lines in _The Times_; and Mr. Asquith had promised the dissentients
that the Commons would not part with the Finance Bill (imposing taxes)
until the Revenue Bill (securing the allocation of the proceeds) should
have passed the Lords; but the completion of both Bills within the
four months' limit laid down by the Provisional Collection of Taxes
Act (A.R., 1913, p. 86) was seen to be impracticable. And, when the
Finance Bill came before the House on June 22, Mr. Cassel (U., _St.
Pancras, W._) asked whether it was in order, inasmuch as it went
beyond the money resolution on which it was based, which did not cover
either the proposed allocation of grants in relief of rates to local
authorities or the reduction of the charge on the National Debt; and
Sir F. Banbury (U., _City of London_) raised other points, one being
that the Bill increased the "transferred sum" under the Home Rule Bill,
and was thereby out of order as going beyond its title. The Speaker
dismissed this latter point; in regard to the others, matters could
be set right by introducing a new resolution in Committee of Ways and
Means, citing a precedent of May, 1894; but he deprecated the recent
practice of including in the Finance Bill matters not purely financial.
In moving the second reading, the President of the Local Government
Board said that two principles of the Bill were that new sources of
income should be provided for local authorities, and that personalty
should contribute to local taxation; but, as a local income tax was,
for reasons which he specified, impracticable, the Bill adopted an
alternative method. About 38,000,000_l._ annually, or one-third of the
total expenditure of local authorities in the United Kingdom, would
eventually be provided under the Bill from the Exchequer. Education,
public health, poor-law services, and main roads, were of national
concern as well as local, and the central authority should see that
they were well administered, and that the relief given should be given
to the part of the rating which fell on local improvements, not to
that on bare land values. The existing system of rating adopted "the
methods of the Eastern taxgatherer." The rates would be levied in two
parts--on land value, and on building and improvement value, and in
the current year the Revenue Bill would provide for the collection
of the information necessary to enable the division to take place in
1915. The case of the Liberal dissentients could be met by procedure.
An instruction would be moved to divide the Bill into two parts,
one containing the provisions relative to the new taxation and the
National Debt, the other those relating to the new grants to local
authorities. Both Bills and the Revenue Bill would be proceeded with.
This would unfortunately mean the abandonment for the current year
of the temporary grants on the new basis to local authorities. The
increased taxation to meet these would be unnecessary, and the income
tax would only be 1_s._ 3_d._ in the pound. This was a postponement,
not a release.
Mr. Holt (L.) abandoned an amendment in the sense of the dissentients'
protest, but objected both to the huge expenditure on armaments and
to the excess of the actual over the estimated cost of recent social
reforms. Members themselves, he thought, were in fault for pressing
for more expenditure. It was increasing more rapidly than income, and
a decline in trade was at hand. He and his friends did not object to
the character of the new taxation; direct taxation was preferable to
indirect; but it would be impossible to pass the Finance Bill as it
stood and the Revenue Bill by August 6, as required by the Provisional
Collection of Taxes Act. It invited obstruction, which would be met by
the guillotine closure. He and his friends, therefore, would cordially
support the revised programme of the Government.
Mr. Long (U., _Strand_) congratulated the dissentient Liberals on their
success. The great Budget was crumbling already. But was there any law
left in the House? Income tax was being collected at a rate for which
there was no Parliamentary authority; what would be done where it had
been already collected "at the source"? Would the Irish proposal (to
increase the "transferred sum") be abandoned as well as the English?
The Unionists had thought of moving to adjourn the debate, but had
preferred to state their case for further information at once. Every
one wanted social reform, but were they not really burdening the weak?
The Treasury had become a spending instead of a supervising department,
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer one of the most powerful causes of
public expenditure. In every department of public expenditure there
was an enormous increase, due either to hasty legislation or to want
of control by the Minister whose duty it was to exercise control.
Employment on estates was diminishing, and the increase in the death
duties imposed unequal burdens. He was unable to understand what the
rating proposals were. By thus changing their plan the Government had
insulted the House. Later the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained
that only some 50,000_l._ had been collected in regard to the 1_d._ of
income tax now dropped, and the banks would adjust the matter on the
next dividend payment. Some Budgets had been altered while before the
Commons, _e.g._ the wheel and van tax in 1890.
The House adjourned early in view of the King's Birthday dinners, and
next day (June 23) Mr. Hayes Fisher (U., _Fulham_) moved an amendment
expressing regret that the promised grants to local authorities were
not to be made in the current year, and condemning the new system of
valuation by which these grants were to be conditioned. He agreed with
the views of the dissentient Ministerialists about the Bill (p. 128)
and suggested that money might be found by taxing imports; the Port
of London Authority already charged dues on 2,200 articles. Would
the Chancellor repeat his Ipswich speech now? He strongly protested
against central control of valuation. Mr. Cassel (U.) seconded the
resolution. Among later speakers, the Secretary for Scotland said
that the only difference to the local authorities would be that they
would not receive the four months' grants during the current year. Mr.
Healy (I. N.) attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the bases
on which the grants were allotted to Ireland. Mr. G. Roberts (Lab.,
_Norwich_) said his party profoundly regretted the capitulation of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. The President of the Board of Education
said that there was no danger of the abolition of free education.
Next day (June 24) Mr. J. F. Hope (U., _Sheffield, Central_), in a
speech characterised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as fresh and
interesting, suggested that 200,000_l._ a year might be saved on
payment of members, and the Development Commission and the Road Board
might be abolished. The Estimates should be sent to a special Committee
for scrutiny. He favoured higher import duties on foreign luxuries
and a graduated tax on amusements. He feared for local freedom and
knowledge in administration. After other speeches, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer replied. He said that nothing had been said about the
taxes; reduction of expenditure had been suggested on armaments, but it
had no support, at any rate from the Opposition, and on the Development
Commission and Road Board, but nearly all the expenditure on the former
had gone to agriculture, and the primacy of Great Britain in roads
was due to the tax on motor petrol. The Opposition had constantly
pressed the Government to spend millions to relieve the ratepayers;
when this was attempted, they tried to wreck the Bill. The industrial
districts were strangled with rates due to absolute necessities, such
as education; the projected readjustment of the grants would save some
of those hardest pressed between 1_s._ and 2_s._ in the pound. Housing,
which had been so often pressed, could not be undertaken unless the
rates were relieved, and yet members rummaged in the dustbins of
ancient precedents for obstacles to the Budget proposals. The truth
was, the Opposition wanted to obstruct, for they had rather do the job
themselves. Interference with local authorities had a precedent in the
case of education and the existing valuation by overseers was a farce.
The separation of improvement values from site values was regarded
as insane, but it worked well in British Columbia. When the Colonies
proposed to tax corn they were our kith and kin; when they taxed land
they were lunatics. The abolition of the sugar tax had been suggested,
but the penny was wanted, and abolition would mean an increase next
year on the income tax. Those who voted against the Bill would be
voting against means to increase the efficiency of the people and make
a stronger and more enduring State.
Mr. Austen Chamberlain (U.) said that the Chancellor's speech gave
no idea of the Bill, and he seemed not to have read the amendment.
The relief of rates being of the utmost urgency, it was dropped, with
trifling exceptions, for the current year, and made contingent for the
next year on the passage of other Bills and a system of valuation of
which the main features were still obscure. The proposals as to settled
estate duty broke a bargain. Social reform could not be conducted
regardless of its cost, and it was only on domestic expenditure that
economies were possible. After protesting against the attack on Mr.
Cassel for defending the rules and practice of the House, he said it
was the conditions imposed by the Chancellor which made it impossible
to give the strangled municipalities relief. Were the grants intended
to relieve rates or to extend municipal activity? He recalled the
Chancellor's speech at Ipswich, and described his electioneering as a
crude form of bribery of a kind, for a less serious instance of which
a Liberal Whip had been obliged to apologise.[1] He protested against
centralised control as tending to extravagance, and attacked the
valuation scheme. It was the Chancellor who by his attacks on property,
adopted "the methods of the Eastern taxgatherer." He was using his
conditions of relief to cover up the mess he had made.
After other speeches on that day and the next, the Prime Minister rose
(June 25). He began by remarking that the predictions of financial
disaster owing to increased expenditure and so-called confiscatory
taxation had been made when the Corn Laws were repealed, when
succession duties were begun in 1853, on Sir William Harcourt's Budget
in 1894, and on the Budget of 1909. But since 1894 there had been
the largest investment of capital recorded in British history; the
capital which had gone abroad had found itself subjected to far larger
exactions than in Great Britain; and the experts had been refuted
by experience. Between 1905-6 and 1914-15 national expenditure had
risen by 57,000,000_l._ Of this, the Navy had taken 18,000,000_l._,
the Civil Service, including social reform, 30,500,000_l._, of which
20,000,000_l._ were due to old-age pensions and insurance, and
2,500,000_l._ to Imperial expenditure on education. The revenue derived
from taxation had increased in the same time by 41,000,000_l._; the
non-tax revenue, mainly from the Post Office, by 11,000,000_l._, or
nearly 50 per cent. In 1905-6 direct taxation produced 50.3 per cent.
of the tax revenue, indirect 49.7 per cent.; the proportion now was
59.5 per cent. to 40.5 per cent., and of the latter only a little more
than 7 per cent. was derived from the non-sumptuary taxes. This Mr.
Asquith treated as an argument against using the 1_d._ taken off the
income tax to reduce the sugar duty.
Meantime Great Britain, almost alone among nations, had been reducing
her national debt. In principle he had always been a rigid economist,
but expenditure on the Navy certainly could not be reduced, and that
on social reform was likely to increase. Treasury control was in fact
being vigorously exercised; the mainspring of additional expenditure
was in the Commons, which had largely expanded the scheme of old-age
pensions and other social reforms. The increase in indirect taxation
had been wholly in sumptuary taxes. As to direct taxation, income-tax
law had become to the ordinary man a Chinese puzzle, and he repeated
that there ought to be a thorough revision of the system of collection.
As to the present problem, the injustice of the existing system of
local rating was unquestionable, and a local income-tax, which he
would have preferred, being impracticable, the fairest way to reach
personalty was through the income tax and supertax payers. That was
the first principle of the Chancellor's proposals, the second was
that the grants must be accompanied by security for efficiency, which
would involve no interference with local autonomy; the third was that
the increased subvention to local authorities should be accompanied
by a new system of valuation. Every one admitted that the existing
system was unfair and ineffective. They desired to assist the local
authorities with expert advice. The need for expenditure on these
objects was much more urgent than the relief of the sugar duty.
The Government meant to obtain in the current year three distinct
things: (1) the maintenance intact of the provisions for necessitous
school areas, feeding of school children, nursing, measures against
tuberculosis, and national insurance; (2) statutory authority for a
more generous system of payment of grants during the next financial
year; (3) statutory authority for a new system of valuation separating
site from improvement value. Anyone who voted for the amendment was
tending to put off social reform.
The subsequent speeches exhibited in various ways the dissent among a
section of Liberals from the proposals of the Government. Eventually
Mr. Bonar Law rose. After saying that the change in the Budget
was really due, not to the Speaker's ruling, but to the Liberal
dissentients, he remarked that the plan for relieving local rating
conflicted with the Report of the Committee, and asked why, if the
separate valuation of site value was so simple, it was not put into
the Bills? Because Ministers generally would only agree to an inquiry.
He then elaborately attacked Mr. Lloyd George's financial methods.
The Chancellor ignored regularity in procedure; he utterly failed to
control expenditure; he ignored the maxim that taxes should not be
imposed which involved an excessive cost of collection; and he and
other new Liberals promised, not retrenchment, but extravagance. With
the Chancellor of the Exchequer extravagance was a principle. He was
trying to use Budgets to correct the inequalities of wealth. That
could not be done by taxation. The Chancellor's theory of life was
based on the strictest system of predestination. It was mere luck
whether one was industrious and thrifty or an idler and wastrel, and so
the duty of the former was to support the latter. Mr. Bonar Law closed
by warnings against the excessive taxation of the rich and against
depleting the resources of the country in regard to tax revenue and
loans in time of war.
The Attorney-General, in the course of a brief reply, remarked that
nothing was now heard of Tariff Reform; and the amendment was then
rejected, but only by 303 votes to 265, and the second reading agreed
to. One Liberal voted with the Opposition, as did seven Independent
Nationalists; thirty-five Labour members abstained, and it was only
the Nationalist vote that saved the Government from defeat. It was
felt that they, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular, had
received a severe check; and the confusion caused by the provisional
collection "at source" of the 1_d._ on the income tax now dropped was
only increased by the instructions sent out by the Treasury.
The aim of the framers of the Budget was eloquently set forth by the
Lord Chancellor at a National Liberal Club dinner on June 26. There
had been three great Budgets, he said, dealing respectively with the
past, the present, and the coming generation. Old Age Pensions in 1908,
national insurance, which was raising the level of the people, in 1911,
and the pending Budget of 1914. This latter was productive expenditure.
Since 1868 the total national income had risen from 860,000,000_l._
to 2,400,000,000_l._, while the cost of government had risen in about
the same proportion, from 70,000,000_l._ to 207,000,000_l._ Everywhere
democracy was demanding a larger share of the total wealth produced,
and the demand was partly met by the relative decline of indirect
taxation (p. 132). It was necessary to meet the decrease of the birth
rate--itself not wholly an evil--by reducing infant mortality, which
amounted to 128 per 1,000 in the first twelvemonth of life, and
still-births, which were 150 per 1,000, half of them due to syphilis,
which accounted also largely for deaf mutes and deformity, and many
due to phthisis. Mothers, therefore, must be looked after and trained;
at school the child must be cared for in body and mind, it must be
encouraged, and its parents assisted, to choose a definite career;
continuation schools must prepare their pupils for trades; and the
ablest pupils should have a chance of university education. The Budget
would have been impossible ten years earlier; the growth of science
had made it possible; and he hoped some day to see a Ministry of
Public Health. He laid stress on the curriculum of German continuation
schools and the need of equality of opportunity. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer, in a short speech, said that the Lord Chancellor had had
a large share not only in framing the Budget, but in its initiation
and inspiration. Had the taxes imposed been larger, the majority of
thirty-eight would have been doubled. The Unionists were determined to
defeat land reform, and absolute Ministerialist unity was necessary to
frustrate their design.
