l._ it would be 1_s._ 4_d._ The allowance for each child
of 7_s._ 6_d._ in the case of incomes under 500_l._ would be doubled;
and the 25 per cent. limit on deduction for repairs would be abolished.
The supertax would begin at 3,000_l._ instead of 5,000_l._; the first
500_l._ would be excepted, the next 1,000_l._ charged 7_d._, the next
9_d._, the next 11_d._, the next 1_s._ 1_d._, the next 1_s._ 3_d._,
and the remainder 1_s._ 4_d._ The total yield of this and the existing
supertax would be 7,770,000_l._ in a full year. Incomes left abroad
for reinvestment, which had been exempted actually by a decision of
the Courts, would be included by means of declarations, with penalties
and recovery when death duties became payable. The death duties would
increase by 1 per cent. for estates between 60,000_l._ and 200,000_l._
and thereafter to a maximum of 20 per cent. for 1,000,000_l._ Relief
would be granted, however, in cases of rapid succession to property,
by remissions of estate duty on realty and stock-in-trade, varying
from 50 per cent. if death occurred within one year of succeeding
to property to 10 per cent. if it occurred within five years. The
settlement estate duty would be abolished, and settled property treated
like any other. These taxes together would produce 8,800,000_l._ for
the current year, and he would fill the gap by taking a million from
the Sinking Fund, seeing that the existing Government had paid off
104,000,000_l._ of debt and by 1915 would have paid off 114,000,000_l._
Direct and indirect taxation, which were equally balanced when the
Government came into office, would now be 60 and 40 per cent. of the
whole respectively. In conclusion, he claimed that the Government were
honourably fulfilling pledges and taking a decisive step towards the
greater happiness and efficiency of the people and the greater strength
and honour of the land.
The complexity of the Budget proposals precluded immediate discussion.
Mr. Austen Chamberlain condemned the proposal to have recourse to the
Sinking Fund, partly in view of the new charges, amounting already to
21,000,000_l._, added by the Government under Old Age Pensions and
Insurance alone. A number of questions were asked by other members,
and answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, after the
resolution enacting the new income tax had been agreed to, the House
adjourned early--at 7.15 P.M.
The following table shows the Estimated Revenue for 1914-15, compared
with the Receipts of 1913-14.
--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Estimate | Exchequer |
| 1914-15. | Receipts |
| | 1913-14. |
-------------------------------------|---------------|--------------|
| £ | £ |
Customs | 35,350,000 | 35,450,000 |
Excise | 39,650,000 | 39,590,000 |
Estate, etc., Duties | 28,800,000 | 27,359,000 |
Stamps | 9,900,000 | 9,966,000 |
Land Tax | 700,000 | 700,000 |
House Duty | 2,000,000 | 2,000,000 |
Income Tax (including Supertax) | 56,550,000 | 47,249,000 |
Land Value Duties | 725,000 | 715,000 |
Postal Service | 21,750,000 | 21,190,000 |
Telegraph Service | 3,100,000 | 3,080,000 |
Telephone Service | 6,900,000 | 6,530,000 |
Crown Lands | 530,000 | 530,000 |
Suez Canal Shares and Sundry Loans | 1,370,000 | 1,580,000 |
Miscellaneous | 2,130,000 | 2,304,000 |
|---------------|------------- |
Total | £209,455,000 | £198,243,000 |
| | |
Borrowings to meet Expenditure | | |
chargeable against Capital | 5,265,000 | 3,717,000 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------|
The following table shows the Estimated Expenditure, 1914-15, compared
with the Issues of 1913-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Estimate | Exchequer |
| 1914-15. | Issue |
| | 1913-14. |
-------------------------------------------|------------|------------|
| £ | £ |
National Debt Services | 23,500,000| 24,500,000|
Development and Road Improvement Funds | 1,545,000| 1,395,000|
Payments to Local Taxation Accounts, etc. | 9,885,000| 9,734,000|
Other Consolidated Fund Services | 1,706,000| 1,694,000|
Army (including Ordnance Factories) | 28,885,000| 28,346,000|
Navy | 51,550,000| 48,833,000|
Civil Services (including Old Age Pensions)| 61,084,000| 53,901,000|
Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue | 4,821,000| 4,483,000|
Post Office Services | 26,227,000| 24,607,000|
|------------|------------|
Total |£209,203,000|£197,493,000|
---------------------------------------------------------------------|
The final balance sheet, 1914-15, as proposed by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was as follows:--
+-------------------------------------++-------------------------------------+
| Revenue. || Expenditure. |
+------------------------+------------++------------------------+------------+
| | £ || | £ |
|Customs | 35,350,000||National Debt Services | 23,500,000|
|Excise | 39,650,000||Road Improvement Fund | 1,545,000|
|Estate, etc., Duties | 28,800,000||Payments to Local | |
|Stamps | 9,900,000|| Taxation Accounts, etc.| 9,885,000|
|Land Tax | 700,000||Other Consolidated Fund | |
|House Duty | 2,000,000|| Services | 1,706,000|
|Income Tax | 56,550,000||Army (including Ordnance| |
| (including Supertax) | || Factories) | 28,885,000|
|Land Value Duties | 725,000||Navy | 51,550,000|
|Postal Service | 21,750,000||Civil Services | 61,084,000|
|Telegraph Service | 3,100,000||Customs and Excise, | |
|Telephone Service | 6,900,000|| and Inland Revenue | 4,821,000|
|Grown Lands | 530,000||Post Office Services | 26,227,000|
|Receipts from Suez Canal| ||Balance | 252,000|
| Shares and Sundry Loans| 1,370,000|| | |
|Miscellaneous | 2,130,000|| | |
| |------------|| |------------|
|Total |£209,455,000|| Total |£209,455,000|
| | || | |
|Borrowings to meet | || | |
| Expenditure chargeable | ||Expenditure chargeable | |
| against Capital | 5,265,000|| against Capital | 5,265,000|
+------------------------+------------++------------------------+------------+
The Budget was well received by the Liberal and Labour parties,
chiefly because of its expected furtherance of great social reforms;
the Unionists strongly condemned the new valuation provisions and the
increases of the supertax and of the death duties, and argued that
it must encourage the policy of doles which, when practised by Lord
Salisbury's Ministry, the Liberal party had condemned. Lord Esher,
in a letter to _The Times_, put forward an objection savouring of
a familiar economic fallacy, to the effect that it would diminish
employment by causing the discharge of servants and others engaged
in ministering to the luxury of the rich. Liberals retorted that the
Unionists had intended to readjust Imperial and local taxation, partly
with the revenue they expected from Tariff Reform; they had also made
political capital out of the dangerous financial position of the
friendly societies and the grievances under the Insurance Act of the
casual labourer, and these evils the Budget proposed to remove. Thus
the controversy made indirectly for a renewal of party conflict on the
other pending issues.
The general Budget debate was taken on the resolution continuing the
tea duty (May 6, 7, 11). Mr. Austen Chamberlain (U.) opened the attack,
pointing out the disappointing yield of the new land taxes and the
immense cost of their collection both to the State and to individual
taxpayers, and also the enormous increase, present and prospective, of
national expenditure, on which the Treasury, he said, had ceased to act
as a check. In years of less prosperity and any serious complication
this would involve great injury to the State--loss of credit, and
of elasticity of finance. He regretted that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had raided the new Sinking Fund, and held that an undue
burden of taxation was being thrown on the rich. Let Liberals consider
how the line could be drawn between the proposed taxation and that
advocated by the hon. member for Blackburn [Mr. Snowden, a Socialist].
"Unearned" income might well be the result of labour and self-denial,
and on incomes between 700_l._ and 1,000_l._ a tax of 1_s._ 4_d._
in the pound in peace time was a tremendous burden. The increase of
the death duties interfered with provision for them by insurance,
and the abolition of the settlement estate duty involved a breach of
contract. An unjust burden must not be placed on the few because they
were few. The real interest of the Budget, however, was in the other
Bills it would entail on rating, valuation, insurance, education, and
housing. The new Valuation Department would be very costly and far less
satisfactory than the local assessment committees, and the effect of
the Budget on the local authorities was quite uncertain. Its proposals
marked the abandonment of the Liberal tradition of the extension of
local responsibility and of retrenchment, and left no resources for war
taxation.
The Financial Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Montagu) replied that the
new taxes mainly went to decrease existing burdens. The debt per head
was lighter than it had been since the Napoleonic wars; in 1887 it was
20.11_l._ per head, in 1899 15.52_l._, and in 1914 15.37_l._ Relatively
to the estimated wealth of the country it had diminished since 1906.
Wealth had many political weapons besides the numbers of the wealthy,
and the actual rate of income-tax paid was usually far below the
nominal rate. National wealth grew much more rapidly than taxation. The
valuation had greatly increased the yield from the death duties; and
it was only fair that the Imperial taxpayer should have a substantial
control over the expenditure of the money he found.
Of other speakers, Mr. Mills (U., _Middlesex, Uxbridge_) said, that
national debt was being reduced out of national capital, and that
the Budget would undermine the international position of the City
in finance; Mr. Pretyman (U.), resuming the debate (May 7) bitterly
complained of the burdens imposed on agricultural properties by the
settlement and estate duties, denounced the treatment of the settlement
duty as a disgraceful breach of a contract, made by Sir William
Harcourt in 1894, and argued that, as the Bills appropriating the
money could not be passed except in an autumn session, which it was
officially stated would not take place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would have a large surplus at the end of the year. Mr. Snowden (Lab.,
_Blackburn_) heartily approved the new taxes, and predicted that in
1924 the Budget would have reached 250,000,000_l._ The nation could
never before afford this expenditure so well, and the taxes, by
furthering social reform, benefited landlords and employers. The Labour
party would renew their demand for the removal of the taxes on food.
Mr. Wedgwood (L., _Newcastle-under-Lyme_) mentioned that unless the
local authorities were limited to using the grants for improvements,
the Liberals who desired taxation of land values would block all other
legislation, and Mr. Steel Maitland (U., _Birmingham, E._) said that
what was wanted was not control by the Treasury but control of the
Treasury.
On May 11, after further criticisms, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied. He remarked that nothing had been said of Tariff Reform.
The criticisms were "muddle-headed and contradictory"; the money
raised would help employment in more effective ways than those it was
supposed to injure. Grants in aid had been applauded and asked for
by the Opposition, and the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896 had been
financed out of the revenue from Sir William Harcourt's death duties.
