directly or indirectly, consented to devolution for Ireland. To Nationalist cries of "Where are the letters?" he replied emphatically that he had never either by letter or in conversation ever said he was in favour of devolution. If the Government Bill was to be a step towards Home Rule, why make two bites. of a cherry? This extension of the controversy must lead to loss of precious time, and it was strange that it should be contemplated by politicians like Mr. Masterman, who desired social reforms.

Mr. Birrell wound up the debate for the Government. He thought the country would regard the question of the Lords as a matter of fairplay. If the House of Lords were uniformly critical, composed of men like Lord Courtney of Penwith, there would be much to be said for it, but every one knew it had ceased to play the part of an intelligent second Chamber. Under present conditions, the Liberals could only pass their measures at the point of a revolution. That would mean that for them Parliaments would always be annual, but for the Tories septennial. As to the postponement of social reforms, his own Irish Bills were of that character. He declined to disclose the details of his legislation, but of course the Opposition would call it a step towards Home Rule.

The amendment was rejected by 374 votes to 111. Next day the debate on Colonial preference began. The amendment, moved by an unofficial member, Mr. Hills (Durham), expressed regret at the omission in the Royal Speech of any reference to the Colonial Conference and to the opportunity it offered for promoting Free Trade within the Empire and closer commercial relations with the Colonies on a preferential basis. The mover argued that the demand for preference had arisen out of the national needs of the Colonies, since foreign tariffs were being raised against them. The result was a Colonial commercial federation from which we stood aside. There was a strong case for reduction of our tariff, which was higher per head of population than in any other country-and by reducing it to our Colonies we could get great advantages in exchange. We could grant a large measure of preference to them without departing from the principle of Free Trade. If a preference were given to Canada by putting a tax on food, it did not follow that the price of the commodity would go up. It would not if the untaxed supply was larger than the taxed, and we could get all the wheat we wanted inside our Empire. Mr. Cecil (Aston Manor) seconded the amendment, describing himself as a Free Trader in theory and a Tariff Reformer in practice.

Sir Charles Dilke (Forest of Dean, Glouc) commented on the moderation of the mover and seconder. Meat had hardly been alluded to, and as to wheat they had had a half-hearted hope that India, Canada and Australia could supply our wants. But we could not dispense with the Argentine supply. There

was small opportunity for treating India preferentially, nor could anything be offered to Australia. India must not be forgotten at this conference, as she was at the last, and he trusted that as much attention would be given to her voice as to that of the Colonies. Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Leicester), who had just visited Australia, remarked that there was a tendency there to assert a first claim on native raw material for the Colony's own manufacturers, and to reduce imports to the narrowest possible compass. Thus the margin for preference was becoming small and might disappear altogether. The fact was, in the Colonies the cry of Imperial trade was largely a party cry. After other speeches, Mr. Collings (Bordesley, Birmingham) protested against treating our system of trade as a party question. He contested the view that the question had been thrashed out at the general election. The most successful members of the Unionist party then had been the strongest Tariff Reformers. In "the hungry forties" milk, pork, mutton and other articles of food were cheaper than they had been since. It was a Labour question, and on it the Labour members were unconsciously the enemies of their class.

Later, an attack which caused some sensation and much amusement, was made by Mr. Rowland Hunt (Ludlow, Shropshire), a Unionist, on Mr. Balfour, as the "heaviest drag on the wheel" of Tariff Reform. Mr. Hunt regretted that his leader had not yet announced a definite and intelligible fiscal policy, and entreated him to "come down from the Olympian heights of philosophy and golf." It was understood that for some time afterwards Mr. Hunt was ignored by the Unionist whips.

Mr. Bonar Law (Dulwich, Camberwell) explained that the proposed corn duty was to be regarded simply in relation to what we might get in exchange. Preference would obtain an outlet for our manufactures, and so lead to more employment at home. We could only look for an adequate market in undeveloped countries, and practically only in our Colonies. We could not keep that market without preference. He warned the House that if Canada were repelled she would be tempted to make a reciprocity treaty with the United States.