We must now turn to the House of Lords, where the Government of Ireland
Amending Bill was introduced on June 23 by the Marquess of Crewe. After
regretting that his statement as to communications with the Opposition
leaders had been misinterpreted (p. 122) he said that the Bill was
introduced to meet the religious forebodings of Ulster and its fears
regarding the business capacity of the men of the rest of Ireland. The
exclusion of Ulster was clearly not liked by the Opposition leaders
or the Nationalists, and Disraeli had repudiated the doctrine that
Ireland was two nations. The Government had had a preference for
giving autonomy to Ulster, but this the religious forebodings of the
Protestants precluded. To exclude the whole of Ulster was impossible;
it would be not a "clean cut," but a "ragged cut," owing to the great
Roman Catholic majorities in Donegal and Cavan. The Bill would,
therefore, embody the Prime Minister's offer of March 9--_viz._, that
within three months after its passing any Ulster county should be
entitled to take a poll, and if there was a majority for exclusion,
the Government of Ireland Act should not apply to it. The exclusion
would be for six years from the first meeting of the Irish Parliament.
At the end of that period there would be, not automatic inclusion, but
obligatory reconsideration. It would be unfair to leave the question of
exclusion to be then fought over again from the beginning or postponed
by other questions. The civil government of those areas would be
exercised by the Lord-Lieutenant through such officers of departments
as he might direct by Order in Council; a Minister of the Crown would
deal with Irish business in Great Britain; no members of Parliament
would go to the Irish House of Commons, but every constituency in the
excluded area could send a representative to the House of Commons;
the Joint Exchequer Board would take the cost of Irish services for
the whole of Ireland, would divide them in proportion to population,
and that portion which was due to be paid to the included area would
be deducted for the purposes of the excluded area, and in addition
to that it would be necessary to give the Board power to vary the
charges in those cases in which it was possible. With respect to
judicial arrangements, where any cause was tried, or where the party
to any cause was ordinarily resident in the excluded area, he could
claim to have his case tried either by one of the existing judges or
by some judge appointed by His Majesty in pursuance of this section.
Arrangements would be made for the allocation of civil servants to
carry out the necessary duties in the excluded area. He invited
amendments, and declared that, whatever modifications were made in the
existing state of things, the Government would not hold the Opposition
responsible. The Marquess of Lansdowne expressed his profound
disappointment with the Bill. The separate treatment of Ulster was
fore-doomed to failure, and the time limit was intended to avoid a
confession of failure by the Government. The Bill would not suffice
to avert civil war. If the Prime Minister's terms were insufficient
on March 9, they were doubly insufficient after the appearance of the
Irish National Volunteers. The Government seemed to expect that the
Opposition would make the Bill workable, but was not this undignified
on their part? Apparently the Bill itself was to be amended by Orders
in Council. Earl Grey regretted the refusal of the Prime Minister in
the autumn of 1913 to entertain the offer of the Opposition leaders to
consent to a Federal solution. In the Dominions the universal opinion
was that he was not a free statesman. Even now, the Government should
summon a Constitutional Convention to consider the questions of Ireland
and of the Second Chamber. Otherwise the sooner a general election came
the better, but he hoped that the Unionist leaders would undertake, if
returned, to summon a Convention and be guided by its recommendations.
The Bill was read a first time.
The Welsh Disestablishment Bill had been read a first time in the
House of Lords on June 23; but the second reading was deferred until
after the appointment of a select committee moved for by Viscount St.
Aldwyn on June 25, and agreed to by the Government. This Committee was
to inquire (1) whether the constitution of the Convocations of the
Church of England had ever been altered by Act of Parliament without
the assent and against the protest of Convocation, and (2) whether
the memorials attributed to Welsh Nonconformists against disendowment
represented a real and increasing objection to it among them. Viscount
St. Aldwyn referred to the recent protest of the Convocation of
Canterbury against the separation of the Welsh dioceses, pointing out
that this separation might set up a breach in the spiritual unity
of the Church in the case, for example, of the pending revision
of the Prayer Book, and suggested that, notwithstanding the Bill,
the Archbishop might still summon the Welsh Bishops and clergy to
Convocation, or they might come of themselves. As to disendowment,
the opponents of the Bill had become keener, and the support of it
was waning. The Committee could conclude its labours during the
session. The Marquess of Crewe agreed, rather doubtfully, to the
proposal; the Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed it, laying stress
on the great services rendered by Convocation, which the Bill now
proposed to mutilate. Other Peers were favourable, the Bishop of St.
Asaph denouncing the "dishonourable balance-sheet" which gave the sum
alienated from the Church at 51,000_l._ a year, whereas it was really
157,000_l._ The Bishop of Hereford, however, thought the purpose of the
motion would be regarded as dilatory. The Select Committee, nominated
July 2, consisted of the Marquess of Bath, the Earls of Halsbury and
Crawford, Viscount St. Aldwyn, and Lords Barnard, Stanley of Alderley,
and Courtney of Penwith; and the opposition to the Bill was further
emphasised meanwhile by a demonstration in Victoria Park, London (June
27).
During these Parliamentary conflicts the King and Queen had paid a
brief visit to the Midlands (June 24-26) as the guests of the Duke
and Duchess of Portland at Welbeck Abbey. An official reception at
Nottingham, a lunch with Lord and Lady Middleton at Wollaton Hall, and
a tour of various hosiery, lace, and cotton factories, filled the first
day; a visit to Mansfield and the surrounding coal-mining district
the second; on the third their Majesties opened the King George
Dock at Hull, and the chief magistrate of the town was permanently
dignified with the title of Lord Mayor. Everywhere their reception
was enthusiastic, and, as usual, they conversed with the workers and
visited some of them in their homes.
The following week saw the first step towards a great catastrophe.
The murder of the heir to the thrones of Austria and Hungary at
Sarajevo on Sunday, June 28, was destined to change the whole course
of European history; but, for the moment, it merely shocked and
horrified public opinion in Great Britain, and the apprehensions it
aroused were limited to the fortunes of the Dual Monarchy and the
peace of the Near East. It was only referred to parenthetically in
the rambling debate on the Foreign Office Vote (June 29), from which,
indeed, but one fact of importance seemed to emerge--that the British
Government was beginning to protest against the forward policy of
Russia in Persia. After various speeches, chiefly about Persia, whose
desperate position, financially and otherwise, was insisted on, but
also on other topics, the Foreign Secretary made a comprehensive reply.
He began by expressing his personal sympathy with the Dual Monarchy
and its Imperial family in view of the assassination of the heir to
its thrones, mentioning the goodwill of the late Archduke to Great
Britain and the pleasure he and his consort had derived from their
visit to the King in 1913. Every Foreign Minister in Europe knew the
support given by the life of the Emperor of Austria to the cause of
peace. The settlement of the Panama tolls question was due, not to
any British diplomatic pressure or _finesse_, but to the respect of
President Wilson for treaty rights. As to the Persian oil concession,
Great Britain had got no rights which did not exist before the
Anglo-Russian Convention. It was improbable that the oil wells would
require military protection, and new developments would naturally be
near the coast. No new obligation could be placed on Japan under the
alliance with Great Britain unless disturbances in the region were
the result of causes operating much more widely. The arrangement gave
no increase of imperative obligation; the oil could not be got within
the British dominions, and where, outside it, could it have been got
with fewer and less dangerous commitments? The Government desired
that the Anglo-Russian Convention should not be the means of further
diminishing the independence and integrity of Persia, and had begun to
discuss the existing situation under the Convention with the Russian
Government. The financial situation in Persia was very serious, the
control over expenditure being weak; but the Government, while not
proposing to lend money for general expenses, had decided to advance
50,000_l._--half from India--to prevent the gendarmerie officered by
Swedes from collapse. It would be secured on the Customs. The Baghdad
railway would stop at Basra, and so would not unsettle the position in
the Persian Gulf; the rights of Messrs. Lynch on the Euphrates were
assured, and there would be a Turkish company, half British, and with
a British casting vote. Turkey also recognised the _status quo_ in the
Persian Gulf, and Great Britain would agree to an increase of 4 per
cent. in the Turkish Customs duties, _i.e._ to 15 per cent. In Armenia
the Inspectors-General would have wide powers, enabling them to realise
the desired administrative reforms. The Powers were not prepared to
set up an International Commission for the protection of minorities
in the Near East. The root of the difficulty in Armenia was that the
thing was beyond control. He would not send British troops, but if
other Powers did, Great Britain could not well object. The working of
the condominium in the New Hebrides was being reviewed by a conference,
and the publication of papers might lead to friction. After touching on
the opium conference at the Hague, he said that greater Parliamentary
control of treaties could hardly be discussed on the Foreign Office
Vote. Their reference to a Committee of the House would be undesirable.
Incidentally, he ridiculed the statement that in 1911 Great Britain had
been within twenty-four hours of war.
Next day Addresses to the King were moved in both Houses, requesting
His Majesty to express to the Emperor of Austria their abhorrence of
the crime of Sarajevo, and their profound sympathy with the Imperial
and Royal Family and the Governments and peoples of the Dual Monarchy.
In moving the Address in the Commons, the Prime Minister described the
murder as "one of those incredible crimes which almost make us despair
of the progress of mankind." The victims, recently guests of the King,
had "left among all those who had the privilege of seeing and knowing
them a gracious and unfading memory." He spoke of the example set to
other rulers by the almost unparalleled assiduity of the aged Emperor
in the pursuit of duty, as the unperturbed, sagacious, and heroic head
of a mighty State, "rich in splendid traditions, and associated with
us in this country in some of the most moving and precious chapters of
our common history," and tendered, in the name of the Commons and the
nation, "our most heartfelt and most affectionate sympathy," Mr. Bonar
Law, in seconding, said that no living Sovereign enjoyed in fuller
measure than the aged Emperor the respect, confidence and love of his
people. In the Upper House the Marquess of Crewe described the Emperor
as "the most dignified and lonely figure in the waste places of the
world"; and the Marquess of Lansdowne laid stress on the impression of
"manliness, simplicity of character, ability, and interest in public
affairs" left by the murdered Archduke during his visit to India in
1893, and his appreciation of the stupendous difficulty of governing a
country so composite as the Austrian Empire.
In this connexion it may be added that on June 11, in reply to an
inquiry from Mr. King (L., _Somerset, N._) as to the existence of an
Anglo-Russian naval agreement, or negotiations to that end, the Foreign
Secretary had distinctly replied in the negative, saying that the Prime
Minister's answer of the year before (A. R., 1913, p. 70) still held
good, and that, if any agreement, were concluded modifying it, such an
agreement, in his opinion, should be laid before Parliament.
The dignified tributes to the murdered Archduke were followed in the
Commons, by a storm. In Committee of Supply on the Treasury Estimates,
Mr. J. F. Hope (U.) attempted to revive the Marconi scandal by moving
to reduce the Premier's salary as a protest against a recent refusal
by him to warn Civil servants against speculation in stocks. Despite
repeated calls to order, Mr. Hope managed to mention Lord Murray, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir Rufus Isaacs; Major Archer-Shee
(U.) added fuel to the flame; the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
not allowed by the Chairman to reply by citing "more pertinent
illustrations"; the Prime Minister treated the suggestion that a
warning was needful as a reflection on the honour of the Civil Service,
and ultimately the reduction was negatived by 274 to 122.
The rising excitement of the Opposition was partly accounted for by
the increasing difficulties of the Government. The Finance Bill was
taken in Committee on July 1 and 2; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had already found that the course of his plans must be cleared and
their burden lightened by dropping its second part and putting the
additional grants to local authorities into the Revenue Bill. This
was announced in the House on June 29. On July 1 the President of the
Local Government Board moved an instruction empowering the Committee
to provide for amending the law relating to income tax (including
supertax), death duties, and the National Debt. This was intended
mainly to enable members to discuss grievances relating to the taxes
in question, but Mr. Cassel (U.) moved to extend it so as to empower
the Committee to deal with grievances affecting general taxation. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a bitter speech, opposed this as an
obstructive manoeuvre; Mr. Austen Chamberlain, who described him as "a
bad loser," said that the amendment was designed to revert to the old
procedure of discussing grievances before imposing fresh taxation--a
procedure imperilled by the practice adopted in 1913 of dividing the
Finance Bill; for the second part of that Bill might be dropped, or
delayed too late for adequate discussion. Eventually, however, the
amendment was rejected by 271 to 185; another amendment moved by
Sir F. Banbury, excluding the National Debt from the purview of the
Committee--in order, he said, to prevent the reduction of the Sinking
Fund--was defeated also by 276 to 182. In Committee, amendments (1)
to graduate the tea duty _ad valorem_, and (2) to give a preference
of 1_d._ per lb. to tea grown in the British Empire, were rejected,
after discussion, by 241 to 130 and 258 to 165 respectively. On the
first, Mr. Snowden (Lab., _Blackburn_), speaking for the Labour party,
said that _ad valorem_ duties on tea were barred by insuperable
difficulties, and that, while his party disapproved of indirect
taxation, they would support the Bill as intended, broadly, to increase
direct taxation. On the second, the Attorney-General pointed out that
270,000,000 lb. of tea came from British India and Ceylon, 11,000,000
lb. from China and 31,000,000 lb. from other countries.