He admitted that the taxes on small incomes raised certain grievances,
but the difficulty was that allowance on unearned incomes was hampered
by collection at source. The case of widows with small incomes and
children would be met by doubling the allowance made [under the Budget
of 1909] for the children, and in other cases by extending rebates on
application--which, however, would involve the establishment of a horde
of officials. For incomes under 300_l._ the tax would be 1_s._ instead
of 1_s._ 2_d._ As to the settlement estate duty he promised to consider
one case--where a testator left a life interest in his property to his
wife with reversion to the children; but as to the other taxes, there
was really no criticism. The Government would insist, before the money
was distributed, on a valuation differentiating between improvements
and site value, and on a statutory provision that relief should be
granted only in respect of improvements, not of site; till this could
be done--in the second half of the financial year 1915-16--there
would be provisional arrangements for distribution. He defended the
expenditure as a good investment and spoke of "a 1_s._ 4_d._ extra
insurance against revolution." His defence was severely criticised by
Mr. Long (U.), but the Budget resolutions were agreed to by majorities
varying from 81 (in the case of the tea duty) to 102 in the case of
the tax on earned income, which was carried by 290 to 188. The members
dividing numbered approximately 370 to 400.
Meantime a well-meant effort towards at least a provisional solution
of the women's suffrage question was being attempted in the House of
Lords by the Women's Enfranchisement Bill, conferring the Parliamentary
franchise on those women--estimated at about 1,000,000--who possessed
the municipal suffrage. The Earl of Selborne, in moving it (May 5),
after condemning militancy as "not only criminal, but stupid," said
that there were very few facts in dispute. Many of the most able and
highly educated women earnestly desired the franchise, and even if
many women did not, that was no reason for depriving those who did.
Women would divide along the same lines as men. The anti-suffragists
held at bottom that only the fit should vote, but in that case many
men would lose the vote, and many women would have it. Instinct and
character had to be considered more than fitness, and he thought women
generally cared more for their religion and their country than men
did. The Bill would therefore add to the stability of the State. The
majority of those whom it would enfranchise were poor women--many
of them widows with children--who had fought the battle of life and
triumphed. Dominion and American experience was treated as irrelevant,
but the human nature of women was the same. Women would be on the side
of the angels against the political machine. Earl Curzon of Kedleston,
opposing, held that the measure would weaken British prestige. Hitherto
Bills affecting the franchise had always originated in the Commons. The
great majority of the women admitted by the Bill would be unmarried,
and if women were to be enfranchised at all, married women were the
best qualified. Only 25 or 30 per cent. of the municipal women electors
voted, and an insignificant number stood. To give women the vote would
entail their admission to Parliament and the Cabinet. The militant
organisation was widespread and powerful, and militancy was widely
connived at by other organisations, such as the Church League for
Women's Suffrage. Would it cease if women got the vote, or be carried
into politics? The question was not of equality of the sexes, but of
fitness to discharge public duties. The million would eventually be
swollen to five or ten millions, and then women might combine as a sex
against men. Lords Newton and Tenterden supported the Bill; so did the
Lord Chancellor, partly on the ground of the need of women's help in
industrial questions and social problems, notably in infant mortality
and the decline of the birth rate. Militancy was a bad symptom which
showed the need of action. Lord Ampthill opposed the Bill; the Bishop
of London avowed himself a convert, in spite of the bomb placed under
his throne (A.R., 1913, p. 112). The unrest was caused by a deep-seated
feeling of injustice. The qualification for municipal bodies excluded
all women but a tiny minority. Housing, the raising of the age of
consent, and Sunday closing needed the support of women's votes. The
Bishop of Oxford also strongly supported the Bill, eulogising the
suffragist women. Next day Lord Courtney of Penwith supported the Bill
"as a small experiment," dwelling on the progress made by the women's
movement, not yet fifty years old, and dwelling on the action of women
in School Board elections, on Royal Commissions, and in political work.
Of later speakers, Lord Willoughby de Broke complained that the Press
suppressed the public expression of the movement and so misled the
public as to its strength; Viscount St, Aldwyn said that the municipal
franchise was the least suitable basis for extension, and the Bill
would be rejected by the electorate. He deprecated the increasing
activity of women in political work. The Marquess of Crewe thought
that, while the cause of women's suffrage was making progress, the
country was not yet convinced. Amid laughter, he said that, regarding
the Bill as a purely Conservative measure, he would give a purely party
vote against it. The Earl of Lytton said that separate legislation for
women implied their separate representation. There were five million
women workers competing with men represented in Parliament. Women,
he showed in detail, had given overwhelming evidence of their demand
for the vote, and would be satisfied with any removal of the sex
disability. The Bill would settle no more than that. He laid stress
[being the brother of a militant] on the magnificent qualities wasted
in militancy--courage, self-devotion, self-sacrifice--waste which could
only be stopped by granting the demand. The Bill was rejected by 104 to
60.
Brief mention only can be made of two discussions on subjects
unexpectedly illuminated by the later experience of the year. On May 6
Mr. Morrell (L., _Burnley_) moved a resolution in favour of negotiation
for the abolition of the capture of private property at sea; and the
Foreign Secretary specified the terms on which the Government would
agree. And on May 13 Mr. Bird (U., _Wolverhampton_) moved a resolution
demanding State provision against the danger of starvation and enforced
capitulation in case of war. He claimed that six months' supply of
wheat should be ensured, as the actual amount in the country was
sufficient for only six weeks, except just after harvest, when sixteen
weeks' supply existed, and he advocated a scheme of free storage,
suggesting also reduced taxation on grain-growing land and the building
of swift grain ships. A scheme of Government insurance of food-carrying
ships was suggested in the debate. The President of the Board of
Agriculture indicated that such a scheme was under examination, and
further that the question of supply had been carefully studied, and
that it had been ascertained that there need be no anxiety in war time,
provided the arrangements made for distribution were carried out. The
chief source of security must be the Navy. Both motions were talked out.
The monotony of the political struggle was somewhat relieved by the
state visit of the King and Queen of Denmark (May 9-13), who were
received alike by their Royal relatives and by the people of London
with all possible honour and goodwill. Both Kings laid stress in the
speeches at the state banquet at Buckingham Palace (May 9) on the
growth of commercial and friendly intercourse between the two nations;
so did the King of Denmark and the Lord Mayor at the entertainment
given by the City Corporation at the Guildhall (May 12); the Order
of the Garter was conferred on the Danish monarch, the visitors were
entertained at a gala performance at the opera, and presented with an
address by the Common Council. The visit, however, had probably no
great political significance.
The Parliamentary conflict was resumed when the Prime Minister
introduced a resolution (May 12) to dispense with discussion on the
Committee stage of the Home Rule, Welsh Church, and Plural Voting
Bills, and on the financial resolutions necessary for the two former
measures. The discussion on the financial resolutions, he said, had
proved valueless in 1913; and the so-called "suggestion stage" was
intended to apply only to exceptional cases--to the correction of some
error or oversight, or to amendments consistent with the principle
and purpose of the Bill in question. But the Opposition declined any
responsibility for the Home Rule Bill, so that the consideration of
suggestions was nugatory. The only proper way of carrying out an
agreed settlement, for which he hoped, was by an Amending Bill. The
House would be asked to give the Home Rule Bill a third reading before
Whitsuntide, but the Government would go forward another step, and make
itself responsible for an amending Bill, which might pass--perhaps not
in its original shape--practically at the same time as the Home Rule
Bill. As to the Welsh Church Bill, the suggested amendments, which
seemed to have been put down as part of a concerted policy, would
completely transform the Bill into a measure which the House could not
accept. The House of Lords might amend these Bills if it liked, and the
Commons would consider their amendments. To the Plural Voting Bill no
amendments were suggested. The course proposed evoked protests from the
Opposition, and Mr. Bonar Law (U.), in a bitter speech, declared that
the Parliament Act had taken the interest out of the debates. Ministers
did not trouble to attend, and great damage had been done to the House
and still more to the representative system. The forces which would
decide the Home Rule question were outside the House. He charged the
Government with a change of front on the suggestion stage with regard
to the Welsh Church Bill; whether they had it or not now depended on
the House of Lords. It would be quite possible to let the Chairman
select suggested amendments for discussion. As to the projected
Amending Bill, he saw less hope of a settlement than there had been six
months earlier; the Government must either (1) submit the Bill to the
country, (2) coerce Ulster, (3) or exclude Ulster. While refusing all
responsibility for Home Rule, the Unionists, if it were to be carried,
would do their best to help the Government to carry it without civil
strife. The only conversations of any interest would be those between
the Prime Minister and Mr. Redmond. He attributed the Ministerial
refusal to disclose the Amending Bill to Mr. Redmond's insistence that
the Home Rule Bill should pass before Whitsuntide, so as to strengthen
the Nationalist position. When it had passed, however, the Nationalist
members would find it difficult to make concessions, and the Ulstermen
would have no confidence that the Amending Bill would pass, and so
there would be a real and unnecessary risk of bloodshed.
Mr. Gladstone (L., _Kilmarnock Burghs_) protested against the
suppression of the suggestion stage for the Welsh Church Bill as a bad
precedent and an encroachment on the independence of members. Later,
Mr. Balfour (U.) said that the suggestion stage, for which the Speaker
had had to improvise the machinery, was ill thought out at first and
excessively difficult to work in practice. He complained that the House
was asked to force through under the Parliament Act a Bill admittedly
requiring amendment without knowing how it was to be amended. They
were to vote without knowing what the real measure was which was being
forced on the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer retorted that,
if every offer by the Government was to be treated as an admission
that their proposal was defective, that was the way to promote civil
war (a declaration which caused a stormy scene). He added that the
proposals embodied in the Amending Bill were known to be those made
by the Premier (p. 39), and that a suggestion stage on the Welsh Bill
would be useless if, as had been intimated, the House of Lords meant
to reject it. The Opposition wanted one, in order to waste time and
to embarrass the Government. Mr. Redmond said that the Government had
had another lesson as to the inevitable effect of making advances to
the Opposition. He could not, however, approve of the Prime Minister's
decision to introduce an Amending Bill even if the negotiations between
the leaders should fail, and if one were introduced after such failure
he held himself absolutely free to deal with it. It could not be passed
except by agreement, and every fresh offer by the Government only
hardened the Opposition, who had made no concession. He was prepared to
run great risks and make great sacrifices for a peaceful settlement,
but the position in which it was sought to put the Nationalists was
unfair and intolerable. They had the consolation of knowing that the
vision which had sustained them would be realised. (Mr. Redmond's
closing words were greeted with prolonged Liberal cheers.) Later, Sir
A. Griffith-Boscawen (U., _Dudley_) moved an amendment declining to
restrict the time for discussing the remaining stages of the Home Rule
and Welsh Church Bills till the Government had given an opportunity
for discussing suggestions for amendment. Eventually this was rejected
by 293 to 217; but, at the instance of Mr. Cassel (U., _West St.