Mr. Winston Churchill (Manchester, N.W.) contrasted Mr. Law's full-blooded Protectionism with the "hypodermic syringe" of the mover and seconder. He denied emphatically that it was difficult to secure outlets for British goods; and, having repudiated any intention on the part of the Government to treat the Colonial Conference with disrespect or levity, he declared that the amendment was a marked advance on Mr. Balfour's "Valentine letter" of 1906. It was impossible to give an effective preference to the Colonies unless food were taxed, and Mr. Chamberlain had realised it. But the Government opposed Colonial preference on political as well as on economical grounds. To base an Empire on taxes on food would rouse antagonism to the Colonies among the working classes at home.

The debate was then adjourned till the next day (Feb. 20), when, after a motion to suspend the eleven o'clock rule had been carried by 348 to 100, Mr. Balfour supported the amendment. His speech was intently followed by an interested and curious House. He began by attaching Mr. Churchill's description of Mr. Bonar Law's speech as a "full-blooded Protectonist deliverance," intimating that the Colonial Under-Secretary had composed his speech to meet different arguments from those actually used, and that "his artillery was deficient in mobility." He then went on to complain that the Government had made no attempt to deal with the great national issue raised by the amendment of promoting the strength and unity of the Empire. We could not set up either a Central Council or an Imperial Zollverein, in any true sense of the term; but the problem could be solved by encouraging mutual service within the Empire and fostering the consciousness that every part of it was part of a greater whole. Hence the Colonial demand for mutual preference: the Government ought to keep an open mind on it, but they refused even to discuss the methods of its application. The Colonies desired a beginning of Imperial preference with our present fiscal system: but he believed that financial pressure alone would compel us to broaden the basis of taxation, whereby we should gain admittance to foreign markets and meet the needs of the poorer classes. If we now ruled out the question of Colonial preference, the Colonies' desire to assist us would be atrophied.

This speech was not enthusiastically received by the Unionists, and Mr. Rufus Isaacs, the Liberal member for Reading, who followed Mr. Balfour, challenged him to say whether he was in favour of Mr. Chamberlain's policy and of Colonial preference based on the taxation of food. There was, however, no answer, and Mr. Swift MacNeill, amid laughter, ejaculated "The oracle is silent." Mr. Isaacs went on to illustrate the difficulties of giving preference under the existing tariff. Sir Gilbert Parker (Gravesend), who said he had been converted from Free Trade views by writing leading articles on them for a Melbourne paper, ridiculed the idea that Australia would put export duties on raw material, and suggested that preference might be given on her corn and dairy produce.

Mr. Lloyd-George (Carnarvon District), who summed up for the Government, said Sir Gilbert Parker's first task was to convert his own leader. That, indeed, was the chief object of the debate, and he congratulated Mr. Balfour on his ingenuity in eluding the snares set by the fowlers round him. Mr. Fisher, the Canadian Minister of Agriculture, had said that the Canadian farmers wanted no preference in the English markets. Canadian preference had been of advantage to us, but of still greater advantage to Canada. We now bought 92 per cent. of her wheat and practically all the cheese she exported. How could a preferential tariff improve that state of things for Canada? It was inad

visable to risk injuring our vast trade with foreign countriesnotably with Argentina, the United States and Russia, who sent us 70 per cent. of our wheat-in the hope of securing some fair share of the thirty millions sterling annually of additional trade which Mr. Chamberlain had estimated would result from Colonial preference. Canada, Australia and New Zealand were thriving; why should we burden ourselves to encourage them?

Mr. Austen Chamberlain (Worcestershire, E.) charged Mr. Lloyd-George with inexcusable ignorance of Colonial opinion and sentiment. In the neutral markets we were only holding our own, in the Protected markets we were going back, and we could only look to the Colonial markets to make good the loss. If preference could not be established on a large scale, let it be granted on a limited scale, to gratify Colonial sentiment. We could not have any broad-based system without new Customs duties, some on food, but with redistributed taxation this need not increase the burdens of the poor. Cheapness was not the most important thing for the working classes.