Next day (July 2) the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved an amendment
reducing the income tax from 1_s._ 4_d._ to 1_s._ 3_d._ (p. 130). He
explained that the alternative lay between taking off this additional
penny and reducing the older taxation. But the amount saved by
postponing the grants to local, authorities would not suffice to
relieve the death duties, or to take off the sugar duty, and the income
taxpayer, especially in the lower rates of income, deserved relief more
than the payer of supertax. The inconvenience of the change to bankers
had been greatly exaggerated, and, as soon as they had been officially
told to deduct 1_s._ 4_d._ on dividends till the House otherwise
ordered, the position became simple. The reduction was passed after a
long debate by 251 to 56. The Committee was resumed on July 13 after
the introduction of the guillotine (_post_, p. 146).
Meanwhile the debate on the second reading of the Amending Bill had
begun in the House of Lords on July 1. After a preliminary objection by
Lord Willoughby de Broke, that it proposed to amend a non-existent Act,
had been overruled by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Morley of Blackburn
moved the second reading. The Bill, he said, afforded a better solution
than Earl Grey's proposed Convention; had it not been introduced,
Home Rule would have been wrecked by the sectarian prejudice which
hampered the Union at its outset. The Government believed there could
be no better opportunity for discovering the common ground existing in
Parliament for attaining an effective peace in Ireland. The situation
in Ireland had a historic base for which neither party could escape
responsibility. As to exclusion, no part of Ulster was homogeneous. The
National Volunteers had dispelled the illusion that the masses in the
South and West of Ireland had lost their care for Home Rule. The danger
was that the constitutional agitation for self-government might give
place to the older methods of violence and disloyalty. He hoped the
House would have no hand in promoting the change.
The Marquess of Lansdowne described the Bill as a "freak Bill," fit
for a museum, and wholly inadequate to avert a calamity. Exclusion,
on its merits, had probably no friends at all; and the form of it
in the Bill was futile and vicious. It had been accepted by the
Nationalists only because they thought Ulster would refuse it; so
that the original proposal was insincere. The plan of voting by
counties was most unfortunate, for in some of the counties Roman
Catholics and Protestants were almost equal, and the voting would set
up a saturnalia of intimidation and corruption. The time limit was
vexatious and superfluous. After criticising in detail the system of
government for the excluded areas, he said that the Opposition would
not resist the second reading, but would move amendments in regard to
the area excluded, the duration of the exclusion, and the conditions of
government in the excluded area. But any revision of the Government of
Ireland Bill was hopeless, and they would not deal with minute points
of the Amending Bill, but leave the Government to make it "watertight."
They would be misrepresented and misunderstood, but failure of this
last effort might mean an irremediable misfortune to the country. When
Æneas descended to Hades, the final and most dread of all the spectres
he met was War. But they would support the second reading as that of
a makeshift emergency measure meant solely to gain time. The meshes
of the Parliament Act left them no other way, but, were a better way
offered, they would be ready to explore it. They fully recognised that
there was a great Irish problem, requiring to be handled with courage
and sympathy, and that they could not adopt a policy of mere negation
or destructive criticism.
Viscount Bryce, as an ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland, pointed out that
the Lord-Lieutenant would have to act on the advice of the British, not
the Irish Minister, and thought future Irish parties would be formed
on different lines. Personally he would have preferred to give certain
northern areas local autonomy, with an appeal to England against any
measure which they thought objectionable. He defended the provisions as
to exclusion, while admitting the great difficulty as to areas.
The Archbishop of York said that a general election would now give no
chance of a settlement; and he suggested a Statutory Commission in two
sections, to consider devolution from the point of view respectively
of Ireland and of the United Kingdom. They had suffered all along
from shortness of view; let Parliament stand aside and allow the
Irish people to come to an agreement. The chances, however, were not
propitious.
After other speeches, Lord Willoughby de Broke moved the rejection
of the Bill. The Home Rule Bill might never become an Act. The Irish
policy of the Government had broken down, and with it the Parliament
Act, and they were asking the despised House of Lords to help them
out. Nobody wanted the exclusion of Ulster, and to vote for it was to
support a Parliament in Dublin. He spoke strongly for the maintenance
of the Union. Lord Macdonnell urged that the problem might be solved by
proportional representation and Home Rule within Home Rule, rather than
by exclusion. Of later speakers, the Earl of Mayo, opposing the Bill,
did not believe in the danger of civil war.
The debate was resumed next day (July 2) by the Marquess of
Londonderry, who asked whether the Prime Minister would tell Mr.
Redmond that the Government would insist on the acceptance of the
far-reaching amendments invited by the Marquess of Crewe? If not, the
House had better reject the Bill. Lord Wimborne, in a vigorous speech,
charged the Unionist party with having exceeded their constitutional
rights in their opposition to Home Rule. The Government did not admit
any imperfection in their main Home Rule measure, nor their inability
to put it into operation. They were not asking for relief; they did
not believe that the provisional government that was contemplated was
practicable, or that the electors would tolerate it. They proposed
temporary exclusion only to enable passions to cool and apprehensions
to be allayed. The salvation of Ireland must be won in Ireland, and
he hoped all parties would work together for a solution. The Earl of
Dunraven said that the only solution was by conference. The essence
of the Amending Bill was apparently that Ireland must be governed by
Orders in Council. As the provisions of the Bill as to Customs and
Excise did not apply to the excluded areas, the confusion would be
inextricable and the administration impracticable. Still, he would vote
for the second reading in the hope that the Bill might be shaped into
something that would avert a catastrophe. Viscount Midleton condemned
the provocative character of Lord Wimborne's speech, and said that
they must hope that the Bill would avert civil war, but an election
must follow, and then both Bills must be revised. He asked that (1)
the minority should be assured impartial trials; (2) attention should
be given to the land question; (3) the graduation of taxes common to
Ireland and Great Britain should not be different in Ireland, and
provision should be made against the discriminating taxation of land.
Even so, the Opposition would not accept the Bill, but they would
pass it from patriotic motives. Lord Islington, a former Colonial
Governor, favoured a Commission of Inquiry to devise amendments along
with the passing of the two Bills. The Earl of Halsbury felt that
the Bill should be read a second time to avoid civil war, though he
would have naturally voted for its rejection. Lord Sydenham favoured
a Statutory Commission, or some other effort towards settlement by
Consent. Lord Courtney of Penwith said that unless the Nationalist
and Ulster leaders would consent to a Conference, a Royal Commission
would defer the solution under circumstances which gave no prospect of
eventual accomplishment. He pleaded for "Home Rule within Home Rule."
Among later speakers, the Duke of Abercorn (an Ulster Volunteer) said
the whole of Ulster would have to be excluded without a time limit,
and the Earl of Crawford, who described the Bill as "vague, nebulous,
and amorphous," said that the six years' limit was not a truce, but a
provocation, and the whole of Ulster must be excluded. The suggestion
of a statutory convention was too vague. The Earl of Denbigh, as a
Catholic Unionist, scouted the idea of religious persecution, but
opposed Home Rule as weakening Great Britain. He supported the Bill as
gaining time.
The debate was resumed and concluded on July 6. Viscount Milner
commented on the lukewarmness of the Ministerialists towards the
measure, and, while approving of a Conference as an entirely fresh
start towards solution, urged the Government to facilitate such a
fresh start by a general election or a referendum. The Amending Bill,
however, might be useful if it were so entirely remodelled as to
reassure the Ulstermen, and nothing would do that but a frank and
complete assurance at once that they would never be subjected to the
authority of an Irish Parliament and Executive without their own
consent. If Ulster remained free to decide, she might conceivably some
day join the rest of Ireland, but to conquer her would make a united
Ireland impossible, and, were the Army and Navy employed to do it, the
British Empire would not long survive the shock. The Amending Bill
was a temporary expedient which might tide over an interval of great
danger. He feared nothing could be done for the Unionist minority
in the South and West of Ireland, though he hoped for some relief
to them by proportional representation, and indirectly by inducing
the Nationalists to treat them well in order to attract Ulster. He
therefore supported the Bill. Earl Roberts said that to use the Army to
force the Home Rule Bill on Ulster would mean its utter destruction. He
denied absolutely that the Army had conspired with the Unionist party
to defeat the Home Rule Bill. The Army had no politics, but this was no
mere political crisis, but one which affected the roots of our national
existence. Following the example set by Viscount Wolseley in 1893, he
had warned the Government, and subsequently the Prime Minister, that
any attempt to use the military forces of the nation to coerce Ulster
would break and ruin the Army. Discipline, as in the British Army,
might override human nature under almost every imaginable circumstance,
but there was a stratum in every one which was impervious to it. The
solution must be taken in hand at once, and the consequences of delay
might be irreparable.
After several Irish Peers had either condemned or very reluctantly
accepted the Bill, Earl Curzon of Kedleston summed up against it. After
dwelling on the paradoxical character of the situation, he declared
that the debate had shown (1) that the Bill was forlorn and friendless,
and they were really discussing another and an undefined Bill; (2)
that exclusion was thoroughly unpopular, and was only considered as
a makeshift; but if it were to come, "better a clean cut than a cut
with ragged edges and festering lips." He looked forward to a reunited
Ireland, managing some portion of her local affairs, but subject to the
Crown; but that could only be accomplished by Irishmen themselves; (3)
the debate had shown that no ultimate settlement could be found but by
a Conference. An immediate Conference seemed impracticable and relief
had to be provided for the immediate emergency. The Amending Bill,
which he called a Peace Preservation Bill, and the Home Rule Bill,
would prove unworkable, and a Conference would have to come. Meanwhile,
did Ministers still propose to adhere to the impossible time-limit and
the even more impossible scheme of voting by counties?
The Marquess of Crewe, summing up for Ministers, replied to a number
of questions of detail raised in the debate. Bills not yet law had
been amended or repealed by other Bills in 1851 and 1907. As to
judicial proceedings, the parties to them in the excluded area were
safeguarded at all stages. For the excluded area an independent Land
Commission must be established. The question raised by Lord Midleton as
to income tax and supertax had no bearing on the exclusion of Ulster,
but the Government did not apprehend oppressive taxation by the Irish
Parliament. Customs and Excise were not mentioned because it was
felt that no splitting up of Ireland could be permanent. All serious
amendments would be considered, but what was called "looking facts in
the face" ignored the existence of Nationalist Ireland. Were Ulster
totally excluded, would the Opposition guarantee Ireland and Great
Britain against civil conflict? A Conference would be impossible if
it pre-supposed the scrapping of Liberal policy, but otherwise, if it
took place between leading Irishmen and were backed by strong public
opinion, it would be the best augury for some permanent arrangement.
The second reading was passed by 273 to 10.
The resumption of this debate had been preceded by tributes from the
leaders on both sides to the memory of the most conspicuous figure in
the Unionist party for the twenty years preceding 1906. Mr. Joseph
Chamberlain, disabled in that year by paralysis, had since then made
but few and brief public appearances, and on July 2 he had passed away
painlessly at his home at Highbury, near Birmingham. He was buried on
July 6 at the Key Hill Cemetery at Birmingham, after an impressive
funeral service at the Church of the Messiah (Unitarian), conducted,
at his own desire, by the Rev. Prof. Jacks of Manchester College,
Oxford. The church was filled with representatives of the City Council
and of local institutions and political associations; vast crowds
lined the streets, and messages of sympathy were sent from the King,
the King of Spain, the President of the French Chamber, the Dominions,
and all parts of the world. Meanwhile a memorial service, held at
St. Margaret's, Westminster, was attended by representatives of the
King, foreign Powers, and the Dominions, and by many members of the
Cabinet and the two Houses. In the House of Lords, three hours later,
the Marquess of Crewe spoke of Mr. Chamberlain's greatness alike
as a Colonial Secretary, as a debater, and as "the greatest civic
figure ever engaged in British politics," as well as of his "serene
family life "; the Marquess of Lansdowne bore witness to his merits
as a colleague and a leader, and Viscount Milner testified that Mr.
Chamberlain was "an incomparable chief." The House of Commons marked
the occasion by adjourning for the day, after the Prime Minister and
the actual and former leaders of the Opposition had paid their tributes
to the memory of a great Parliamentarian and promoter of the Empire.
The Prime Minister, analysing Mr. Chamberlain's Parliamentary career
and character, said that neutrality was impossible to a man of his
temperament and convictions. He was the pioneer of a new generation,
and a new type of personality in the House, introducing and perfecting
a new style of speaking, and giving the impression of complete and
serene command of his material and himself. The Prime Minister further
touched on Mr. Chamberlain's genuine sympathy for the victims of the
strain of social and industrial life, on the imaginative quality
that touched his ideals in the larger issues of national policy, on
his unsurpassed confidence and courage, and on his generosity as an
antagonist. It was fitting that within those walls, where the echoes
of his voice seemed still to linger, they should suspend for a few
hours the clash of controversy and join in acknowledging their common
debt to his life and example. Mr. Bonar Law expressed the gratitude of
the Opposition for Mr. Asquith's tribute. Mr. Chamberlain, he said,
was his hero when he entered Parliament, and had continued so, and he
described him as a great fighter and a great friend. Two principles
were at the basis of his political action--a desire to improve the
condition of the people, and an intense, perhaps almost aggressive,
national pride. He almost alone had changed the whole spirit of the
reciprocal relationship of different parts of the Empire, and had thus
laid strong the foundation on which others might build. Mr. Balfour
added his tribute, as one of the very few left who had served with Mr.
Chamberlain in Cabinets. The future historian, he thought, would think
of him mainly as an Imperial statesman. As Colonial Secretary he had
done the greatest work that had ever fallen to a statesman in Great
Britain. He had recognised that the Dominions must be treated with
absolute equality, and that there must be a bracing feeling of common
patriotism. He was a great idealist, a great friend, a great orator and
a great man.