Pancras_), an opportunity was given for discussing the financial
resolution under the Home Rule Bill. The Government's motion, thus
amended, was carried by 276 to 194.
Just before the first of these divisions a Unionist victory was
announced at the Grimsby bye-election, due to the death of Sir George
Doughty (Chron., May 12). The Unionists retained the seat, but with a
reduced majority, on a heavier poll than at the last general election;
but the Liberal candidate, though no politician, was popular (as the
late member had been) among the fishermen, and the Liberals had hoped
to win.
The financial resolution necessary for the Welsh Church Bill was
discussed for three hours on May 13. It authorised the issue out of
the Consolidated Fund of any sums necessary to pay the principal and
interest of money borrowed by the Commissioners for the purposes of
the Bill--no money being available from the endowments taken until
life interests began to fall in. The object of the resolution was to
enable the Commissioners to borrow at a lower rate than they could have
without this Treasury guarantee. It was still doubtful whether the
Church would accept commutation, and the Opposition pressed in vain for
the Commissioners' names. Ultimately an amendment omitting "principal"
was rejected by 215 to 304, and the resolution was carried by 306 to
218.
The "Federal Solution" of the Home Rule problem was indirectly
touched upon on May 15, when the second reading of the Government of
Scotland Bill was moved by Mr. Macpherson (L., _Ross and Cromarty_).
He explained that the Bill was practically the same as that of 1913
(A.R., 1913, p. 124), except for the inclusion of a clause giving the
suffrage to women. It was not a Separation Bill, and the seventy-two
Scottish members would remain at Westminster pending a complete scheme
of devolution; but Scotland sought control of limited and local
functions peculiarly her own. The Bill was the first plank in the
Scottish Liberal programme, and devolution was supported by the Royal
Convention of Scottish Burghs and was necessary to end the neglect
of Scottish interests--especially education, the land law, and the
fishermen's vote. Mr. W. Young (L., _Perthshire, E._), seconding,
dissented strongly from the clause introducing women's suffrage.
The Bill was opposed by Mr. Mackinder (U., _Glasgow, Camlachie_),
who, while approving of devolution, objected to the retention of the
Scottish members at Westminster, which would rivet the Liberal tyranny
on England; the financial clauses would create friction, and Scotland
would lose her influence on Imperial affairs. The objects of the
Bill might be attained by a Standing Committee sitting in Scotland.
Subsequently Mr. Clyde (U., _Edinburgh, W._) argued that industrial and
trade legislation should be assimilated in England and Scotland, and
that one Parliament could do this better than two. The two countries,
however, might well revise their common administrative system. Mr.
Balfour (U.) said that none of the supporters of the measure had
dealt with its practical operation, and that nothing would be done by
giving administrative or even legislative Home Rule to Scotland to
facilitate the expression of Scottish nationality; it was only after
the Union that Scotland showed what she could do in literature, art,
government and war. The advocates of the Bill were mixing up two
questions--separate administration and Scottish nationalism. A system
of devolution was impossible if the different local Parliaments and
Executives were to have different powers. If such crazy methods were
adopted, how could the Imperial Parliament be relieved? England would
not approve a system under which it would have less power to manage
its own affairs than Scotland or Ireland. Claims would be made for the
removal of restrictions in the Scottish Bill which were absent from the
Irish, and then the Imperial Parliament would be again plunged into
discussing the re-hash of our Constitution. The machinery established
would tend further to disintegrate the Union. For devolution there
must be a thought-out plan equally applicable to each several part of
the United Kingdom. After a reply from the Scottish Secretary, who
commented on the absence of Unionist Federalists, and described the
question as simply one of administrative and legislative convenience,
the Bill was talked out; but the speech of the Scottish Secretary,
coupled with previous Ministerial utterances, led some Scottish members
to press, though vainly, for the introduction of a Government Bill.
The Welsh Church Bill finally left the House on May 19, after two days'
debate. In reply to a question, the Home Secretary announced the names
of the Commissioners--Sir Henry Primrose, Sir William Plender, and Sir
J. Herbert Roberts (L., _Denbighshire, W._). (Only the first named
accepted a salary--1,500_l._ annually.) The Report of the financial
resolution and the resolution suppressing debate on the Report stage of
the Bill were carried on the previous day, each by precisely the same
numbers (298 to 204), and then, on the third reading, the rejection was
moved by Mr. Hume Williams (U., _Notts, Bassetlaw_). He laid stress on
the demonstrations and "miles of petitions" against the Bill, and said
that it had only been carried by the Nationalist vote. What good, he
asked, would Disendowment do to any one? Mr. E. Wood (U., _Ripon_),
seconding the rejection, quoted the Dean of Ripon, a Liberal and Broad
Churchman, as saying that the Bill would intensify the difficulties in
the co-operation of Churchmen and Nonconformists, and laid stress on
the danger of weakening the Church in the struggle for social reform
and the conversion of the heathen. Mr. W. Jones (L., _Carnarvon,
Arfon_) said that the Nonconformist quarrel was not with religion
or with the Church, but with Establishment. Petitions only showed
what a grand thing the ballot box was. In all the great divisions
on the Bill, if the Ulster members were eliminated as well as the
Nationalists, the British majorities ranged from 27 to 42. The movement
for separation of Church and State originated in the Welsh religious
revival, which had transformed the moral, religious and intellectual
life of the people. The endowments were wanted for the nation; and
he laid stress on the multiplication of Welsh Nonconformist and Welsh
Anglican Churches, without State endowment, in London, Liverpool,
North America and Argentina. Young Churchmen in Wales were going to
the national Colleges instead of to Lampeter, and, after the Bill had
passed, a great religious spirit apart from Anglicanism and sectarian
domination would flow and commingle for the regeneration of Wales.
In the second day's debate, the Home Secretary announced that the
King had placed his interests in bishoprics and other ecclesiastical
dignities and benefices in Wales and Monmouthshire at the disposal
of Parliament; and then the Under-Secretary for the Home Department
spoke. He said that unless the Welsh dioceses were separated from
the Province of Canterbury the English Church would predominate in
governing the Welsh Church. By ending the traffic in the cure of souls,
giving more power to the laity, enabling congregations to choose their
own clergymen, and helping to reconcile national sentiment to the
Church, the Bill would do good. What with the fabrics, the rectories
and vicarages, the movable property, and the income left to the Church,
capitalised, the Church would retain a capital of 10,000,000_l._ for
200,000 communicants. The Church desired to retain its Establishment
and endowments, and to be free from State control. Lord Hugh Cecil (U.)
said that there was nothing behind Disestablishment but the will of
the Welsh representatives; Welsh Nonconformity was only 103 years old
and was in a state of flux. He laid stress on the prospective injury
through Disestablishment to religion in other countries, and described
the Bill as immoral and unjust. Later Mr. Cave (U., _Surrey, Kingston_)
contended that the House had a right to have the suggestion stage, and
that, even had the suggestions been accepted by the House of Lords and
the Bill rejected there, they would have been part of the Bill sent up
for the Royal Assent. The endowments were not given to "the Church,"
or in trust, but for religious purposes, and to secularise them broke
the _cy-près_ rule. On disendowment no Parliamentary majority was
even relevant, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after commenting on
Mr. Cave's first point, said that disendowment followed inevitably
on Disestablishment. The Opposition claimed at once that the Church
was endowed as a great national institution and as a sect. Would not
the pious founders have been shocked to learn that their gifts were
being used to support a married clergy? The title was not legal but
Parliamentary, and much of the property was derived from an Act of
Parliamentary spoliation. The payment of stipends to ministers was
the least of the functions recognised by the founders, and Parliament
was recognising the trusts and restoring them. Mr. F. E. Smith (U.)
declared that the Welsh could long ago have had Disestablishment
without disendowment; they were after the money, and he noted that the
Government had not attempted to deal with lay impropriators. The Bill
was passing by a bargain with the Nationalists. The Home Secretary, in
his reply, said that the Church was being disendowed because it held
national property. Half the parochial endowments belonged to parishes
with 27,800 communicants, some with less than five, the other half to
parishes with 163,000. After Disestablishment, the total income of
the Church if the voluntary subscriptions remained constant would be
511,000_l._ instead of approximately 556,000_l._ as in 1906. The loss
of 45,000_l._ would be met by amalgamating parishes. The Bill would
restore freedom to the Welsh Church. The third reading was carried by
328 to 251.
The financial resolution requisite for the Home Rule Bill was the
subject of a stormy debate next day (May 20). The President of the
Local Government Board explained its meaning and effect. It proposed
to authorise the payment into the Irish Exchequer each year of a
fixed sum based on the cost of the services to be administered by
the Irish Government on the passing of the Bill, _plus_ a subsidy of
500,000_l._ annually. The President of the Local Government Board
explained that in 1912-13, when the Bill was introduced, Irish
revenue amounted to 10,600,000_l._, expenditure on Irish services to
12,600,000_l._--a deficit of 2,000,000_l._ But the increased revenue
due to the pending Budget was estimated for 1915-16 as follows: Income
tax, 185,000_l._; supertax, 175,000_l._; estate duty, 75,000_l._ As
about 35,000_l._ of this was arrears, the normal yield of the new
taxes in Ireland would be 400,000_l._ The additional grants would
be in all 765,000_l._,--education, 112,500_l._; other services,
517,500_l._; Post Office wages, 3,000_l._; tuberculosis nursing and
laboratories, 65,500_l._; insurance, 65,000_l._; collection of duties,
1,500_l._ After the Budget changes in 1915-16 the revenue would be
11,450,000_l._, the expenditure 14,150,000_l._, and the deficit
2,700,000_l._ No calculation, he told Sir E. Carson, had been made as
to the amount of the new grant which would go to additional purposes
in Ulster. The grants would be handed over to the Irish Parliament to
dispose of as it pleased. He was much questioned by members, and Mr. T.
Healy (I.N.) declared that Ireland was being tricked and over-taxed,
while Mr. A. Chamberlain said that the Government were increasing
the grievance that the Home Rule Bill was supposed to diminish--that
Ireland had to keep up to the level of England, the richer country.