On a division the amendment was rejected by 353 to 98, almost all the Unionist Free Traders abstaining.

Mr. Thorne (West Ham, S.) and Mr. O'Grady (Leeds, E.), two Labour members, then moved and seconded an amendment regretting the absence from the Speech of any proposal for dealing with unemployment, although 5 per cent. of the most highly skilled artisans were out of work and the Unemployed Act had proved inadequate. The mover suggested an eight hours' day all round as a remedy; and other members suggested migration rather than emigration, afforestation, and exceptional and extra methods of labour, while generally declaring also that the matter could not be dealt with by mere local effort or on a charitable basis. Mr. Burns, replying for the Government, dealt less with the administrative points raised than the general question. Whatever the sum allotted the mover had mentioned five millions as hardly enough to solve the problem-they must be careful as trade unionists and citizens to see that the money was not used by employers, like relief under the old poor law, as a bonus in favour of low wages. After explaining the aid given to various districts, he denied that the cycle of good trade was passing away. The building trade, however, in which there was much unemployment, was altering in its conditions and had become overcrowded. No friend of State labour would organise it on relief lines, but they should encourage improvements which would develop new industries and give more employment. He mentioned some cases in which regular industries were being unfairly competed with by charitable agencies. As to Tariff Reform, the percentage of unemployment was higher in Protected countries than here. As to amending the Act, the Government stood by their statement of last year. They were not going to add another link to a pauperising chain, and he urged the

[FEB. withdrawal of the amendment. Mr. Long (Dublin, S.) congratulated Mr. Burns on his courage and outspokenness. Mr. Keir Hardie (Merthyr Tydfil) criticised unfavourably the action of the Local Government Board; and after other speeches the debate was closured, the amendment rejected by 207 to 47, and the Address agreed to. A great number of other amendments had been put down, but several of them had been rendered otiose by the introduction of Bills, and one, dealing with the Passive Resisters' grievance, by the promise, as it was believed, of a Ministerial measure. The fiscal debate had helped to crowd

them out.

Meanwhile the House of Lords, having disposed of the Address, had again been employing its leisure in eliciting and criticising official information. On Monday, February 18, Lord Lovat had put questions to the First Lord of the Admiralty in order to ascertain whether the Home Fleet, with its nucleus crews, was adequate to protect the British Isles from sudden invasion-a contingency made familiar to the public by a recent work of prophetic fiction. In reply, Lord Tweedmouth gave particulars showing that at the mobilisation of 1906 the battleships with nucleus crews were ready to leave within from three to six hours of the receipt of the order to mobilise. Lord Lovat, however, was not satisfied, and asked the Under-Secretary for War whether the Government still held to the statement that no invasion was possible beyond a mere raid of 10,000 men. Earl Roberts intervened with a warning that we could not trust for defence to the Navy alone, and added that the blindness of the British public filled him with despair. The Earl of Portsmouth, in reply, referred the House to Mr. Balfour's speech as chairman of the Imperial Defence Committee (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1905, p. 157 seq.); mentioning, however, that the facts and figures on which it was based were confidential. The whole subject of sudden attack had been carefully considered, and the services were in perfect accord as to the means of defence. We ought not, however, to assume that nations friendly towards us would be guilty of the treachery implied by a sudden attack. The Marquess of Lansdowne remarked that cases of international tension might arise and develop rapidly, so that the possibility of a surprise must not be overlooked. Lord Tweedmouth agreed, but said that the hypothesis of a surprise depended on the fulfilment of a series of utterly improbable conditions. The existing outlook was fully pacific, and Great Britain was prepared to defend herself on sea and land alike. On the following day Lord Harris asked for an explanation of the cabling to Johannesburg of the speech of the Under-Secretary of the Colonies on December 18 (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1906, p. 246), declaring that it had exhibited animus against the Witwatersrand Labour Association, and might have influenced the pending elections. The Earl of Elgin replied that it was thought best to telegraph the absolute words of Ministers in response to requests for more