This commemoration of a great Parliamentarian had secured a day's
intermission in party strife, but it broke out afresh on July 7, when
the Prime Minister moved that the remaining stages of the Finance
Bill should be limited to seven days. He pointed out that ten and a
half days had been spent already on various stages of the Budget,
and, under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913, the Finance
Bill must become law on August 4, while standing orders required the
Estimates to be disposed of by August 5. Of the sixteen Parliamentary
days (omitting Fridays as not full days) available before August 5, six
and a half were needed to Supply, and seven given to the Finance Bill
would leave two and a half for contingencies. He reviewed the progress
made, promising a day and a half for the new clauses, and said that if
there were ever a Tariff Reform Budget, there would certainly have to
be an allocation of time for it. He would prefer that such allocations
should be the duty of an independent tribunal, and hinted that the
committee then sitting on procedure might make them so. Mr. Bonar Law
(U.) moved an amendment repudiating and condemning, as a dangerous
innovation, proposals for the curtailment of discussion on measures
tending to impose heavy burdens of new taxation. He pointed out that
the main business of the House was finance, and that a guillotine had
never before been imposed for the Finance Bill. The Government might
suspend the 11 o'clock rule, and use ordinary and kangaroo closure.
The Government had taken every precaution to ensure that they would be
short of time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had despised the real
work of his office, and had used the Exchequer to help electioneering.
Several Liberals defended the proposal as necessary, though Mr.
Leif Jones (L., _Notts, Rushcliffe_) and, later, Mr. D. Mason (L.,
_Coventry_) spoke against it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer declared
that the experience of the Budget debates in 1909 showed that closure
was necessary. Other and more important Budgets, _e.g._, those of
1842 and 1860, had produced similar attacks on the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and that of 1842 was only discussed for sixteen days. He
agreed, however, that better methods of examining the Budget might be
found. Mr. Balfour (U.) said that, while it was true that the art of
obstruction had been perfected, the difficulty arose mainly from the
fact that more members were able and eager to speak than formerly,
and that the constituencies watched them more. The Government should
have found a remedy long ago. With the guillotine, no Minister was
required to explain, or even to understand, his Bill. The amendment was
rejected, but only by 269 to 263, many Liberals abstaining, among them
the group who had followed Mr. Holt (L.) in objecting to the Budget
(p. 128). The majority of 269 contained but 181 Liberals, the rest
being Nationalist and Labour members. Various amendments involving an
extension of time were defeated that day and the next by majorities
varying from 79 to 124, and finally the motion was carried by 265 to
175 (July 9).
The rest of the week in the Commons was devoted to less contentious
business. On the Board of Trade Vote (July 9) the grievances alleged by
members concerned chiefly the mercantile marine, London traffic, and
the absence of official statistics in regard to agricultural wages,
which Mr. Peto (U., _Devizes_) demanded in order to facilitate a
correct judgment on the land controversy before the general election.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Burns), in reply, promised
these statistics by January, which would be quite time enough for the
election. For the mercantile marine, he said, existing sight tests
must be maintained, for the safety of life at sea. As to health, he
had noticed that from 1891 to 1911 the death-rate in that calling fell
only from 4.9 to 4.7 per 1000, as compared with falls in the Navy
from 4.7 to 2 per 1000, in the Army from 9 to 3.6 per 1,000, and in
the civil population of ages corresponding to those in these callings
from 8 to 4.7 per 1000. This might be accounted for by the men coming
from a poorer class than formerly, or from an inferior class to those
represented by the Army, Navy, and industrial population. He had
appointed an expert Inquiry Committee. Much had been done, meanwhile,
to increase the number of cargo steamers having hospitals. He promised
closer inspection, preferring good administration to bad legislation.
The pending International Convention on timber deck loads would only
be frustrated if, as some members desired, questions as to other
deck loads were introduced. With London traffic the concern of the
Board of Trade was purely statistical and historical, but, with 600
people killed annually and 20,000 injured, something must be done. He
would report the views expressed to the Prime Minister. After further
discussion, the Vote was agreed to.
The debate on the Foreign Office Vote (p. 137) was continued next day
(July 10), according to promise. A number of questions were raised
by various members on both sides; and Mr. Bonar Law introduced a
party note by scornfully remarking that the Foreign Secretary had
been lectured on the duty of keeping peace throughout the world, when
his ability to do so at home was doubtful. Sir E. Grey ignored this
taunt, and after commenting on the vast amount expected from the
Foreign Office by members, replied specifically on the points raised.
He repelled the charge of inaction as to railway concessions in Asia
Minor and China; he had much rather that concessions should be given
willingly than obtained under pressure. He believed that under the new
agreement as to navigation on the Euphrates and Tigris the British
position would be better and more secure. He was not in favour of
securing the survey of the Muhamrah-Khoramabad railway by force, or of
pushing British trade or concessions at excessive cost. As to the oil
concession the British position was the same as in regard to trade in
Southern Persia. After dealing hopefully with a pending arrangement
regarding Chinese railway concessions, with the Portuguese West African
labour question, and other matters, and specially acknowledging the
release by the Portuguese Government of nearly all its political
prisoners after a popular agitation in Great Britain, he mentioned
that the Dutch Government had just invited Great Britain to send a
representative to an International Committee in June, 1915, to draw up
a programme for the Hague Conference. As to expenditure on armaments,
direct suggestion of reduction was resented on the Continent, and
neither it nor the improvement of the relations of the Great Powers
had produced much result. Great Britain was not responsible for the
increase, the most notable part of which had been military, not naval.
He saw no remedy except the interference of public opinion when things
became intolerable. The Government would do its best to encourage
reduction, but not by direct suggestion. He looked rather to the
promotion of good relations with other Powers. After a speech by Mr.
Dillon the Vote was agreed to.
In the intervals between dealing with the Amending Bill the House of
Lords disposed (on June 30 and July 7) of the Council of India Bill,
a measure attributed (though inaccurately) mainly to Mr. Montagu,
late Under-Secretary for India, and carrying out the developments of
Liberal policy indicated in 1913 (A.R., 1913, p. 187 _seq._). The
salient feature was that the Council of the Secretary of State for
India, which was now to contain from seven to ten members instead of
from ten to fourteen, must always include two natives of India, to
be chosen by the Secretary of State from a panel nominated by the
Indian elective members of the Viceroy's Council and the Provincial
Legislative Councils. Changes were also made in the working rules
of the Council, partly to expedite its business, and one, which was
severely criticised, provided that it should meet not, as heretofore,
weekly, but only when summoned by the Secretary of State. The actual
rules of procedure were extremely cumbrous, and it appeared from
Ministerial statements made in the debate that it took nearly a month
to get the most ordinary piece of business through the Council, and
that in fact the Secretary had often, for practical purposes, to come
very near evading the law. The Bill had been supported by a deputation
from the Indian National Congress, though some organs of native
opinion held that the elective provisions did not go far enough. It
was strongly opposed both in _The Times_ and by Peers with Indian
experience, including Lords Ampthill and Harris; and Earl Curzon of
Kedleston moved its rejection, as diminishing that element in the
Council that possessed administrative experience, rendering procedure
by Committees impossible, and making the Secretary of State into an
autocrat. The presence of Indian members he thought entirely desirable,
but the methods of selection would bring in platform speakers rather
than competent advisers on questions of administration. The opposition
to the Bill had gathered force by the second day's debate (July 7) when
it was strongly defended by Lord Morley of Blackburn, and Lord Reay,
and opposed no less strongly by Lords Ampthill, Harris, and Sydenham,
Earl Roberts, and Viscount Midleton, while Lord Faber commended its
proposals for simplifying financial business, and other Peers urged
the House at least to give it a second reading. Lord Courtney of
Penwith had desired to refer it to a Select Committee, but in spite of
these arguments, and an able defence by the Marquess of Crewe, it was
rejected on second reading by 96 to 38.
Next day (July 8) the Lords proceeded completely to transform the
Amending Bill. They struck out, by 158 to 35, the provision that any
county in Ulster might vote itself out of the Home Rule Scheme for six
years, the Earl of Selborne, who moved this deletion, laying stress on
various complications which the provision would set up, and explaining
that, as an advocate of the Referendum, he desired that it should not
be associated with an experiment that could only end in disaster; and
Lord Killanin said that if no time-limit were imposed, Ulster would be
free to come in voluntarily. Next, the House rejected, by 196 to 20,
Lord Macdonnell's scheme for establishing in Ulster "Home Rule within
Home Rule," in the form of local administrative control through an
Ulster Council elected by proportional representation. To this Council
would be transferred the Departments concerned with education, local
government, and agriculture and technical instruction, and possibly
portions of others. The expenses incurred by the Ulster Council would
be provided by the Irish Parliament, or, in default, deducted from the
transferred sum by the Joint Exchequer Board. The Marquess of Crewe
said that the proposal would be rejected by the various parties to
the controversy; Earl Loreburn, Lord Courtney of Penwith, and, later,
Viscount Bryce supported it; the Lord Chancellor, while admitting that
the exclusion of Ulster was a most unfortunate solution, said that
the Government only proposed it because the Opposition were deaf to
all appeals. The latter were forcing the country into proximity to a
great danger. They hoped soon to take office, but had no clear idea how
they would deal with the situation.' To this Earl Curzon of Kedleston
retorted that they at any rate had a consistent policy and would not
flinch from the issue. After this division the Marquess of Lansdowne
moved an amendment permanently excluding the whole of Ulster from
the operation of the Home Rule Bill, advocating this course as the
most likely way to avert a conflict, though the Opposition could not
guarantee that it would do so. The Archbishop of Canterbury thought
that a division based on religious differences was the worst possible,
and that only a geographical division was practicable. Lord Macdonnell
protested strongly against the exclusion of Cavan, Donegal, and
Monaghan from the control of the Irish Parliament, but the amendment
was passed by 138 to 39. Among other amendments passed one substituted
a Secretary of State for the Lord-Lieutenant as the executive authority
in the excluded area. Another reduced the representation of Ireland in
the Imperial House of Commons from 42 members to 27. A third, moved
by the Earl of Halsbury, continued the existing method of judicial
appointments and of appeal, to the House of Lords instead of to the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as provided in the Bill. This
was supported next day by several Unionist Peers, the Earl of Desart
urging that under Home Rule one party would be permanently in power,
that the Judges would therefore be under special pressure, and that
attacks on a Judge would probably have the sympathy of the Irish
Parliament. The Marquess of Crewe urged that the amendment would be a
slight on the Irish Government; the Marquess of Lansdowne supported
it, partly as tending to reassure the Unionists outside Ulster. It
was passed by 166 to 42. An amendment by Lord Macdonnell, making the
administration of the Land Purchase Acts a reserved service, was
next adopted. The Marquess of Lansdowne supported it, but explained
that the Opposition had limited themselves to framing amendments to
the provisions intended to avert civil strife, and had, therefore,
abstained from attempting to protect minorities outside Ulster. The
Marquess of Crewe intimated that, if the Bill were altered after
discussion between the Houses, the alteration need not be confined
to Ulster. Lord Macdonnell then proposed a scheme for proportional
representation in the Irish Parliament; but the question, after debate,
was deferred to the Report Stage. Some other amendments were negatived;
one, moved by the Earl of Kenmare, was passed, keeping the Royal Irish
Constabulary under the Imperial Government; and a new clause, moved
by the Earl of Selborne, provided that nothing in the Home Rule Bill
should prejudicially alter or affect the powers and rights of any
person in the excluded area.
Meanwhile the Labour and suffragist disturbances continued to promise
fresh complications. The London builders' dispute had resisted all
attempts at settlement; and a strike similar to those which had caused
the dispute arose at Woolwich Arsenal (July 3), where an engineer
in the Carriage Department refused to erect machinery on a concrete
base prepared by a non-unionist. At first only the men in certain
departments were called out, but by July 6 over 10,000 had ceased work.
On July 7, however, the Prime Minister stated in the House that the
contract under which the base had been laid ran from 1912 to 1915,
that no question as to non-union labour under it had been raised
previously, and that the men had left work without notice. A Court of
Inquiry, however, was appointed--two representative employers, two
trade unionists, and Sir George Askwith as Chairman, and on July 9 the
men returned to work.
Though this fresh extension of the Labour unrest was happily checked,
the Suffragist militancy which was gradually estranging public sympathy
did not abate. On July 3, Ballymenoch House, near Belfast, was burnt,
the damage done being estimated at 20,000_l._; an attempt was also
made to burn Carmichael Church, Lanark, and on July 9 to destroy
Robert Burns's birthplace at Alloway. A day earlier Mrs. Pankhurst
had recovered sufficiently to visit the militant headquarters, and
to submit to rearrest as the prelude of her ninth hunger-and-thirst
strike; and two women (whose behaviour in court was disorderly) had
been convicted of conspiracy to destroy windows, and sentenced to three
months' imprisonment, while a sentence of two months had been passed
on the printer of the _Suffragette_. The King's visit to Scotland had
occasioned futile and fatuous attempts to gain the Royal attention
by throwing leaflets into the carriage or shouting protests (during
his visit to the Clyde) through a megaphone; and on Mrs. Pankhurst's
arrest, a bomb was deposited in St. John the Evangelist Church,
Westminster (July 12); the depositor, however, was arrested, and no
harm was done. Nevertheless there was a strong feeling that the true
remedy for the agitation had not been found, and it was intensified by
the publication of a letter from the Bishop of London (_Times_, July
5), in which, however, he disclaimed support of militancy. But two
real successes were obtained by the promoters of the "emancipation"
of women. On July 9 the Representative Church Council of the Church
of England (consisting of the members of the Convocations and the
Houses of Laymen of the two Provinces) decided by a large majority of
clergy and a small one of laymen to give women votes in the elections
of Church Councils and enable them to sit on parochial councils; and
on June 17 deputations from societies connected with the protection
of women and children obtained from the Home Office a promise of
favourable consideration of the appointment, for special duties, of
women police.