Every time the burdens on Great Britain were increased, a heavier
subsidy was to be paid out of British taxes to Ireland. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer replied, saying that under Home Rule it would be
possible to leave local services to the local Parliament. If money was
to be raised from Ireland, it must be treated like Great Britain in
distributing the funds, Ireland had been contributing 1,800,000_l._ to
Imperial taxation; she was now getting 2,000,000_l._ After an amendment
moved by Sir F. Banbury, providing that the payment in connexion
with Irish services should not fall on the British taxpayer, had been
rejected by 305 to 213, the resolution was carried by 303 to 215.
The remaining stages of the Home Rule Bill were to have been completed
next day, May 21, but they were deferred through an outburst of passion
on the part of the Opposition. At question time the Prime Minister, in
answer to inquiries, stated that the Home Rule Bill would be introduced
in the House of Lords, but he could not name the date, and refused to
anticipate the disclosure of its contents there by a statement in the
Commons. This course, he told Mr. Bonar Law, would be contrary to all
Parliamentary precedent. This was resented by the Unionists and by
some Liberals, among them Mr. Hogge (L., _Edinburgh, E._). After the
Report of the money resolution (p. 107) had been carried by 316 to
228, and the Bill reported to the House without amendment by 316 to
227, Lord R. Cecil (U.), amidst a rising storm, moved the adjournment
of the debate, on the ground that the Bill was to be passed before the
House knew how it was to be amended. These amendments might change its
whole character. The procedure of the Government was an insult to the
Commons. Either they had not yet made up their minds, or they knew that
their proposals would imperil the progress of the Bill. Mr. Worthington
Evans, seconding, said the Government hoped again to raise the cry,
"Peers _versus_ People." The Prime Minister said that the language of
the two last speakers would be appropriate if they were the dominant
party dictating terms of surrender to an impotent minority. The Home
Rule Bill had passed all its stages by substantially undiminished
minorities, and represented the deliberate and considered judgment of
the Commons. In its principle, details, and machinery it was a wise
and statesmanlike measure; whenever the Government made any proposal
towards peace it was treated as a hypocritical sham. Still they had
made proposals in order to remove any possible sense of injustice
and coercion, allowing the people to vote as to whether any would
come in. But they must have as a preliminary the firm and deliberate
judgment of the House on their main proposals. For that reason, the
Amending Bill was to be introduced in the House of Lords. They had been
told that whatever was done, that House would reject the Home Rule
Bill. It would be waste of time to ask the Commons to spend weeks in
elaborating suggestions which might be summarily rejected. The last
voice in the matter would be that of the House of Commons. Mr. Bonar
Law retorted that the Commons, after all, represented the people. If
the Home Rule Bill was wise and just, why amend it, and why was the
Commons not to know how it would be amended? He himself believed that
the Prime Minister desired a peaceful settlement, but considered only
what would give him a majority. He had gone back at Leeds on his speech
at Ladybank (A.R., 1913, pp. 243, 219), and in his proposals on his
speech on the Address (pp. 39, 21). He would not let the House know
the proposed amendments because the Nationalists would not let him.
They meant to pass the Home Rule Bill, and force the Prime Minister to
use all the forces of the Crown to drive loyal men out of the Union.
The course adopted was an insult to the Commons. A discussion of the
third reading of the Home Rule Bill was an absurdity, and he could see
absolutely no use in taking part in it. Among subsequent speakers, Mr.
A. M. Scott (L., _Glasgow, Bridgeton_), Sir H. Dalziel (L., _Kirkcaldy
Burghs_), and Mr. Pringle (L., _Lanarkshire, N.W._) protested against
the withholding of the terms of the Amending Bill, and Mr. Amery (U.)
was sharply and repeatedly rebuked by the Speaker.
The motion for adjournment was rejected by 286 to 176, and Mr. J.
H. Campbell (U., _Dublin University_) came forward to oppose the
third reading of the Home Rule Bill. Before he had uttered a word
the Unionists started a concerted cry of "Adjourn, adjourn." After
it had continued for five minutes the Speaker rose, and asked the
Opposition leader whether this was with his consent and approval. This
unexpected and unprecedented question provoked an outburst of protest
from the Opposition, and Mr. Bonar Law, after the cheers that greeted
his rising had at length subsided, replied, speaking evidently under
great excitement, "I would not presume, Sir, to criticise what you
consider your duty. But I know mine, and that is not to answer any such
question." The Opposition cheered savagely and waved handkerchiefs and
papers, and the Speaker suspended the sitting in view of the grave
disorder. The Opposition cheered their leader wildly as he passed out;
some of them shouted taunts at the Ministerialists; one, carried away
by excitement, stood before the Prime Minister and shouted abuse at
him; the Liberals and Nationalists, meanwhile, laughed good-humouredly
and made no response to the Opposition taunts. When the Prime Minister
went out, however, they rose and cheered him enthusiastically.
The disturbance was thought to have been preconcerted, possibly in the
lobbies during the division on the motion for the adjournment, and to
have been suggested by Mr. Bonar Law's concluding words on that motion.
At any rate it was in conformity with advice long ago given by the
_Observer_ (A.R., 1912, p. 156).
Moreover, the North-East Derbyshire bye-election (Chron., May 20)
resulted in a Unionist success, due, indeed, to a split between the
Liberal and Labour parties, whose joint aggregate poll had increased
largely as compared with that of December, 1910, though the Unionist
poll had also somewhat increased. But still it meant a Unionist gain,
to be followed by many others if the split were not speedily closed.
Again, a keen electoral contest was in progress at Ipswich (Chron., May
25). For the seat vacated by the sudden death in the United States of
Mr. Silvester Horne (L.), Mr. Masterman, the Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster, and recently defeated in Bethnal Green, was the Ministerial
candidate, and the struggle in an always uncertain constituency was so
acute that both Sir Edward Carson and the Chancellor of the Exchequer
went down on the last day to speak for their respective sides. The
former laid stress on the determination of the Ulster people to
resist Home Rule, and declared that he had never been so proud of
his leader as he had been on the occasion of the scene in the House;
the latter declared that the scene was part of a deliberate plot for
destroying representative government, because the Tories saw that the
people meant to use it for their own redemption. Ipswich had 1,700
old-age pensioners; it was getting 21,400_l._ a year on that head,
35,000_l._ out of the Insurance Act, and some 15,000_l._ out of the
new Budget; the weary and the heavy laden in all climes were looking
with hope to England. All this, of course, the Unionists denounced as
a direct appeal to the cupidity of the people. And, in an essentially
working-class constituency, the Liberals lost the seat. Not only was
Mr. Masterman defeated by 532 votes on a poll of 12,675, but the
combined Liberal and Socialist vote was 137 below that given to the
Unionist victor.
Possibly the Unionist satisfaction at this new success helped to
intensify the calmer feelings brought by the week-end, and by the
diversion of the attention of members to a non-party measure, the
Weekly Rest Day Bill. At any rate, when the House reassembled on
Monday, May 25, it reverted to its best traditions. After the
introduction, amid enthusiastic Unionist cheers, of the two new
members, Major Bowden (U., _Derbyshire, N.E._) and Mr. Ganzoni (_U.,
Ipswich_), the Speaker made a personal explanation. He now understood
that the Opposition had had some reason when they interrupted the
debate on May 23 to expect that a statement would be made by the Prime
Minister; and with regard to the Opposition leader he was betrayed
into an expression he ought not to have used. He did not mean to imply
that Mr. Bonar Law was responsible for the demonstration, and he was
sure that he might always look to the leaders to maintain order. He
suggested that the Prime Minister should give further information as
to the Amending Bill. Mr. Bonar Law expressed his gratitude to the
Speaker for his generous statement, and then the Prime Minister, after
associating himself with the tribute paid by the Opposition leader to
the dignity and impartiality of the Chair, stated that the Amending
Bill would give effect to the terms of agreement if arrived at, and, if
not, to the proposals outlined on March 9 (p. 39). Mr. Bonar Law, while
acknowledging the conciliatory tone of the Prime Minister's speech,
held that it had not altered the situation. The strain on the minority
was more than they could stand. The climax was reached then, when the
House was asked to give a final verdict on the Irish policy of the
Government without knowing what it was. It was useless to discuss
the third reading. Ring down the curtain, the sooner the better. The
Government had the power to carry their Bill through Parliament, but
not in the country.
The Prime Minister replied with dignity that he held his office not as
the slave of taskmasters, but by the consent and with the confidence
of the majority of the House. He contrasted the ample opportunities
of debate enjoyed by the Opposition since 1906 with the position of
the Liberals in the preceding Parliament, and declared that it was
because the balance had been redressed against the Liberal party that
the Opposition took up its present attitude. The Amending Bill was
introduced, not because Ministers thought the Home Rule Bill imperfect,
but for the sake of peace.
Mr. W. O'Brien (I.U.) denounced the "resurrecting of the House of
Lords" and the introduction of the Amending Bill as designed merely
to put off the day of disillusion. So long as it was clogged by an
Amending Bill, partitioning Ireland, it was a Bill for the murder of
Home Rule.
The third reading was passed by 351 to 274. A scene of great
Nationalist enthusiasm followed. Then, after a brief and discursive
debate on the occasion of the adjournment, the House adjourned for the
Whitsun recess.
Two Liberals (Sir Clifford Cory and Mr. Agar-Robartes) voted against
the Bill, and Mr. Pirie abstained, as did the eight Independent
Nationalists. Three Nationalists and two Labour members were absent
through illness.
Mr. Redmond that evening told a representative of the _Freeman's
Journal_ that "the Union, as we have known it, is dead," and that,
while no amendment of the Bill was desired by either the Government or
the Nationalists, it was worth paying a great price to ensure that the
Bill should come into operation peacefully. He appealed earnestly to
Irish Unionists for a conciliatory discussion of points on which they
required further safeguards. There was no disorder, as had been feared,
in Ulster; but the strain was severe, and Sir Edward Carson, speaking
at Mountain Ash, South Wales, three days later, declared that the third
reading was only the first act in a gruesome tragedy, and that the
Government would only hold Ulster as a conquered province, if at all.
Two minor Bills, described by the _Nation_ as "signs of a new spirit of
freedom sweeping powerfully through the world," proposed respectively
to prohibit the traffic in recommendations for titles and honours, and
to permit any holder of a peerage or baronetage to disclaim it by deed
poll lodged in the Chancery Division, in which case it would lapse. The
former was introduced by Mr. O. Locker-Lampson (U., _Hunts, Ramsey_),
the latter by Mr. Ponsonby (L., _Stirling Burghs_). Neither got very
far, and the former was not quite untinged with party politics; but
they at any rate marked a reaction against a craving for artificial
distinctions which had reached proportions hitherto unknown in English
life.
More definite signs of social change were exhibited in the series of
further outrages by militant suffragists. As usual, some were very
grave in character, others merely vexatious and even childish, but
all were carried out with great determination by women for whom the
punishments provided by the law appeared to have no terrors. On April
17 the pier pavilion at Yarmouth had been burnt down, apparently
through the explosion of a bomb; on April 28 the Bath Hotel at
Felixstowe, just made ready for the season, was also burnt, the damage
being estimated at 35,000_l._; on May 4, at the first public view
of the Royal Academy Exhibition, a portrait of Mr. Henry James, the
novelist, presented to him by his admirers and painted by Mr. Sargent,
R.A., was damaged with a chopper by Mrs. Mary Wood; a week later (May
12) a similar outrage was committed on Herkomer's portrait of the
Duke of Wellington in the same exhibition; at the gala performance
in honour of the King of Denmark at the Italian opera (May 11) there
were unsuccessful attempts to interrupt the performance by addressing
King George V.; while on May 14 the houses of Lord Lansdowne and Sir
Edward Carson were picketed by suffragists to emphasise the contention
that the Ulster leaders should also be treated as in revolt. A few
days later a cricket pavilion was burnt at Harborne, near Birmingham
(May 15), and a like fate befell the grandstand and offices on the
Birmingham racecourse; and on May 21 a deputation of women, in defiance
of the principles of British constitutional government, attempted to
force their way to Buckingham Palace to present a petition against
forcible feeding to the King. The police had formed a cordon around the
Palace, and a crowd had naturally assembled; the procession appeared
suddenly to emerge from it near the top of Constitution Hill, and the
painful and distressing spectacle was presented of a conflict, before
a jeering crowd, between a group of women and the police. Sixty-six
women and two men were arrested, and, for the most part, was sentenced
to be bound over to keep the peace; they refused to be bound over,
and were sentenced in default to one day's imprisonment. Others,
sentenced to longer terms of incarceration, were speedily released
after hunger-and-thirst strikes. Mrs. Pankhurst, who had appeared in
the front of the procession, was rearrested, but released again after
four days' thirst-and-hunger strike, and her arrest was the signal for
fresh outbursts. The day after it five very valuable Italian pictures
at the National Gallery were damaged, as well as a picture by Mr.
Clausen, R.A., at the Royal Academy; and hence the National Gallery,
the Wallace Collection, the Tate Gallery, and a few days later the
Watts Gallery near Guildford, were closed till further notice. Again,
at a special _matinée_ of "The Silver King," attended by the King and
Queen (May 22), a woman stood up and addressed His Majesty as "Russian
Tsar"; another interrupter had chained herself to her stall; and others
in the galleries showered suffragist literature on the audience.
Next day Mr. Lavery's portrait of the King in the Royal Scottish
Academy was damaged, and an attempt was made to cut off the aqueduct
supplying Glasgow with water from Loch Katrine; but the criminals in
this last case escaped. Finally, windows were broken at Buckingham
Palace on May 27. The two Felixstowe incendiaries were sentenced at the
Suffolk Assizes (May 29) respectively to nine months and two years'
imprisonment, but the "Cat and Mouse Act" afforded them a certain,
though painful, escape. A more efficient method of suppression was
foreshadowed by the raiding of a flat on May 21 at Maida Vale, where
several women and a man were arrested, and stones, hammers, and
choppers were seized. Two days later, the offices of the Women's Social
and Political Union in Kingsway were raided also, and the secretary was
charged with conspiring with the inmates of the Maida Vale flat. The
accused persons, following the example of the Felixstowe criminals,
behaved outrageously in court, and their conduct and, indeed, the whole
of the outrages, probably gave a severe set-back to the suffragist
cause.
The Labour outlook, too, continued alarming. The railway servants'
leaders decided on May 16 to demand the recognition by the companies of
their trade union, a forty-eight hours' week, and an increase of wages
in all grades by 5_s._ weekly; and in the building trade, the ballot
taken upon an offer of compromise by the employers, which the men were
advised by their leaders to accept, resulted, on the contrary, in its
rejection by 21,017 votes to 5,705. The struggle was causing extreme
suffering, and was kept up with a determination ominous of its long
continuance. And behind all these signs of multifarious social unrest
loomed the spectre of civil war.
CHAPTER IV.
THE POLITICAL STRUGGLE AND ITS CLOSE.
The brief Whitsuntide recess was a time of gloom and anxiety alike for
politicians and for the people at large. It was overshadowed by the
almost certain prospect of a national lock-out in the building trade
and by the sinking of the Canadian Pacific liner, _Empress of Ireland_,
the greatest disaster, except the loss of the _Titanic_, in the history
of the mercantile marine (Chron., May 29). Politically the situation
was becoming more and more critical. Ministers had lost much of their
prestige both in the country and in Parliament; one Minister had gone;
another had failed to find a seat; of seven bye-elections since the
session began they had lost four; they were suffering from the effects
of Labour and Nationalist estrangement, and their supporters in
Parliament were divided on the Budget, the "Federal solution" of the
Irish question, the treatment of the incipient rebellion in Ulster,
and the policy exhibited in the introduction of the Amending Bill. A
general election towards the end of July was freely predicted; but,
while a Liberal victory might have provoked an explosion of rebellion
in Ulster, an indecisive result or a Unionist victory would almost
certainly have led to prolonged and grave disturbance. In Ulster there
were Church parades of Ulster Volunteers, militant speeches, popular
demonstrations, and every sign of determined preparation to resist
Home Rule. Sir Edward Carson, who spent the recess in the province,
said (at East Belfast, June 2) that he "had come to make arrangements
for the final scene"; that he "was going to have more Mausers"; and
that he had scant faith in the Amending Bill. It was not surprising
under these circumstances that several deputations, including Liberal
and Labour working-men, and sent over, generally by Unionist aid,
to see the condition of affairs in Ulster for themselves, declared
themselves converted to Unionist views. On the other hand, the probable
consequences of the triumph of those views were indicated by the growth
of the National Volunteers. They were stated to number nearly 130,000,
of whom 5,000 had joined in the last week of May; their numbers were
estimated at 41,000 in Ulster, 42,000 in Leinster, 27,000 in Munster,
and nearly 19,000 in Connaught; drilling was going on daily, and they
were assured of the assistance of many retired military officers
of repute. The movement had begun independently of the Nationalist
party (A.R., 1913, p. 267), and was stated by its leaders to be
non-political; but the Nationalist leaders were now endeavouring to
secure its assistance and to obtain control. The position was described
by Viscount Milner (at Rothwell, May 30) as "smouldering war"; and
trustees and others were transferring securities from the North of
Ireland to Great Britain for safety, while preparations were being made
in England for the reception and housing of Ulster Protestant refugees.
Speaking at Criccieth, however, on June 2, to members of the
Bristol Radical Association who had come on a day's excursion, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that the Government stood firm.
It would definitely reap the full harvest of the Parliament Act, and
would decline to dissolve until the existing Parliament had carried
the measures which the people had empowered it to carry. Were the
Parliament Act swept away, a Labour Parliament in five years' time
might find itself confronted by a powerful plutocratic Second Chamber
more firmly entrenched than ever. No Government dissolved Parliament
for the loss of a few bye-elections. The real rock ahead for Liberalism
was not the "little temporary trouble" in Ulster, but the dissensions
between Labour and Liberalism. Ipswich had been lost owing to this
dissension, and to its occurrence in North-East Derbyshire. The nation
as a whole wanted to go forward, and to go faster, and in the villages
the land programme was creating enthusiasm.
A host of Unionist speeches and impressive demonstrations took place
at the week-end (June 5, 6) at Hull, at Newcastle, at Eastbourne
and elsewhere; and at a garden party at Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's
residence at Birmingham Mr. Austen Chamberlain spoke, and Mr. Joseph
Chamberlain, in a bath-chair, received the greetings of a few local
Unionist leaders. But these speeches merely conveyed the impression
that the Ulster crisis was becoming graver. On the other hand, the
Lord Chancellor, at the combined dinner of the Russell, Palmerston,
and Eighty Clubs at Oxford, while recognising Sir Edward Carson's
efforts to keep the peace, said that his Ulster army had caused the
raising of the National Volunteers; both forces were illegal and
unconstitutional, but the Government had decided, he thought wisely,
to leave events to take their course. As to the Amending Bill, the
Government were prepared, as the Premier's speeches had shown, to make
offers towards a settlement, and to consider suggestions from the other
side. Two days later the Archbishop of York pleaded earnestly in _The
Times_ for some form of exclusion of Ulster accompanied by a scheme
of devolution; and on June 10 an earnest appeal was published by the
Archbishops of Canterbury and York against Disestablishment both in
Wales and generally, partly on the ground of the need of a National
Church, for which they were prepared to agree to a larger measure of
self-government.
Parliament reassembled on June 9, and began by giving a second reading
to three non-contentious measures--the National Insurance Act, 1911
(Pt. II.), Amending Bill, and two Milk and Dairies Bills, for England
and Scotland respectively. The first named was described by the
President of the Board of Trade as designed to remove administrative
difficulties, to diminish the working cost, and to remove certain
delays inevitable in the first administration of a new Act of the kind.
He gave particulars (too detailed to be reproduced here) and said
that the Bill would not increase the total charge on the Treasury,
but would give relief to employers and workmen, and might lead to
the extension of the Act to new trades, and to the extension of the
benefit or reduction of the contribution. He had been surprised at the
small number of grievances under the Act; it had not only stimulated
organisation among working-men, but had enabled many employers to
increase the stability of employment and to regularise their work.
Some of the Labour members' speeches were much less optimistic, but
the Bill passed its second reading without a division. The Milk and
Dairies Bill, introduced by the President of the Local Government
Board, empowered that Department with the approval of the Board of
Agriculture, to make regulations preventing the supply of contaminated
or dirty milk, which would be laid before Parliament before becoming
operative. Means would be provided for tracing and stopping the source
of diseased milk, and for punishing the real adulterator, and a single
inspection would replace the existing multiple inspections. Similar
precautions would be applied to imported foreign milk. The Bill was
supported by Mr. C. Bathurst (U., _Wilts, Wilton_) and other members,
and criticised in detail by Mr. Forster (U., _Kent, Sevenoaks_) and Mr.
Astor (U., _Plymouth_), who suggested various amendments, and, after a
reply by the President of the Local Government Board, was read a second
time without a division. So, after a very brief conversation, was the
corresponding measure for Scotland.