While all these causes seemed tending to set up a great crisis, the
King and Queen, with Princess Mary, had been spending a busy week
in Scotland (July 6-13). Making Holyrood Palace their headquarters,
they paid a state visit to Glasgow (July 7) where the King laid the
foundation-stone of the new Municipal Buildings, opened a new block at
the Royal Infirmary, and were received at the University; next day they
visited the Fairfield shipbuilding yard at Govan, where His Majesty
walked underneath the hull of the super-Dreadnought _Valiant_, in
course of construction, and visited H.M.S, _Benbow_, completing; the
day following they witnessed the stages of manufacture of the 15-inch
gun at Parkhead Steel Works, visited Lord Newlands (who marked the
occasion by giving 25,000_l._ to the Western Infirmary) and the Duke of
Hamilton; next day they visited Dundee and Perth, and on the Saturday
Dunblane Cathedral, Stirling Castle, and the ruined ancient palace
of Linlithgow. On the Sunday they attended service at St. Giles's
Cathedral, Edinburgh, and on Monday returned to London. Everywhere
they were enthusiastically welcomed, and, save for the few futile
militant interruptions, the visit was an entire success. The King, as
the _Spectator_ remarked, was enabled by these visits to know his own
country better than the best informed of his subjects.
However, less pleasant matters were soon to engage His Majesty's
attention. The "historic Twelfth" was approaching, in Ulster; the
Ulster Unionist Council was to take the opportunity of meeting (July
10); and on the previous day Captain Craig, M.P., made a statement, in
the course of which he read the preamble to the Constitution of the
Ulster Provisional Government. This document declared that, trusting to
Divine aid, the signatories, "the people of the counties and places of
Ulster represented in the Ulster Unionist Council," undertook to resist
to the utmost the claims of an Irish Nationalist Government to exercise
powers over them hitherto exercised by the Crown and the Imperial
Parliament, and resolved to ignore the Irish Parliament, and to assume
and exercise within the Ulster area, pending the restoration of direct
Imperial Government, all powers rendered necessary by the withdrawal
of such Government for the maintenance of peace and order and the
protection of the rights and liberties of His Majesty's subjects; but
such powers were to be exercised in allegiance to the King and in
trust for the Constitution, to the intent that the Ulster area should
continue an integral portion thereof. The laws in force, other than the
Home Rule Act, would be maintained and all judges and others acting
under the direct authority of the King protected. After contrasting the
aims of the Nationalist and of the Ulster leaders, Captain Craig added
that the outlook was as dark as it could be. This view was emphasised
by the landing of machine guns for the Ulstermen, and of consignments
of arms for both sides, and by the announcement that "rest stations"
were being arranged in England for Ulster refugee women and children,
at Eaton Hall and elsewhere; while the National Volunteers were stated
to number 200,000. On July 10 Sir Edward Carson had an enthusiastic
welcome at Belfast, and he and Mr. Long, addressing a meeting of Ulster
delegates, left the impression that the moment of supreme crisis was
at hand. Possibly through the confidence of the rank and file in their
leaders, the celebrations of the Boyne anniversary on Monday, July
13, though more numerously attended than ever, passed off without
disturbance. Seventy thousand men marched from Belfast to Drumbeg,
where Sir Edward Carson again emphasised Ulster's determination to
resist; "Give us a clean cut," he said, "or come and fight us."
Liberal journals stated that Lord Northcliffe's newspapers, in
particular _The Times_ and the _Daily Mail_, were making the most of
these demonstrations by means of a host of special correspondents
and photographers, and an important Unionist paper, the _Birmingham
Daily Post_, also thought the alarm exaggerated. But the House of
Lords increased the impression already produced by its treatment of
the Amending Bill. The Report Stage was disposed of on July 13. An
amendment was negatived which was proposed by Lord Weardale, modifying
the provision for the exclusion of Ulster by enabling a poll to be
taken on the question upon a requisition from 10 per cent. of the
electors in any four counties; and then Lord Macdonnell renewed in a
simplified form his proposal for proportional representation, by moving
that each constituency in the Irish Parliament should return not less
than three members. He advocated this in the interest of the Unionists
outside Ulster. Viscount St. Aldwyn supported this scheme; Viscount
Bryce held that it was a corollary to the exclusion of Ulster; but the
Marquess of Crewe objected to making the Irish Parliament a _corpus
vile_ for experiment, and Viscount Morley of Blackburn doubted if Irish
peasants would understand the "single transferable vote." On a division
being challenged, the leaders on both sides abstained; and no "Not
Contents" appeared. The amendment, therefore, was declared carried.
On the third reading next day, the Marquess of Crewe pointed out
that the exclusion of Ulster raised, in a new form, the difficulty
of governing Irish Nationalists from Great Britain, which had been
somewhat masked by the concessions of certain Unionist Ministers in
the past to Irish ideas. He reminded the House that the Irish Councils
Bill of 1907 was accepted reluctantly by the Nationalist leaders, but
rejected by their followers, and hinted that legislation could not
depend solely on the legislators; politics were not a game of chess.
The Marquess of Lansdowne, reviewing the Bill as amended, declared
that the coercion of Ulster was dead. Lord Joicey, as a Liberal Peer,
protested against the refusal of the Government to assist in altering
the Bill. But the interest of the debate lay mainly in a new clause
moved by the Earl of Dunraven, after the Bill had been read a third
time without a division, providing that the Home Rule Act might be
suspended by Order in Council until a Commission had reported on the
relation of Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom. He desired,
he said, to avoid "the horror of the dismemberment of Ireland,"
ensure a stable peace, and indicate the line of a future final and
satisfactory settlement. Viscount Morley opposed the amendment as
against the whole spirit of the Constitution, and treated, the action
of the Peers as only an elaborate way of rejecting the Home Rule Bill.
The Archbishop of York and Lord Ribblesdale supported the amendment;
Earl Beauchamp indicated that, while the Government could not accept
a Statutory Commission, they would, if there were any desire for it,
agree to a voluntary conference. The Marquess of Lansdowne held it
undesirable to put the Constitution in the melting-pot on the chance
of getting Ministers out of a purely domestic difficulty in Ireland,
and refused to accept the amendment as a substitute for the Unionist
demands; were they conceded, an inquiry might be of advantage. The
clause was then added to the Bill without a division.
Thus the main changes in the Home Rule scheme effected by the Bill
were as follows: Ulster was entirely and permanently excluded from
the Home Rule scheme, and was to be administered by a Secretary of
State through offices and departments different from those exercising
authority under the Home Rule Bill, and set up by Order in Council,
subject to the acquiescence of both Houses of the Imperial Parliament.
Ulster would continue to send members to the Imperial Parliament, in
which Irish representation would be reduced to twenty-seven. Judges
would be appointed as under the existing system, and the appeal from
Irish courts to the House of Lords would continue. Land purchase
would be reserved, so would the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the
Lord-Lieutenant would control the Dublin metropolitan police.
The House of Lords next day continued its protest against the
Parliament Act by rejecting (July 15) the Plural Voting Bill. The
debate was, however, languid. The Marquess of Crewe, in moving the
second reading, hoped that the inherent impropriety of plural voting
would have in any case led Ministers to introduce the measure; the
party advantage it gave was, in fact, only occasional, and unknown
before 1884. He repeated the promise (p. 84) of a Redistribution
Commission. Lord St. Audries said that such promises were idle; the
general election would come as a thief in the night, and would find
the Redistribution Bill in bed. In fact, most plural voters had but
two votes, one for their residence and one for their place of business
or their University, and agriculture, commerce, and industry should be
adequately represented. Lord Newton traced indirectly to the Bill the
militants' agitation, stimulated by the juggling over the Franchise
Bill in 1913, and the Irish crisis, as the general election was being
postponed till the plural voter was abolished. Earl Grey held that the
Bill aggravated the existing inequality of representation. The Marquess
of Lansdowne said that the debate was unreal. The authority of the
Government in the country was waning, and they hoped the Bill would
save something out of the wreck. The second reading was postponed by
119 to 49.
This division, of course, meant little; and it was clear that the
Government and the majority of the Commons would not accept the
Lords' transformation of the Amending Bill. But the division on the
guillotining of the Finance Act had left the Government weaker, and
they had been compelled to strain their supporters' patience by
announcing a new session "in the early winter" after a Prorogation
in August, to enable the essential provisions of the Revenue Bill
to be carried in time for the insertion of the grants to the local
authorities in the next Estimates. Before the Prorogation they would
take the Amending Bill, the Indian Budget, and the resolutions on the
Reform of the House of Lords.
For the moment, they proceeded with the Committee stage of the Finance
Bill (July 13, 14, 15, 16), but only a brief notice of a few features
of it is possible here. An amendment moved by Mr. Worthington Evans
(U., _Colchester_) to allow a payer of supertax to deduct the duties on
mineral rights and undeveloped land from his sources of income, on the
ground that he would otherwise be paying part of his tax twice over,
was defeated by 257 to 115, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rejecting
his arguments; and he was also unsuccessful in his opposition to the
provisions regarding income tax in respect of property abroad, which he
contended would be ineffective as well as unfair. He outlined, indeed,
an ingenious method of evasion, and contended that it was unjust to tax
income which never reached Great Britain, but was reinvested abroad,
as also income already taxed in the country of its origin. From both
sides of the House the unfairness of the provisions was insisted on;
and an amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, intended to
afford some relief to insurance companies and others who had habitually
invested abroad the proceeds of their foreign investments, was carried
by 280 to 190. Next day (July 14) on the clause altering the estate
duties (p. 95) the usual complaints were made of the incidence of
the death duties on large estates, especially agricultural estates;
and Sir A. Henderson (U., _St. George's, Hanover Square_) declared
that the necessity of selling stock to meet them was one cause of the
fall in Stock Exchange securities, which he estimated as aggregating
over 1,000,000,000_l._ since 1909. The critics were reinforced by Mr.
Balfour (U.) who contended that the tax came out of capital, and might
thus decrease employment suddenly where the estate was that of a great
landlord or manufacturer; besides, it was diminishing the national
emergency reserve. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that the
money had to be found, and savings were diminished whether it was
raised by death duties or by income tax; if expenditure on defence,
education, or public health were inadequate, securities would then
depreciate also. The fall in them had been heavier abroad, and also at
home before 1905. Some of the burden must come out of capital; Germany
got it thus, but from the living. The clause was passed by 301 to 207.
On the clause abolishing settlement duty and relief in respect of
settled property (p. 95), an attempt was made by Mr. Cassel (U., _St.
Pancras_) to prevent its retrospective application where estate duty
had been paid before the passing of the Bill. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer, invoking the example of Pitt, contended that each generation
had a right to adjust its own taxation. Members on both sides strongly
condemned the clause, Mr. Bonar Law citing as a parallel Mr. Larkin's
"To hell with contracts" (A.R., 1913, p. 208). The Solicitor-General
said that the Government proposed, first, that the full settlement
estate duty that had been paid should be repaid; next, that during the
whole of the period over which that duty failed to frank the estate
interest should be allowed on the amount. He contended that it was a
fair equivalent. The amendment was rejected by 297 to 208, and the
clause passed by 295 to 204.
The following day (July 15) attempts were vainly made to extend the
relief in cases of quick succession to property where it consisted of
land or a business, first, by removing this limitation so as to take
in personalty, next, by extending the five years' interval allowed
between payments of the entire estate duty to fifteen. The former
the Chancellor of the Exchequer found too costly; the latter was
rejected on a division by 297 to 175. An attempt by Sir F. Banbury
(U.) to prevent the reduction of the annual charge for diminution of
the National Debt from 24,500,000_l._ to 23,500,000_l._ (p. 95) was
rejected, after a long discussion, by 281 to 176. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer said that, while the greatest previous reduction of the
Debt--Mr. Goschen's--had been 39,000,000_l._ in six years the Liberal
Government had effected a reduction of 103,000,000_l._ The retort was
made, of course, that it had also increased expenditure permanently by
40,000,000_l._ annually, and some of the money, it was contended, was
wasted--on the land valuation and payment of members, for instance.
Next, the relief to be given to married persons in respect of income
tax was challenged as inadequate by Mr. Cassel (U.) and other members.
A new clause in the Bill provided that income tax and supertax should
be assessed, charged, and recovered on the incomes of husband and wife
separately, as if they were not married. This met two grievances--that
the husband was called on to pay tax on his wife's income, but could
not recover it from her (A.R., 1913, p. 224), and that the wife could
not make a return or claim abatement; but it did not meet a third and
far more general grievance--that their two incomes were still added
together and treated as one, so that they paid more than two persons
with equal incomes living together unmarried. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer argued against any concession on this head, but agreed that
there should be special exemption for married people, and the clause
was adopted. Next day, however, attempts were made so to amend it as
to modify or relieve this grievance. An amendment providing that the
separate incomes of husband and wife should be treated as one for
purposes of exemption or abatement only when they together exceeded
500_l._ was rejected by 267 to 139, partly as involving too great a
sacrifice of revenue; another, preventing a husband's goods from being
liable for distraint for his wife's income, was also rejected by 271
to 166. A new clause providing that private firms, like companies,
should not be taxed on profits made abroad, was criticised as enabling
such firms to escape taxation by transferring their business abroad.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted this was done already, but
not often enough to make it worth while to stop it, and the clause
was adopted by 225 to 95. Another amendment, providing for deductions
in respect of inherently wasting assets, was rejected by 208 to 113,
and, after the rejection of other amendments, the Committee stage was
completed under the guillotine.
Next day the usual "Massacre of the Innocents" took place, but
subsequent events so increased the numbers that the list need hardly
be given here. In the evening the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt
with the situation at the annual Lord Mayor's dinner to bankers and
merchants at the Mansion House. A quieter period of trade, he said,
was opening; but in twenty years the international commerce of the
country had doubled, the clearances of the London banks had trebled;
in 1914, 160,000,000_l._ of new capital had been issued in London, as
against 125,000,000_l._ in 1913. Trade depressions were now shorter,
and there were healthy signs. He referred to the great progress set
up by British capital, comparing its effect to irrigation in the
Sudan; and he mentioned that in fifty years 3,700,000,000_l._ of
British capital had been advanced for development, though in war
and war preparations the world's expenditure during the past ten
years had been 4,500,000,000_l._ He looked to finance to arrest this
"creeping catastrophe." But peace was needed at home also; there was
the industrial crisis, as to which he was hopeful, and the Irish
crisis, and the two together would set up the gravest situation Great
Britain had had to face for centuries. It was, the duty, therefore, of
responsible men of all parties to work for peace.
But the Irish crisis was approaching a climax. The Amending Bill, as
transformed by the Lords, was to be taken in the Commons on Monday,
July 20; it was certain that it would be accepted neither by the
Nationalists nor by Ministers; but a minority in the Cabinet, said
to number four out of nineteen, were alleged to favour concessions
to Ulster beyond those originally embodied in the Bill. Conferences
between the different leaders were held informally, and on July 17 the
Cabinet met twice, A great naval display had been arranged at Spithead
on the occasion of the test mobilisation; the King was to leave London
to review the Fleet at 9.30 A.M. on Saturday, July 18; but he was
detained till the afternoon, and various communications passed in the
morning between him and the Prime Minister. The two, however, travelled
together to Portsmouth, where the most powerful Fleet ever assembled,
numbering some 200 vessels in all, was drawn up in eight lines,
extending over some twenty-two miles altogether, and manned by some
70,000 officers and men. The forces afloat were supplemented by five
squadrons of four seaplanes each, with a squadron of eight aeroplanes,
and four airships. The King was able to witness the illumination of
the Fleet on Saturday evening; on Sunday he visited some of the ships
informally; on Monday the ships moved to sea past the Royal yacht, as
did a procession of aircraft, and, after witnessing tactical exercises,
the King returned to London late on Monday evening. The display and
assemblage proved to have an unforeseen value.
The curtailment of the King's visit was explained by the momentous
revelation made by _The Times_ on Monday morning, July 20, that His
Majesty had issued invitations for the following day to a Conference
on the Ulster question at Buckingham Palace, consisting of two
members each from the Government, the Opposition, the Nationalists
and the Ulster Covenanters. This step was believed to have been
initiated by the King, but taken with the knowledge and consent of
the Ministry, though without previous consultation with the leaders
of the Nationalists or of either the British or Ulster section of the
Opposition. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would represent the Ministry; the Marquess of Lansdowne and Mr. Bonar
Law the Unionists of Great Britain; Mr. John Redmond and Mr. Dillon
the Nationalists; Sir Edward Carson and Captain Craig the Ulstermen.
It was rumoured that the Government, though not prepared to accept the
transformed Amending Bill, had virtually abandoned the time-limit, and
were ready to exclude from the operation of the Home Rule Act not only
Armagh, Down, Derry, and Monaghan, but parts of Fermanagh and Tyrone.
The dispute now centred, therefore, on the question whether parts of
these latter counties should be excluded or the whole.
The Amending Bill was postponed pending the Conferences; and the
Prime Minister in announcing the postponement (July 20) repeated the
statement of _The Times_, adding that the Speaker would preside. Mr.
Bonar Law announced that the Opposition leaders had "loyally accepted"
the King's command; Mr. Redmond, while disclaiming responsibility for
the calling of the Conference, said that he had "of course accepted"
likewise. Mr. Ginnell (I.N., _Westmeath, N._) asked, as an independent
Irish Nationalist, what authority the Prime Minister had to advise
the King to place himself at the head of a conspiracy to defeat the
decision of the House; but Mr. Asquith and the Speaker ignored the
question. In the House of Lords, Lord Courtney of Penwith asked
for assurances that the Government took the responsibility for the
Conference, and that the final decision would rest with Parliament; and
the Marquess of Crewe made a satisfactory reply.
The action of _The Times_ was severely criticised, as tending to
jeopardise the success of the Conference; but its information, as
the Prime Minister assured the House, was not derived from official
quarters, and seemed to have been obtained by inference from the
movements of Ministers and of the King. The Conference itself was
received with misgiving by the Nationalists, the Labour party, and a
section of the Liberals, the first named feeling that they could not
go much further in concession, the two others suspecting that the
King had initiated it, and in so doing had exceeded the limits set by
constitutional usage to the powers of the Crown. It had been rumoured
that the King had intimated that he would not sign the Home Rule Bill
except in conjunction with an Amending Bill; so that the Unionists
need only make the Amending Bill impossible to ensure a crisis,
ending probably in the dismissal of Ministers and a general election.
The _Daily News_ called the Conference "a Royal _coup d'état_"; the
Labour party's views were expressed by Mr. J. H. Thomas (_Derby_)
in his constituency on July 21. He objected to it as a deliberate
attempt to defeat the Parliament Act, and also because two rebels had
been invited to take part; Labour leaders who had used such language
would have been arraigned at the Old Bailey. Liberal feeling was
manifested at a meeting of members on that day, summoned in order to
express anxiety for the supremacy of Parliament; but a more moderate
resolution was passed, declaring that the party was determined to stand
by the Nationalists, and that the Government should not appeal to the
constituencies before completing the whole of its programme under the
Parliament Act.
The misgivings of the Liberals were heightened by the speech with which
the King opened the Conference at Buckingham Palace at 11.30 A.M. on
Tuesday, July 21. It was as follows:--
GENTLEMEN,--It is with feelings of satisfaction and hopefulness
that I receive you here to-day, and I thank you for the manner in
which you have responded to my summons. It is also a matter of
congratulation that the Speaker has consented to preside over your
meetings.
My intervention at this moment may be regarded as a new departure.
But the exceptional circumstances under which you are brought
together justify my action. For months we have watched with
deep misgivings the course of events in Ireland. The trend has
been surely and steadily towards an appeal to force, and to-day
the cry of civil war is on the lips of the most responsible and
sober-minded of my people.
We have in the past endeavoured to act as a civilising example to
the world, and to me it is unthinkable, as it must be to you, that
we should be brought to the brink of fratricidal strife upon issues
apparently so capable of adjustment as those you are now asked
to consider, if handled in a spirit of generous compromise. My
apprehension in contemplating such a dire calamity is intensified
by my feelings of attachment to Ireland, and of sympathy with her
people, who have always welcomed me with warm-hearted affection.
Gentlemen, you represent in one form or another the vast majority
of my subjects at home. You also have a deep interest in my
Dominions oversea, who are scarcely less concerned in a prompt and
friendly settlement of this question. I regard you, then, in this
matter as trustees for the honour and peace of all.
Your responsibilities are, indeed, great. The time is short.
You will, I know, employ it to the fullest advantage, and be
patient, earnest, and conciliatory, in view of the magnitude of
the interests at stake. I pray that God in His infinite wisdom may
guide your deliberations so that they may result in the joy of
peace and honourable settlement.
Unfortunately, the "responsible and sober-minded persons" referred to
were taken by the _Westminster Gazette_ (and many readers) to be the
Ulstermen and their aiders and abetters; and the _Manchester Guardian_
feared that the King had been "unduly alarmed by the reports of
certain of his unofficial counsellors," with consequences that might
be serious (for the Constitution) unless he henceforth listened to his
official advisers only. Unionist papers pointed out that a host of
prominent people, independent of party politics, had talked of civil
war, and the Prime Minister, in reply to questions, expressly took the
responsibility for the speech, and interpreted His Majesty's words
as meaning merely that apprehension of civil strife had been widely
entertained and expressed by responsible and sober-minded persons,
"among whom I may, perhaps, include myself." The House laughed, but the
Liberal objectors were not wholly satisfied. There was some resentment
felt, too, at the selection of Buckingham Palace for the Conference.
But this, at least, protected the members from journalistic enterprise.
While the Conference was sitting the House of Commons took, among
other business, the Report stage of the Finance Bill; but the minds of
members were mainly elsewhere. Among the unsuccessful attempts made
to obtain alleviations of the income-tax law we may mention proposals
(_a_) to exempt lands and property occupied by any charity, which was
asked for especially in the interest of residential hostels at the
newer Universities; (_b_) treating income arising from capital earned
by the recipient as unearned income; (_c_) providing that income from
British Colonial investments should be assessed to income-tax and
supertax after deduction of any Colonial income-tax; (_d_) providing
for deduction from the taxed income of sums spent in the education of
children; making provision for the case of insurance against death
duties; (_e_) exempting income neither taxed nor received in the United
Kingdom. Some slight concessions, however, were made by the Government;
but a fresh attempt to avert the abolition of the settled estate duty
was also unsuccessful. On the first day, complaints were made of the
absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but, on his arrival, he
explained that he was detained by a duty not of his own seeking, but
which he had no option but to accept.
The debates were cut short by the guillotine, and the third reading
followed on July 23. Mr. Austen Chamberlain remarked on the change in
the character of the Bill, and regretted the increase of the death
duties, the treatment of settled estates, and the raiding of the
Sinking Fund. As to the effect, welcomed by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, in breaking up landed estates, he desired to see many more
small estates, especially occupying ownerships, but he thought the
effect would be felt rather by those of moderate size than by the
great ones; estates would be starved, and the taxpayers would feel
themselves unjustly treated, and attempt evasion. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer was eminently fair when doing business, but, when convinced
that he could not afford to give way, he mis-stated his opponent's
case, and showed himself a master in irrelevancy. The new arrangements
affecting the Finance Bill deprived the House of its control of
finance, and took away its opportunity of reviewing the whole field of
taxation. He laid stress on the growth of expenditure, and predicted
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would himself convert the country
to fiscal reform. The President of the Local Government Board replied
that the Bill had set up a better graduation of the income-tax system,
including supertax; out of 1,215,000 income-tax payers 214,000 still
paid virtually less than 1_d._ in the pound, and 750,000 less than
6_d._ As to the provision for reduction of debt, he doubted whether
the taxpayer was not being asked for too much. The Liberal Budgets
marked a new departure in finance--a march against preventable
poverty. After other speeches, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said
that the new proposals had been fully discussed, and the Opposition
had had difficulty in finding speakers. The changes in the Bill were
a proof that the Commons still controlled finance. He defended the
death duties, and thought that the financial interests of the world
were feeling alarm at the total expenditure of 350,000,000_l._ a year
on armaments; he saw signs of reaction, but the movement must be
cosmopolitan. It was a duty to raise money for social reform. After
further debate, the Bill was passed without a division.
The Conference meanwhile had failed. It met on four successive days
(July 21-24), beginning at 11.30 A.M., and closing at 12.30 or 1
P.M.; and there were latterly frequent consultations between various
political leaders. A large and attentive crowd, mainly, however, of
idlers, and kept by the police at a convenient distance from the
Palace, watched the arrival and departure of its members, and cheered
them all impartially; and Mr. Redmond and Mr. Dillon, who walked back
on the second day through Birdcage Walk, were enthusiastically cheered
at the Barracks by the Irish Guards, whose honorary Colonel, it was
noticed, was Earl Roberts, a decided Unionist. Two suffragists, Lady
Barclay and the Hon. Edith Fitzgerald, attempted in vain to enter the
Palace during the Conference, in order to submit the claims of women
to the King. As was expected from the first, no solution was reached.
After the final meeting on July 24 there was a Cabinet Council, and
the Prime Minister announced the failure at the close of the sitting
of the House of Commons. He read the official report, signed by the
Speaker, stating that the possibility was considered of finding an area
to be excluded from the operation of the Home Rule Bill, and that the
Conference, "being unable to agree, either in principle or in detail,
on such an area, brought its sittings to a conclusion." Mr. Asquith
added that the Amending Bill would be taken on July 28.
It was stated that the deadlock arose over the exclusion of Fermanagh
and Tyrone, and especially as to whether Tyrone, in which the
Nationalist voters were slightly the more numerous, should be allowed
to vote itself out by "a bare majority." The personal relations of
all the members it was stated, had been excellent, and each set had
genuinely attempted to appreciate the difficulties of the others. It
was thought that the Ministerialists, and even the Cabinet, might
split. The First Lord of the Admiralty and four other Ministers were
said to favour further concessions to Ulster, and the situation was
described as almost desperate.
It was made even worse, however, two days later by a daring act of
gun-running, leading to an affray in Dublin between the populace and
British troops. On Sunday morning, July 26, about a thousand National
Volunteers, some unarmed, others armed with long staves, assembled
at Fairview, two miles from Dublin on the Howth road, and started,
apparently on a route march, to Howth. Arriving there at midday, they
marched to the pier, where a white yacht, steered (it was said) by a
lady, had just arrived. Those with staves guarded the entrance to the
pier; the rest, assisted by Boy Scouts, unloaded 2,500 Lee-Enfield
rifles and 125,000 rounds of ammunition. Each Volunteer shouldered
a rifle; the balance was loaded into motor cars and distributed to
hiding-places throughout the county. A policeman and some coastguardmen
were prevented from interfering, and the latter telephoned to Dublin.