The Post Office Vote was further discussed, according to promise, on
June 10. Sir Henry Norman (L., _Blackburn_) complained of the delay
in establishing the Imperial wireless chain (A.R., 1912, p. 199), and
ascribed the loss on the telegraph service largely to the old-fashioned
methods in use. Mr. Joynson-Hicks (U., _Middlesex, Brentford_) said
that the badness of the telephone service--of which there had been
countless complaints since the transfer to the Post Office--was
largely due to the discontent of the staff. Other members laid stress
on the postal servants' grievances, and Sir T. Whittaker (L.) and Mr.
Ramsay Macdonald (L.) suggested that a special and permanent Board
should be set up to deal with them, representing the Government, the
Departments, and the employees. The Postmaster-General promised to set
up a Committee or Commission to inquire into the future relations of
the State with its employees, and to take action on its report, partly
to free members from political pressure and to ensure a competent and
impartial tribunal. A reduction of the Vote was defeated by 275 to 221.
Previously Major Archer-Shee (U., _Finsbury, Central_) had obtained
leave under the ten-minutes' rule, to introduce a Foreign Companies
Central Bill, requiring foreign companies raising money in the United
Kingdom to comply with the requirements of British company law--a
measure occasioned by the circumstances of the flotation of the
American Marconi Company, and thus a sequel of the Marconi scandal. It
got no farther.
Next day, on the Home Office Vote, the House discussed the pressing and
vexatious problem of the treatment of militant suffragism. Wargrave
Church, near Henley, a picturesque edifice containing historic
monuments, was burnt down on the night of May 31; the same gang were
responsible for an attempt a few hours later to set fire to a country
house near Windsor; the services in St. Paul's, Westminster Abbey,
and the Brompton Oratory were disturbed by women protesters against
forcible feeding; a picture was destroyed in the Doré Gallery; and
at the King's Court (June 4) a lady fell on her knees when passing
Their Majesties and cried out, "Your Majesty, won't you stop torturing
women?" They took no notice, and she was carried out. She proved to be
Miss Mary Blomfield, daughter of an eminent architect and a descendant
of a famous Bishop of London. Two days later an empty house was burnt
at High Wycombe; and, among minor disturbances, windows were broken
by women at Criccieth during Mr. Lloyd George's speech (June 2), and
would-be interrupters of Sir E. Carson in Ulster were all but lynched.
Miss Sylvia Pankhurst was rearrested (June 10) in the East End while
heading a deputation of suffragists to Parliament, though part of it
reached the Houses of Parliament and saw the Liberal Chief Whip, who
naturally gave them no satisfaction. To repress these outrages, "cat
and mouse" treatment had evidently proved ineffective; but the offices
of the militant organisation at 17 Tothill Street, Westminster, were
raided (June 9), and it was hoped that the names might be obtained of
subscribers to the funds, and that they could then collectively be made
pecuniarily responsible for the damage done.
The possible methods of combating militancy were the topic principally
discussed on the Home Office Vote (June 11). Previously the Home
Secretary, in reply to questions, had stated that no general relaxation
of prison rules had been made for militant offenders, and that no
official statistics of arson by them were available. In moving a
reduction of 1001 in the Vote, Lord Robert Cecil (U., _Marylebone, E._)
referred to the number of the outrages recorded (_Times_, June 4; pp.
112, 116), and said that the gravest circumstance was the open defiance
of the law. What was going on in Ireland might be rebellion, but this
was anarchy; the public irritation was increasing, and was venting
itself on peaceable suffragists. He believed the militants' leaders
now cared more for the existence and power of their society than for
the ultimate success of its propaganda. The followers, however, where
they were not paid to commit outrages, were acting from honest motives.
They were devoted to Mrs. Pankhurst, and she and her daughters were the
people almost wholly responsible. But the continuance of militancy was
largely due to the repeated mistakes of the Government. Repudiating
the suggestion that the suffragist members should postpone their
efforts till militancy had ceased, he strongly advocated deportation,
and welcomed the design attributed to the Government to attack the
militants' funds. He suggested, also, that the French Government should
be asked to take proceedings against Miss Sylvia Pankhurst.
The Home Secretary said that the phenomenon they had to deal with had
no precedent in history. The number of women actually committing crimes
was small, the number of sympathisers with them extremely large. But
the number of militants committed to prison in 1906, the first year
of the agitation, was 31; in 1909 it was 156; in 1911, 188 (six being
men); in 1912, 290 (two being men); in 1913, 183, and in the current
year 108. The "Cat and Mouse" Act had therefore greatly reduced the
number of offences, but these had become much more serious. He did not
think the irritation which was the aim of the campaign would recoil
on the Government. Dealing with the recent acts of rudeness to the
King, he said that while all subjects had the right of petitioning
His Majesty in respectful language, there was no right to a personal
audience of him; the Home Secretary's duty was to submit petitions to
him and advise action on them, and they were presented even if the
action requested was illegal, unconstitutional, or impracticable. The
militants' action had been an effective advertisement, and he wished
that the Press would not give it prominence. On the other hand, many
of the fires attributed to the suffragettes were really cases of
ordinary crime, and the whole number was an insignificant percentage
of the total. He discussed the four alternative methods proposed of
treating the militants. (1) To let them die was the most popular, but
he had the authority of a great medical expert for saying that they
wished, and actually tried, to die in prison. Such deaths would be the
greatest possible incentive to militancy, and, as they multiplied,
there would be a violent reaction against the Government. Even
supposing the necessary Act were passed relieving the prison officials
of responsibility, a humane prison doctor could not let a woman die
whose only offence had been obstructing the police. (2) Supposing they
were deported, say to St. Kilda, if it were not treated as a prison
they would be speedily rescued; if it were, they would still refuse
food. (3) To treat them as lunatics would require medical certificates,
which would not be given. (4) To give them the franchise was hardly a
remedy for the existing lawlessness. They were, in fact, more severely
punished by their hunger-and-thirst strikes than by imprisonment.
Statistics showed that the "Cat and Mouse" Bill had been effective.
Of the eighty-three persons discharged under it, fifteen had given up
militancy, six had fled the country, twenty were in hiding, possibly
abroad; the rest, mostly women who had obstructed the police in the
recent procession to Buckingham Palace, were either legally at large or
were at addresses known to the police. Just before the Act came into
force, a report had been made to him showing that the women coming into
prison were physically defective; they were sent there to die, and
the offenders were paid to commit crime. The Act had been effective
in diminishing the number of crimes, but not their seriousness,
which naturally increased as the movement was combated. As to other
possible steps, the militants' funds were doubtless lodged in banks
abroad, but the raids on the militants' society's offices had provided
the Government with evidence enabling them, they hoped, to proceed
against the subscribers and make them personally liable for the damage
done. Criminal proceedings might also be possible, and the insurance
companies would doubtless bring actions besides. The militants, he
declared, lived only by the subscriptions of rich women, who paid their
tools 30_s._ or 2_l._ a week to go about and commit outrages. If the
means of revenue of the Women's Social and Political Union could be
totally destroyed, the power of Mrs. Pankhurst and her friends would be
ended.
In the subsequent debate the Government was severely criticised for
its vacillation and ineffective action; other speakers dealt with the
maltreatment of ponies employed in mines, street accidents in London,
and police pay. The debate was adjourned.
While Mr. McKenna was concluding his speech, about 5.30 P.M., a
bomb exploded under the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey, but
fortunately did only slight damage to the Chair and the famous
Coronation Stone. It had probably been deposited by some member of a
large party which was being conducted over the Abbey by a verger; and
two innocent foreign lady tourists were detained for a short time by
the police, and protected from the crowd. The bomb was made of two
domes of a large double cycle bell, wrapped round by wire, containing a
chlorate explosive and iron nuts; and it was hung over the back of the
Coronation Chair. The criminal was not discovered.
It must be added that a joint protest against militancy was issued
on June 12 by the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies and
the Conservative and Liberal Unionist Women's Franchise Association,
declaring militant methods to be "a negation of the very principles
for which we stand," as making physical force the ultimate basis of
government. This view was emphasised next day by Mrs. Fawcett at a
suffrage meeting; and a similar manifesto had been issued on June 11 by
the Women's Liberal Federation. But a bomb, which did little damage,
exploded on June 14 in St. George's Church, Hanover Square; and a
solicitor's clerk (June 13) was fined for conveying to a suffragist
prisoner an emetic drug intended to nullify the effects of forcible
feeding; thus so weakening the patient as to secure her immediate
release.
Meanwhile the gun-running in Ulster, and the efforts of the British
"Covenanters" to avert the coercion of the Unionists, had temporarily
transferred the Home Rule controversy to the platform. A group of
Liberals, among whom Sir William Byles (_Salford, N._) and Mr. Neil
Primrose (_Cambs, Wisbech_) were conspicuous, were holding meetings
in the great towns to strengthen the hands of the Government against
incipient rebellion; and the Covenanters undertook a campaign against
"the coercion of Ulster" in Scotland, of which the chief features
were Mr. Bonar Law's speeches at Inverness (June 11), to an audience
of 6,000 drawn from all parts of the Highlands, and at Glasgow next
day at St. Andrew's Hall. There was little new to be said, but in
the Inverness speech, described by the _Spectator_ as one of the
best fighting speeches that Mr. Law had ever made, he appealed
from the House of Commons to the people, and reiterated the charge
that Ministers had "torn open the old wounds" of Ireland to secure
themselves a majority. He charged the Government with provoking the
prevalent spirit of lawlessness by acting as dictators in the name
of the King; he elaborately attacked their contention that Home Rule
was before the electorate at the last general election; and even had
they had a mandate for it, he said, the projected resistance of Ulster
had completely changed the situation. Moreover, they had not redeemed
their pledge to give the country a reformed Second Chamber, which would
certainly have forced an appeal to the people. In spite of the Prime
Minister's declaration of 1906, he was dealing with Home Rule without
an independent majority. The Government would not appeal to the country
either because they knew they would be defeated or because of a bargain
with the Nationalists. There were two sections of them--the drifters
and the gamblers; the latter had been let loose by Mr. Churchill's
speech at Bradford, followed by a concentration of force against Ulster
greater than any made by Great Britain since the Crimean War. They were
saved by the accident of the resistance of the Army. The cry of "the
Army against the People" was started by the Labour members, who had
been bought by the Government through their salaries. The Unionists had
appealed, not to the Army, but to the nation. He dwelt at length on the
results of the thirty-eight bye-elections, in which the Unionists had
gained eleven seats, and the Coalition majority had fallen off 40 to 50
per cent. It was a conflict between the Government and the nation, and
the nation was bound to win. As at the siege of Derry, the Ulstermen
had been shut off from British help by the Parliament Act. He appealed
to the people of Great Britain to break the boom.