Mr. Harrel, the Assistant Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan
Police, after sending out a large force of constables, telephoned the
facts to the Under-Secretary at 2 P.M., and was directed to meet him at
the Castle at 2.45; but he did not do so, having gone to the barracks,
where he requisitioned, on his own responsibility, two companies of the
King's Own Scottish Borderers, who were sent to Fairview by tram. The
Volunteers on their return were met at Clontarf by a body of police
and 160 soldiers; the police were ordered to disarm the Volunteers;
some refused, and were arrested by the soldiers; others succeeded
in disarming the Volunteers in front, after a scuffle in which two
soldiers were wounded by pistol-shots, as well as three Volunteers and
a policeman; hereupon the Volunteer leaders ordered a parley, during
which the rear ranks of their own body dispersed, taking their rifles
with them. Meanwhile the Under-Secretary, not finding Mr. Harrel, had
left a Minute directing him that forcible disarmament of the Volunteers
should not be attempted, but that their names should be taken and the
destination of the arms traced. Later the troops, on their way back
to Dublin, were stoned in Bachelors' Walk by a mob; their commanding
officer expostulated, and some of the rear-rank men, losing patience,
fired without orders; three of the crowd were killed (including one
woman) and thirty-two wounded, and a number of the soldiers were
severely injured with stones. At 10.30 P.M. a crowd attacked the gate
of the barracks, but were driven off by the police.
Statements on these events were made in both Houses on Monday, July 27.
In the Commons the Chief Secretary, replying to a question from Mr.
Redmond, read the Minute left by the Under-Secretary for Mr. Harrel,
and stated that the latter had been suspended, and that an inquiry into
the conduct of the military would be held at once; and, in answer to
Mr. Devlin, he stated that on the previous Saturday 5,000 men, with
five machine guns, had marched through Belfast, that General Macready,
the military magistrate, was then in the city, and that the police had
not been ordered to interfere. The subject was debated as a matter of
urgent public importance that night, after a statement by the Foreign
Secretary on the European situation (_post_, p. 167) which was rapidly
becoming graver, and an announcement by the Prime Minister of the
further postponement of the Amending Bill, since the Nationalist party,
which had arranged a conference for that day to consider it, had had
its attention taken up by the events in Dublin. A brief and non-party
discussion on minor naval votes also preceded the debate.
In moving the adjournment, Mr. John Redmond condemned the Arms
Proclamation, and stated that on June 30 he had written to the Chief
Secretary, declaring it a failure and likely to lead to collision
between the Nationalists and police. He went on to refer to the march
of the previous Saturday through Belfast, and asked who was responsible
for this monstrous attempt to discriminate in the administration of
the law. Where was Mr. Harrell's chief, Sir John Ross of Bladensburg,
who had proved himself thoroughly incompetent during the strikes of
1913? After referring, in impartial terms, to the shooting, he demanded
from the Government--the suspension and trial of Sir John Ross, an
immediate inquiry into all the facts, a judicial and military inquiry
into the action of the troops, with (if they were found guilty) proper
punishment; removal of the regiment from Ireland; revocation of the
Arms Proclamation; and finally, and very emphatically, an impartial
administration of the law.
The Chief Secretary agreed that no distinction could be made in the
treatment of the Ulster and Nationalist Volunteers, and spoke of Mr.
Harrel's "act of extraordinary indiscretion." Mr. Harrel had taken
the whole responsibility, but if Sir John Ross were associated with
the act, he ought to be suspended also. He dissociated the Volunteers
wholly from the shooting and from the attack by the mob, and referred
the question of the removal of the regiment to the Prime Minister as
Secretary for War.
Mr. Bonar Law declared that the question put to Sir John Ross was most
improper; he could not now say it was wrong to suspend Mr. Harrel,
but why did not the Under-Secretary send after him? The Government in
Ireland had hunted out a scapegoat to save their own skin. The incident
was only possible because the Government had abrogated authority in
Ireland and had ceased to govern. He did not blame the Nationalist
Volunteers, but the Government, for the first time in history, refused
to carry out the law and yet continued to hold office. They did
not vindicate the law because Mr. Redmond would not let them. The
Government had never been able to make up their minds as to their
proper policy and risk their fate on the consequences.
The Prime Minister replied. He was not going to follow the example of
the Opposition leader, who was "a past master of vituperation," but, as
Secretary for War, he put in a plea for the troops. They were exposed
to great provocation, and what happened, much as it was to be lamented,
was not a fitting subject for condemnation. After promising a full
inquiry, he refused to see that it was unfair to ask Sir John Ross
whether he associated himself with his subordinate. "It is a question
put to me once a week." When Mr. Harrel acted, the proclamation against
the importation of arms had already exhausted itself. He denounced the
attacks on the Under-Secretary, and said that the importation of arms
was relatively of minor importance. If the proclamation was maintained,
it should be impartially applied. The real crux of the question was in
the attitude of the Government and the Opposition to the maintenance
of the authority of the law. The Opposition had greatly increased the
inherent difficulty of governing Ireland by proclaiming that violation
of the law was a cardinal virtue. Till an agreement was reached as
to respect for law, the Unionists, when they came in, would find the
government of Ireland an impossible task.
Mr. Balfour shared Mr. Bonar Law's suspicions as to the Minute, and
thought the whole story had not been told. The Government had been
persistently blind to the feelings of Ulster, and now were up against
facts. They had taken and kept power, and had allowed the whole
system of law, order, and government to crumble. Every one knew that
Ireland had been brought into a condition from which it seemed almost
impossible for any courage, statesmanship, or heroism to extricate it.
After other speeches, Lord R. Cecil (U.) moved the closure, which was
defeated by 249 to 217. The motion was thus talked out, and a division
averted on the main question. It might have imperilled the Government.
It was elicited next day that, as Mr. Balfour apparently had divined,
Sir James Dougherty's Minute had in fact been written at 5 P.M., after
the affray was over, but that it contained the instructions which Mr.
Harrel, had he waited, would have received three hours before. But
the occurrence was already obscured by events of greater moment. The
Commission, appointed a week later, consisted of Lord Shaw, Mr. Justice
Molony, and the Rt. Hon. W. D. Andrews, a retired Irish judge; and the
story may be ended here by stating that its Report (published Oct. 1)
declared that the employment of the police and military was illegal,
that General Cuthbert, who allowed the military to be used, was wrong
in doing so, that they were not justified in firing, and that the
twenty-one soldiers who fired did so without orders, but believing that
they had them.
At the time, however, it seemed possible that this affray, coupled with
the dispute over the Amending Bill, might bring about complications
delaying the establishment of Home Rule; and an enthusiastic
demonstration of Liberals, Labour men, and Nationalists, held at the
London Opera House on July 29, demanded that the Government should
complete their legislative programme and thus secure the effective
operation of the Parliament Act. Sir James H. Dalziel (_Kirkcaldy_)
presided; Mr. Neil Primrose (_Cambs, Wisbech_), Mr. Rowlands
(_Dartford_), and Mr. Devlin (_Belfast, W._) were among the speakers,
and there were 50,000 applications for admission. Incidentally the
Chairman mentioned--what soon became obvious--the very grave effect
produced on the international situation by the reports that civil war
was impending in Ireland.
In the interval before the resumption of the debate on the Amending
Bill, the House dealt, more briefly than usual, with the Colonial
Office Vote and the Education Vote (July 28) as well as with other
non-contentious subjects needing no special notice here. On the
Colonial Office Vote the points raised were dealt with by the Colonial
Secretary in his reply as follows: He must decline to give information
as to future policy in Somaliland which would be useful to the Mullah;
but they were getting 450 camel constabulary and 400 of the Indian
contingent, of whom 150 would be mounted and would strengthen the
camel corps. Burao would be occupied by the new commandant early in
September, and they would then enable the friendlies to reoccupy their
grazing at the mouth of the Ain Valley. He would not decrease the
existing native reserve lands in East Africa. As to Tasmania, he had
only laid down the rules generally regarded as binding on a Governor,
and Sir W. Ellison-Macartney's appointment was based on his work as a
Civil Servant and irrespective of politics. The incident, he thought,
was closed. The South African Native Lands Act was the outcome of a
commission appointed by Viscount Milner, and was temporary; Parliament
ought not to intervene except on proof of gross injustice to natives,
and there had been none. The _Malaya_ Dreadnought was not a tribute,
but a voluntary gift from allies; the taxation of the Malay people was
practically _nil_. He gave encouraging figures as to the decreasing
consumption of opium in the British possessions in the Far East, but
it was ominous that large quantities of cocaine and morphia had been
seized. As to the Ceylon excise, the Government proposed to put up an
experimental distillery in each district to get rid of the existing
distilleries, but they might be directed by private enterprise, though
not at the cost of creating vested interests. The supposed increase in
the consumption of arrack was due to the gradual cessation of illicit
drinking. He suspended his decision as to the Chartered Company's
Charter pending consultation with Lord Gladstone.--The Vote was agreed
to.
On the Education Vote, after criticisms and comments had been passed
on various points in the Board's policy by several members, the
President of the Board of Education paid a tribute to the memory of Sir
William Anson, and bore testimony to the efficiency of the staff of
the Department. Among other matters of interest, he touched on school
hygiene, mentioning that 317 education authorities had established
medical inspection, in which 1097 medical men, eighty-four women,
and 300 specialists were engaged. Half the children needed dental
treatment, and the expenditure on the medical service had increased
from 47,000_l._ in 1912-13 to 175,000_l._ in 1914-15. For mental
and physical defectives there were 365 schools, and the grants were
increased. They had 945 places in open-air schools for ailing children,
but 500,000 children needed them. Provision was made for feeding
358,000 children, but they hoped to be able to contribute half the cost
to local authorities by a supplementary grant of 77,000_l._ Physical
training was invariably part of the course, and England was behind no
nation in providing for it. He mentioned also schools for mothers,
play-grounds, and a projected grant in 1915-16 of 50,000_l._ to aid
local authorities to deal with epidemics. There was no evidence that
the teaching of the three R's had generally deteriorated; the children
were more alert and responsive, and happier at school than ever.
The wastage of teachers could only be met by making the career more
attractive. Lodgings for women teachers were a difficulty, and hostels
for teachers were the only solution. The State would find two-fifths of
the cost. Children left school just when a good teacher could do most
for them, but he thought the prosperity of the country from the point
of view of education was assured.
Amid all the prevalent excitement, little attention could be paid to
the Report of the Welsh Land Inquiry Committee (July 27). This body,
of which Sir A. Mond (L., _Swansea_) was chairman, had been appointed
at the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inquire into and
report on the special circumstances of Wales in respect to land tenure
and agricultural conditions, and the Report, which claimed, fairly
enough, to be judicial and dispassionate, contained some 350 pages of
documents and comment, leading up to the following main conclusions.
Legislation was urgently needed in the interests of agriculture;
the crops, except in roots, were much poorer than in England, partly
from the inferior productiveness of the soil, but largely through
insecurity of tenure, and also because of high rents, fear that rent
would be charged on tenants' improvements, inadequate compensation, and
onerous conditions of tenants' agreements. The Committee recommended
absolute fixity of tenure, and the establishment of a Land Court with
power to fix fair rents and settle reasonable conditions of tenancy.
The rural housing conditions were deplorable; there were often not
enough cottages, and in no district was there an ample supply of
suitable cottages large enough for an average family. The effect was
bad for health and morals. The administration of the Small Holdings
and Allotments Acts was unsatisfactory and varied greatly in different
counties, and the machinery was too cumbersome. At the end of 1912,
1,100 approved applicants were still waiting for land.
The Amending Bill was to be taken on July 30; and its prospects had
been perhaps improved by the remarkable pamphlet published a week
earlier by Sir Horace Plunkett, announcing his conversion to Home Rule
(_post_, Chap. VI.). But all domestic difficulties were rapidly being
obscured and effaced by the rapid gathering of war-clouds in Central
Europe. The news of the Dublin shooting was published the same day as
that of the rejection by Austria-Hungary of the Serbian reply to her
ultimatum; and between question time in the House of Commons and the
excited debate on the affray later on that day (July 27) party strife
was visibly suspended in both Houses, while substantially identical
statements on the European situation were made respectively by Sir
Edward Grey and the Marquess of Crewe. The former, replying to a
question by the leader of the Opposition, stated that, after hearing of
the Austro-Serbian rupture, he had asked the French, German and Italian
Governments, through the respective British Ambassadors in their
capitals, if their Ambassadors might meet in Conference in London; he
had also asked the Austro-Hungarian and Serbian Governments to suspend
operations meanwhile. It appeared next day that Italy and France
accepted at once; but Germany refused the British invitation, alleging
that negotiations between the several Governments would be preferable;
Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and seized Serb vessels at
Orsova; and Russia prepared (July 28) to mobilise fourteen Army Corps.
Under these circumstances _The Times_ (July 29) urged British parties
to "close ranks" and suspend their strife, that the Government might
devote all its energies to limiting the area of the war. Sir Edward
Grey, it declared, was indispensable as Foreign Minister; and the
Ulster question might be provisionally settled by the exclusion of
Fermanagh and Tyrone from the Home Rule area. That day, however, the
situation became graver; seven Stock Exchange firms failed; and the
Prime Minister could only tell the Commons that the Government were
doing their best to "circumscribe the area of possible conflict." But
on the day following (July 31) he announced that the Amending Bill
must be postponed. In an impressive speech to a profoundly attentive
House, he stated that the issues of peace and war were hanging in
the balance, and with them the risk of a catastrophe of which it
was impossible to measure either the dimensions or the effects. It
was, therefore, of vital importance in the interest of the whole
world, that Great Britain, who had no interests directly at stake,
should present a united front and be able to speak and act with the
authority of an undivided nation. Hence they would deal with necessary
non-controversial business. Mr. Bonar Law agreed, saying that it should
be made clear that British domestic differences did not prevent members
from presenting a united front in the councils of the world; and that
he spoke not only for the Unionists, but for the Ulstermen.
Next day, however (Aug. 1), the situation became worse. German troops
were preparing to invade France; Russia had proclaimed a general
mobilisation; martial law was consequently proclaimed in Germany; in
Great Britain steps were taken to guard magazines, railway bridges
and tunnels, and dockyards; the booms defending British naval ports
were placed in position; and telegrams from the Dominions exhibited
their eagerness to aid the mother country by sending troops. In
London, the Stock Exchange, an hour after its opening, was closed
_sine die_; business was active at Lloyd's in insurances against war
risks; the Cabinet met in the morning, and the Prime Minister in the
afternoon was received by the King. Ministers cancelled their week-end
engagements, and, just before the House rose, the Prime Minister stated
that the news from Germany indicated that she would follow Russia in
mobilisation. Next day the bank rate was advanced to 10 per cent.--its
highest point since the Overend-Gurney crisis in May, 1866; the Cabinet
met twice, and a conference was held between some of its members,
including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the financial situation;
and the King, as a last effort to preserve peace, sent a direct
personal telegram to the Tsar, offering mediation, which arrived,
however, after Germany had declared war on Russia.
Unwonted and varied excitement characterised Sunday, August 2.
Throughout the country prayers for the preservation of peace were
offered in the churches, in accordance with a suggestion made some
days earlier by the Archbishops, and also in Nonconformist places of
worship. In Trafalgar Square a "war protest meeting" organised by Mr.
Hyndman, Mr. Ben Tillett, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Barnes, M.P., and other
prominent representatives of Socialism or Labour, passed a resolution
calling on the Government to take every step to secure peace, and on
the workers of the world to use their industrial and political power
to avert war; but it was interrupted by a large dissentient element,
which, however, ultimately seceded peacefully and held a "patriotic"
meeting at the Admiralty Arch. During the day the Cabinet met twice,
and frequent informal conferences were held between Ministers; and it
was stated that the divisions of opinion previously existing among
them disappeared in the course of the day almost entirely. The King
held a Council at 4.30 P.M., and it was announced, first, that the
Government had taken control of all wireless telegraphy, next that a
"moratorium" of a month was established for certain bills of exchange;
and the Admiralty called out the Naval Reserves, including naval and
marine pensioners under the age of fifty-five, and the Royal Volunteer
Reserve. On the announcement of this last step, through the medium of
special late Sunday editions of various newspapers, a crowd of some
6,000 people marched up the Mall to Buckingham Palace, where it sang
the national anthems of Great Britain and France. The King and Queen
were called for, and came out to acknowledge the greetings of their
enthusiastic subjects.
Next morning London awoke to a new kind of Bank Holiday. The morning
papers announced the Germans' violation of the neutrality of Luxemburg
and their invasion of France and their ultimatum to Belgium; many of
the railway excursion arrangements had perforce been cancelled; and
the streets were thronged by disappointed excursionists, reinforced by
others who had come in from the country for further news. Miniature
British and French flags found a ready sale in the streets; special
editions were issued of the evening papers; crowds gathered outside
Buckingham Palace and Whitehall, impartially cheering Ministers and
Unionist leaders. In the City a conference of bankers and merchants
invited the Government to extend the Bank Holiday for three days
by proclamation; the House of Lords had been hastily summoned; but
interest centred in the Commons.
Here, indeed, as in the country, the attitude of a large section of
the Liberals was still uncertain. Many of them condemned all wars,
or almost all, as criminal; many more held that the Foreign Office
was prejudiced against Germany, and abhorred the notion of fighting
to preserve the balance of power in Europe, or to strengthen Russia,
reputed a far less civilised Power than Germany, and the historic foe
of the British Empire in India. Protests against any departure by Great
Britain from neutrality were specially noticeable in the _Manchester
Guardian_ and the _Daily News_; and manifestoes in a similar sense
were issued by various groups of important personages; the Bishops of
Lincoln and Hereford, the British Neutrality Committee, and others.
A group of learned men, chiefly belonging to Cambridge University,
declared that war against Germany in the interest of Russia and Servia
would be "a sin against civilisation"; and the _Labour Leader_ appealed
to "the organised workers" to demonstrate everywhere that the war must
be stopped. But these views were greatly modified, not only by the news
of German action in Luxemburg and Belgium, but by a statement published
on the Monday afternoon with the authority of the German Embassy,
intimating that, if Great Britain remained neutral, Germany would
undertake not to attack France in the north by sea, nor to make warlike
use of the Dutch or Belgian coasts. Thus, it was contended, Great
Britain, as a neutral, could aid France as well as by going to war.
This offer was felt to be ridiculous; and the conversion of the vast
majority of those Liberals who were still adverse to war was completed
by the speech delivered in the House of Commons by Sir Edward Grey. It
was described by Lord Lansdowne as "of rare courage," and _The Times_
declared that it would remain memorable in the history of the world.
The centre of interest lay in the Commons, and Sir Edward Grey's speech
practically served for both Houses. All questions to Ministers were
postponed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced, without
notice, a Postponement of Payments Bill, supplementing the Moratorium
proclamation (p. 169) by empowering the Government to declare a general
moratorium on occasion. By agreement, it was passed through all its
stages at once; indeed, but for a protest from Mr. McCallum Scott
(L., _Glasgow, Bridgeton_) it would not even have been read. The Bank
holiday was prolonged for three days; but the stoppage was not to
involve a general suspension of work and wages.
Then Sir Edward Grey spoke. He said that Ministers, then as always,
had worked for peace, but in vain. As to British obligations he had
told the Russian Foreign Minister in 1908 that he could promise no
more than diplomatic support, and in the existing crisis, till the
day before, he had promised nothing more. During the general election
of 1906, at the crisis which led to the Algeciras Conference, he had
been asked if, should a Franco-German war break out, Great Britain
would give armed support; he had replied that he could promise nothing
which would not be fully supported by public opinion, but, if war
were forced on France through the Anglo-French _entente_ regarding
Morocco, British public opinion would rally to her support. The French
Government had then suggested conversations on this support between
military and naval experts; and he had agreed, after consulting Sir
Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Lord Haldane, and Mr. Asquith--since he
could not, owing to the general election, consult the Cabinet--on
the understanding that such conversations should in no way bind
the Government. In the Agadir crisis he took the same line, and on
November 22, 1912, he exchanged letters with the French Ambassador
to this effect, but agreeing that if either Great Britain or France
had grave reason to expect an attack by a third Power or a menace
to the general peace, both Governments should consult whether they
should co-operate and what measures they should take in common. But
the British Government remained perfectly free to decide whether it
should intervene. In the Morocco question, however, it was pledged
to diplomatic support; in the existing crisis France was involved
because of its obligation of honour to Russia, which did not apply
to Great Britain, a Power which did not even know the terms of the
Franco-Russian alliance. But in view of the Anglo-French friendship,
let every man look into his own heart and construe the extent of the
British obligation for himself. In view of that friendship, the French
Fleet was concentrated in the Mediterranean, and if, in a war which
France had not sought, her unprotected coasts were bombarded, he felt
that Great Britain could not stand aside. And, from the point of view
of British interests, suppose the French Fleet withdrawn from the
Mediterranean and Italy involved in the war, Great Britain, if she now
stood aside, might be exposed to appalling risks. He had, therefore,
on the previous afternoon given the French Ambassador an authorised
assurance that, if a hostile German Fleet came into the Channel or
North Sea the British Government would give France all the assistance
in its power. He had just heard that the German Government would be
prepared, were Great Britain pledged to neutrality, to agree that
the German Fleet should not attack the northern coast of France (p.
170); but that was far too narrow an engagement. There was also the
question, hourly becoming more serious, of the neutrality of Belgium.
In 1870 Prince Bismarck had acknowledged the sanctity of the Treaty
of 1839, and the Government could not take a narrower view of its
obligations than Mr. Gladstone's Government took in 1870. He had asked
in the previous week the French and German Governments whether they
were prepared to respect that neutrality; and he quoted the replies:
France had promised to do so, Germany had delayed replying. Belgium
had promised neutrality. But Germany had sent Belgium an ultimatum;
and the British Government had been asked in the past week whether an
assurance would satisfy it that Belgian integrity would be preserved
after the war. It had replied refusing to barter away its interests or
obligations in Belgian neutrality. The King of the Belgians had that
day telegraphed to King George, appealing to the British Government to
safeguard the integrity of Belgium. Great Britain had great and vital
interests in the independence of Belgium, and integrity was the least
part of that independence. Compliance with the ultimatum would be fatal
to that independence, and that of Holland would then perish also. If
Great Britain stood aside, ran away from her obligations, and merely
intervened at the end of the war, her material force would be of little
value, in view of the respect she would have lost. She would suffer
terribly in the war in any case, but if she stood aside, she would be
in no position after it to prevent Europe falling under the domination
of one Power, and her moral position would be such as to have lost
her all respect. The Fleet was mobilised, the Army was mobilising,
but no engagement had yet been taken to send abroad an Expeditionary
Force. The one bright spot was Ireland. The feeling there made the
Irish question a consideration that need not be taken into account.
Unconditional neutrality was precluded by the commitment to France and
the consideration of Belgium. To stand aside would be to sacrifice the
good name of Great Britain without escaping the most serious economic
consequences. The forces of the Crown were never more ready or more
efficient; the Government had worked for peace to the last moment, and
beyond it; when the country realised the situation, they would have its
united support.
Mr. Bonar Law promised emphatically the full and unhesitating support
of the Opposition, mentioning also, as another bright spot, the
certainty of that of the Dominions. Mr. John Redmond, in a speech that
made a profound sensation, declared that the events of recent years
had completely altered the Nationalist feeling towards Great Britain.
He recalled the support given by Catholics to the Irish Volunteers in
the eighteenth century, and said that the Government might withdraw
all its troops from Ireland: her coasts would be defended by her armed
sons, and the Nationalist Volunteers would gladly join in doing so with
their brethren of the north. Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab.) contended that
the Foreign Minister had not shown that the country was in danger,
the Crimean and South African Wars were fought on the plea of British
honour; and the conflict could not be confined to the neutrality of
Belgium. The Labour party wanted to know what would happen to Russia,
and the annihilation of France was impossible. He admitted that the
feeling of the House was against his followers, but they held that
Great Britain should have remained neutral.
The sitting was suspended till 7 P.M., when the Royal Assent was given
to the Postponement of Payments Bill, and the debate was continued
discursively, several Liberal and Labour members condemning, and others
supporting, the course taken by the Government. Eventually Mr. Balfour
pointed out that all this was "the mere dregs and lees of the debate,"
and would be misunderstood abroad as representing the opinion of the
House. He urged that it should be ended, and after a few words of
protest from Colonel Seely (L.) the advice was taken.
Next day the proceedings in the Commons commenced with a momentous
statement by the Prime Minister, embodying the earlier telegrams in
the series, of which the substance is given below; the outstanding
Votes in Supply were then passed, and a Message was read from the King
announcing the Proclamation calling out the Army Reserve and embodying
the Territorial Force; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined
the scheme of the Government for insurance against war risks, so as
to secure the continuance of overseas trade. It had been devised by an
expert sub-committee of the Imperial Defence Committee, and conditions
in the shipping trade had changed since such insurance had been
discountenanced by an expert Committee in 1908. Details cannot here be
given; but, substantially, the State took 80 per cent. of the risks on
vessels trading oversea (which were mainly insured through three great
mutual societies) and received 80 per cent. of the premiums, charging
no premium on vessels on a voyage on the outbreak of war, and allowing
the cancellation of a policy if a voyage were delayed by the Admiralty.
For cargoes a State Bureau was opened, to insure cargoes despatched
after the outbreak of war. A flat rate was to be charged, subject to
certain variations from time to time, and a strong Advisory Board
established. Mr. Austen Chamberlain (U.) and Mr. A. Henderson (Lab.)
approved the scheme, the latter urging the Government to consider the
organisation of distribution; but here, as it proved, there was no need
for alarm.
Meanwhile the Government prepared actively for war in other ways.
It assumed the control of the railways, vesting it in a Committee
of General Managers under the Board of Trade; it took over the two
_Dreadnoughts_ completed and nearly completed in Great Britain for
Turkey, and the two destroyer leaders building for Chile; Field-Marshal
Sir John French was appointed Inspector-General of the Forces, and it
was understood that he was to command the Expeditionary Force; and
Admiral Sir John Jellicoe was appointed to the supreme command of the
Home Fleets, with Rear-Admiral C. E. Madden as his Chief of Staff. The
King, too, issued a Message to the Overseas Dominions expressing the
"appreciation and pride" with which he had received the Messages from
their respective Governments. "These spontaneous assurances of their
fullest-support," the Message continued, "recall to me the generous,
self-sacrificing help given by them in the past to the Mother Country.
I shall be strengthened in the discharge of the great responsibility
which rests upon me by the confident belief that, in this time of
trial, my Empire will stand united, calm, resolute, trusting in God."
In the country generally the action of Germany and Sir Edward Grey's
statement had driven the great mass of the Liberal and Labour parties
to agree that war was inevitable and just. In the Ministry some
members were still unconvinced. On Monday, August 3, four members of
the Cabinet, it was said, still advocated peace; by next day there
were but two, Lord Morley of Blackburn, Lord President of the Council,
and Mr. John Burns, President of the Board of Trade. They, however,
resigned office; but it was stated that they had decided to do so
independently and at different stages of the controversy, and largely
to avoid hampering the freedom of the Cabinet in a great emergency.
Their example was followed by Mr. Charles Trevelyan (_Yorks_, _W.R._,
_Elland_), the Secretary of the Board of Education. These three were
replaced respectively by Earl Beauchamp, Mr. Runciman, and Dr. Addison.