Next day at Glasgow Mr. Bonar Law amplified his speech, especially
in regard to the Ulster situation. He repeated his charges against
Ministers of subservience to the Nationalists, and described the
proposal of exclusion by counties as insane. It meant that Ulster,
which then was strong, should lay down its arms and come in when weak.
An incident of this campaign was an Irish Nationalist attempt to
break up a Unionist demonstration, 25,000 strong, on Woodhouse Moor,
near Leeds (June 13), at which the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Milner
were among the speakers; but the attempt was a failure. Efforts were
made--notably at a meeting two days later at Oxford--to advocate a
search for a "Federal solution." But the campaign did not affect the
attitude of the Government.
The Plural Voting Bill finally passed the Commons on June 15, Mr.
Sanders (U., _Somerset, Bridgwater_) moving the rejection. Little
remained to be said; Mr. Sanders mentioned that when Mr. Gladstone
was Premier a proposal to abolish plural voting found only forty
supporters; the President of the Board of Education replied that the
plural vote had been abused since 1885 through increased facilities of
transport. Ministers were quite ready to negotiate with the Opposition
to secure "one vote, one value." Later, Lord Hugh Cecil revived the
charge of dishonourable behaviour against the Government in connexion
with the Franchise Bill fiasco (A.R., 1913, pp. 20-24). Their honour
was "post-Impressionist" and smudged. Eventually the rejection was
negatived by 320 to 242.
This subject was now worn out; but Home Rule was entering a new phase.
A Provisional Committee, mainly self-elected, was about to devise
a constitution and appoint leaders for the Irish Volunteers (A.R.,
1913, p. 267). The Nationalist leaders felt, like Sir Edward Carson
in Ulster, that the force must not continue uncontrolled; and Mr.
Redmond (June 9) issued a statement announcing that his party, which
had thought the movement premature, had been converted by the events
at the Curragh and the gun-running in Ulster, and for the past six
weeks had given it their support. Since then it had "spread like a
prairie fire"; and he suggested that the existing Provisional Committee
should be immediately strengthened by the addition of twenty-five
representatives nominated by the Nationalist party and in sympathy with
its policy and aims. The reorganisation might then be completed, and a
Conference might elect the permanent governing body. This proposal was
not at once accepted by the Provisional Committee; and on June 12 Mr.
Redmond issued a further manifesto, urging the Nationalists--who were
95 per cent of the force, though only a minority of the Provisional
Committee--to organise county committees independent of that body.
The Nationalist party, he warned the Committee, would not submit to
dictation on questions of policy. The members of "Sinn Fein" and other
advanced Irish patriots resented this interference, and Unionist
spectators did their best to promote a breach. But the local leaders
generally saw that the union was necessary, and therefore favoured
Mr. Redmond's intervention. The combination of the Volunteer and the
Nationalist forces tended necessarily to strengthen the influences
at work in Ireland, both against the exclusion of Ulster and for the
revocation of the prohibition of the import of arms (p. 66), of which
the validity had been upheld (June 15) on appeal by the Dublin Court of
King's Bench, though only by two Judges to one.
The new development was discussed in both Houses on June 16. A day
earlier the House of Lords had been told that the Amending Bill would
be introduced in the following week and the second reading of the
Government of Ireland Bill put down for June 30. Complaint was made by
the Opposition that the conversations between leaders, on which the
Amending Bill was to be based, had not taken place; and on June 16
the Marquess of Lansdowne called attention to the position and to the
delay in producing the Amending Bill. After saying that he distrusted
"triangular" conversations, in which Ministers had to submit the
proposals made them to the Irish Nationalists, he ascribed the Amending
Bill to fright on the part of the Government. They were drifting
towards an overwhelming catastrophe. The Amending Bill ought to have
been introduced long ago in the Commons, and the House of Lords, the
constituencies, and the House of Commons--through the suppression
of the suggestion stage--had all been defrauded. The two Bills were
to be carried, one by Nationalist votes, the other by those of the
Ulster members. The Amending Bill, if limited to the terms offered on
March 9 (p. 39), would not be acceptable. The Unionists in that House
would accept an Amending Bill to avoid civil war, but would take no
responsibility for it.
The Marquess of Crewe said that the delay in the Amending Bill was
caused by the desire that it should represent an agreement. The
conversations would be quadrangular rather than triangular, as the
views of British and Ulster Unionists did not agree. The delay might
have been avoided had that House given the Home Rule Bill a second
reading and amended it, for under the Parliament Act the second reading
in that House did not imply assent to the principle. The Lords could
amend the Amending Bill into any shape they pleased, and he hoped the
measure would pass in a form which, though perhaps in some respects
acceptable to no one, would receive general acquiescence. He thought no
body in Ireland wanted to engage in conflict, so that the Government
was still wise in refraining from interference. Viscount Milner
complained that no conversations had yet taken place; this was partly
contradicted by the Marquess of Crewe, but it eventually appeared that
there had only been "communications," and after Lord Macdonnell had
declared that the Volunteer forces did not desire to fight each other,
and several Unionists had spoken in the same strain as their leader,
the subject dropped.
In the Commons on the same evening Lord Robert Cecil (U.) moved the
adjournment to call attention to the growing danger caused by the
existence of the two Volunteer forces and the failure of the Government
to deal with the situation. He said that the Irish Volunteers were
ready and even anxious to fight Great Britain, and existed to secure
and defend Home Rule. In proof of this latter statement he quoted a
recent speech by Mr. Devlin, and he declared that it demolished all
the safeguards in the Home Rule Bill. The Prime Minister had said the
day before he hoped that when Home Rule became law the activity of
both forces would be diverted into constitutional channels; but the
Government were simply drifting. When the Ulster Volunteers were formed
they should either have made concessions or prepared to coerce Ulster;
were they going to submit to the National Volunteers or resist them,
and were they going to make real concessions in the Amending Bill?
The position was a scandal to the Government and to civilisation. Mr.
Amery (U.) said that the position in Ireland was paralleled only in
Albania. The only way out was to go to the people. The Chief Secretary
for Ireland replied that the drillings of the two forces were legal
with the permission of two magistrates; so was carrying arms, with
a proper licence. It would be difficult to prove that the purpose
was seditious to the satisfaction of a Belfast or Donegal jury. The
history of Ireland showed the vanity and futility of trying to suppress
the expression of public opinion by British State prosecutions. The
creation of one Volunteer force entailed that of the other. The Ulster
gun-running was almost as much admired among the Nationalists as among
the most fervent Protestants; many strong opponents of Home Rule were
proud of the inclusion of many old soldiers and fine young men in the
Nationalist Volunteers; a feeling might quite possibly arise in favour
of a united Ireland. The Volunteer movement itself did not add greatly
to the dangers of the situation; discipline and the ability to use
firearms were good things, and discipline under responsible men did
not readily lead to action against the law. He hoped a solution would
be found of the existing difficulties; the Government must continue
in their path of securing for the Irish people responsibility for
the conduct of their own affairs. Mr. Bonar Law said that no strong
Government would have submitted for a moment to Sir Edward Carson's
challenges to put down the Ulster Volunteers. The Government had
done nothing because they knew the people were not behind them, and
to interfere with the Ulster Volunteers would have brought about an
election. Pending an election, the British Unionist party must support
Ulster. The Government were still drifting. Mr. Dillon (N.) said the
Volunteers of the South had arisen spontaneously, and for purely
defensive purposes. They were prepared to maintain the law, because it
was going to do justice to Irish liberties. When the Ulster Volunteers
realised that 250,000 Nationalists were enrolled, they would be slower
to break the peace. The Government had taken the right course in
abstaining from coercion; Nationalist Irishmen who had undergone it
knew its effect. After speeches from Sir W. Byles (L.) and Mr. Neil
Primrose (L.), who complained of Mr. Churchill's _volte face_ (pp. 52,
87), the motion was rejected by 288 to 223.
It may be added that the Nationalist addition to the Committee, giving
the party substantial control, was effected at the end of June, and
that a "Defence of Ireland Fund" was started in July to purchase arms
and ammunition for the force.
The day following this debate (June 17), the attention of the House
was diverted to a development of the Government's policy of oil
fuel for the Navy (A.R., 1913, p. 167), which caused misgivings in
both political parties, more especially among advanced Liberals.
A concession obtained in 1901 from the Persian Government, with
the consent of certain local chieftains, had passed in 1909 to the
Anglo-Persian Oil Company (a subsidiary of the Burmah Oil Company)
and gave it the exclusive right for sixty years to work oil deposits
and prospect for oil throughout Persia, except in Khorasan and the
provinces bordering on the Caspian--where, however, there was no
sign of oil. The Government had now contracted, on terms which were
(very properly) kept secret, with the Anglo-Persian Company for a
large supply of oil fuel for the Navy during a term of years; and, to
enable it to control the company's management, it proposed to invest
200,000_l._ in the debentures, and 2,000,000_l._ in the ordinary
shares, the capital to be applied to the improvement of the pipe lines,
tanks, etc., necessary to the fulfilment of the contract. The existing
pipe line ran from Tembi, near Shustar, by Wais and Ahwaz, to Muhamrah
and Abadan Island at the mouth of the Karun River, the site of the
refinery. An expert Commission under Admiral Slade, and including three
eminent geologists, had reported favourably on the scheme; the upper
sections of the pipe line were policed by the Bakhtiari tribes, the
lower sections and the refinery would be protected by the Sheikh of
Muhamrah. As a business arrangement the plan seemed excellent, but the
properties in question were practically all in the neutral sphere under
the Anglo-Russian Agreement (A.R., 1907, p. 375), and Sir Edward Grey
(A.R., 1908, p. 25) had seemed inclined to avoid taking risks in that
region. A protest meeting of persons interested in the petroleum trade
had been held in the City on June 5; but in other quarters it was held
that the risks of local disorder or interruption of the supply in war
time might be serious, or that the step might provoke Russian jealousy
and so lead further towards the dismemberment of Persia.
The arrangement was discussed (June 17), on the resolution in Committee
of Ways and Means required as the basis of the necessary legislation.
The First Lord of the Admiralty said that oil was necessary for the
Navy, and the question was solely the policy and soundness of the
proposed arrangement. The Government would not depend on oil supply
from any one quarter; coal would for many years continue to be the main
motive power of the Fleet; oil would be purchased from companies in all
parts of the world, British or foreign; the home supply of shale oil
would be further developed, and experiments made for the production
of liquid fuel from shale and coal, and support would be given to the
search for new oilfields in the Empire. An unlimited amount of oil was
obtainable if the Government was willing to pay for it and had command
of the seas. The oil reserve obviated any fear of an oil famine in the
first days of war. During war, oil from this field could easily be
brought by the Suez Canal or the Cape. The problem was really the price
during peace. There were two dominant oil corporations, the Standard
Oil, and the Shell and Royal Dutch. The only notable independent
company was the Burmah Oil Company and its offshoot, the Anglo-Persian.
In the past few years the price paid for oil by the Admiralty had
more than doubled; and the Anglo-Persian field had been kept in view
since the previous Unionist Administration, when Lord Strathcona came
forward, at the instance of the hon. member for Chelmsford (Mr.
Pretyman), to keep the company commercially independent and British,
A Special Commission had reported; the northern field, near Shustar,
would suffice for Admiralty requirements, but besides that the
Government got control of an oil region of 500,000 square miles, some
of the indicated sources being near the sea or the Indian border. A
great military Power could only cut off the supply as an incident in
a world-wide war, and the only effect on the Navy would be that the
price of its oil would be higher. Local disturbances could do even
less, and the development of the district would tame the wild tribes
and strengthen the Persian Government. The Admiralty must have power to
control an oilfield somewhere, and neither Trinidad nor Egypt offered
a practical alternative, nor would Scottish shale oil be adequate for
years. The Government took 200,000_l._ in debentures and 2,000,000_l._
in shares. This latter sum would be used in developing the company.
The Government would obtain control and would also be the company's
principal customer. The company would supply less than half the total
amount needed for the Navy, and the prices would be on a sliding scale
according to the profits. The money would come from the Consolidated
Fund--l,500,000_l._ diverted from the New Sinking Fund by the Finance
Act of 1912, and 750,000_l._ representing the Old Sinking Fund for
1913-14. The oil was necessary for the Navy, and the criticisms came
from representatives of the Shell Company. The only difficulty of the
Admiralty with this company was price. It was easier to pay what it
asked and let the matter alone; but Parliament must decide between
taking a fair commercial risk and the certainty of overcharge following
monopoly.
Several members from both sides remarked on the difficulty of defending
the wells and the danger of fresh complications resulting in Persia;
the Foreign Secretary, in reply, made little of the first objection,
and said that the Russian Government had not been consulted, because
the contract was earlier than the Anglo-Russian Agreement. The
Government would encourage production from the home fields and research
to make it available. Later Mr. Pretyman (U.) said that it was at the
instance of the Admiralty under the Unionist Administration that the
Anglo-Persian Oil Company had not been sold to a foreign syndicate, and
that Lord Strathcona and the Burmah Oil Company had undertaken to form
an exploration company. Lord Strathcona had characteristically only
asked one question--Was it in the interest of the Navy that the scheme
should go on and that he should take, part in it? Mr. Dillon (N.) also
anticipated that the risks would be too great; Lord Charles Beresford
(U.) said that the scheme was "a purely speculative gamble," because
the Admiralty had built oil-driven ships before they had oil storage.
Mr. S. Samuel (U., _Wandsworth_) protested against the attack on the
Shell Company. The resolution was carried by 254 to 18.
In the intervals of these exciting debates some ordinary business was
done. The Vote for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (344,027_l._,
the largest on record) was briefly debated on June 16. The President
of the Board referred in his statement to the outbreaks of foot and
mouth disease, which had stopped the export trade in breeding stock
to Argentina. He indicated that the outlook was brightening; but
swine fever was far more serious. Experiments were being made in its
treatment; research scholarships were being created in veterinary
science. The small holdings movement was not going to break down.
There were 11,000 small holders, and 1,400 holding under associations.
On June 13 193,000 acres had been or were being acquired, over
4,000,000_l._ had been invested, and 65,000_l._ was being paid in rent
of the land hired for the purpose by local authorities. Over 6,000
approved applicants had not yet been satisfied, and 90,000 acres would
be required to meet them. Comparatively few labourers had acquired
small holdings, their wages being so low that they could not accumulate
the necessary capital. After referring to the work of the Agricultural
Organisation Society, to premiums paid for breeding stock, and to the
desire for scientific knowledge, he said that agriculturists were being
repaid some of the money taken from them by the Budget of 1909. Mr.
C. Bathurst (U.) and other speakers complained of the restrictions
in connexion with swine fever; but the debate was cut short by the
discussion on the Irish Volunteers and never resumed.
On the Local Government Board Vote the debate (June 18) dealt mainly
with the housing problem, and Sir A. Griffith Boscawen (U., _Dudley_)
moved a reduction of 100_l._ in order to call attention to the
administration of the Housing Act. He complained that the Government
omitted to house their own employees (_e.g._ postal servants and
navvies at Rosyth) and that Mr. John Burns, when President of the
Board, had neglected to remedy administrative difficulties, and that
local authorities had been incited to close houses while provision was
not made for rehousing. This latter charge was endorsed by Lord Henry
Cavendish Bentinck (U., _Nottingham, S._) and Mr. H. W. Forster (U.,
_Kent, Sevenoaks_). The latter said that one cause in rural districts
of the deficiency in housing was the permission given, very properly,
for the retention of cottages by occupants past work. The new President
of the Board said that under the Act of 1909 the local authorities had
compelled owners to repair 130,000 houses unfit for habitation, and in
the current year to the end of May loans had been sanctioned amounting
to 979,000_l._ for building new houses, while in four years (1910-13)
the loans sanctioned amounted to 1,400,000_l._ During the Unionist rule
of 1886-1905 only 2,000,000_l._ in all had been spent on building new
houses, and in the rural districts 47,000_l._ on 233 new cottages. He
promised a Housing Bill sanctioning larger loans to local authorities
for rehousing. Of town planning, which was equally important, about
ninety schemes, dealing with 200 square miles, had come before the
Board, and 142 other schemes had not yet reached it. He touched also on
health administration, nursing, new Poor Law circulars, one requiring
that children over three years old should not be kept in the workhouse,
another contemplating relief to widows with children, and advising that
the relief should be adequate and the unity of the family respected,
and he foreshadowed an increase in the number of women inspectors. He
mentioned also the clearance effected of houseless poor from the Thames
Embankment by directing them to charitable agencies, and successful
efforts for the diminution of vagrancy. An Intelligence Department was
to be established by the Department to report periodically on housing,
land, tuberculosis, and health questions. Mr. Long (U., _Strand_) while
commending this statement generally, regarded the part of it relating
to housing as wholly unsatisfactory, and held that demolition had gone
too fast under the Act of 1909. After other speeches, and a reply by
the Secretary of the Board, the reduction was negatived by 233 to 106.
Outside Parliament, meanwhile, two notable advances in existing
social movements must be chronicled. The Labour movement seemed to
be entering on a new stage with the approval by the Conference of
National Railwaymen at Swansea (June 18) of the projected alliance of
their union with the Miners' Federation and the Transport Workers'
Federation. The exact details were left for future adjustment and the
settlement was subject to final completion by a National Conference.
Several of the speakers described the combination as a reply to the
establishment of the fund of 50,000,000_l._ to fight trade unionism;
and Mr. Thomas, M.P. (Lab., _Derby_), warned the members against
hastily using it for sympathetic strikes (A.R., 1913, p. 255). It
should be resorted to only as a last resource.
The other advance was due to a section of the militant suffragists,
whose activities otherwise continued to estrange popular feeling; a
deputation waited on the Prime Minister of six working-women from
the East-End of London, which was sent by Miss Sylvia Pankhurst's
organisation, the East-End Federation of Suffragettes (June 20). It was
headed by Mrs. John Scurr, and accompanied by her husband, recently the
Socialist candidate for Ipswich, and by Mr. Lansbury (A.R., 1912, p.
245), and the statements of its members as to their conditions of life
and labour evidently much impressed the Prime Minister. Mrs. Scurr said
they were asking for a vote for all women over twenty-one. The Prime
Minister complimented them on their presentation of their case, which
was, he said, that the economic conditions of a community like East
London could not be relieved by legislation or administration unless
women had votes. Some improvements, he said, had been made by the Trade
Boards Act, and by the appointment of women as factory inspectors,
and other problems referred to admitted of no speedy remedy. But he
agreed with them fully on one point: the franchise, if given to women,
should be given on the same terms as men. In conclusion, he promised to
consult the Home Secretary as to the case of Miss Sylvia Pankhurst.
But less remote means of improving social change were contemplated by
the supporters of the Budget.
Speaking at Denmark Hill on June 20, amid some disturbance through
suffragist interruptions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after
declaring that the Government would not tolerate the exclusion of
Ulster, said that the Budget carried on the Government's policy of
strengthening the national defences against possible enemies abroad
and actual enemies at home--poverty, disease, unhealthy homes, the
suffering arising from bad social and economic conditions; and a
fair contribution had been levied on wealth. Replying to a prophecy
just made by Mr. J. J. Hill, an American railway magnate, that "the
false humanitarianism of British social legislation" would destroy
the sources of wealth in Great Britain, he declared that since the
recent social legislation had passed there had been unprecedented
prosperity, and that "the Power that governs the world does not punish
with bankruptcy" nations that do kindnesses to the old, the feeble, the
broken, and the sick. While Trust magnates were looking on with dismay,
the great democracies of the West were looking towards Great Britain
with a new hope. Beaten at home, "these American buccaneers" were
coming over to stop the deluge at its source, but they had failed and
would fail again.
But the Budget, as embodied in the Finance Bill, was threatened not
only by the opposition of the rich but by the rules and precedents
of Parliamentary practice. On June 15 a deputation of more than
thirty Liberal members (mostly very wealthy), led by Mr. Holt
(_Northumberland, Hexham_) had protested to the Prime Minister against
the invitation to the House to sanction fresh taxation before it
had approved of the objects on which the proceeds were to be spent.
Dissatisfied with his reply, they issued a protest (June 17) urging
that the new taxation should be deferred until the passing of the Bill
establishing the machinery for separate assessment of site values and
improvement values, since, should a Unionist Government take office
in the interval, the valuation would be dropped, and the temporary
grants, repugnant to all Liberal principles of finance, would become
permanent features of the financial system. Unless the valuation Bill
passed, moreover, the Government would be unable to pay to the local
authorities any of the money provided by the new taxation. Either it
would be hastily devoted to some new purpose, or it would pass to the
Sinking Fund. Neither application would have been contemplated by
Parliament when voting the Budget. They did not object to taxing those
best able to bear it, but money should not be voted unless its objects
were determined and the machinery for raising it was in existence.