of the Air Ministry's work, and he thought the common sense of the British people would react against such animus. A separate Ministry was less costly than expenditure spread over the other two Services. There was undoubtedly, he said, a great potential menace from the air, and they could confidently rely that in the next war the air would play a much greater part than it did in the last war. Raiding on a much larger scale would take place. Personally he refused to believe that there was a menace from France. It was neither just, generous, nor statesmanlike to put up comparisons of air strength with a country beside whose soldiers our soldiers had fought, and in which so many of the people of this country died. The whole subject of the reassessment of air power was being considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence, and they might hope that they would come to a decision in a few days whether more funds and more squadrons should be brought into existence. The total number of machines with the Navy was 358, and with the Army 111, and in addition there were 60 as first reserve, and 6 more available for field training. The question of how best to secure co-operation between the Air Force and the Army and Navy was also under consideration of the Committee of Imperial Defence. He pointed out, however, that there were more squadrons allotted for co-operation with the Navy than there were for independent work. The Government had taken a definite decision in regard to the Air Ministry from which they had no intention of departing. The Government believed that to abolish the Air Ministry would be a retrograde step. The policy of the Ministry had been to build up the nucleus of a very efficient organisation which would be capable of extension when the time for reconsideration came.

The progress made in wireless telegraphy gave considerable importance to the question of the broadcasting of messages throughout the country. The Government had granted to a combine the right of broadcasting for a period of two years, with the condition that the apparatus to be used for the transmission or the reception of messages must be of British manufacture. This action caused a protest from Captain Wedgwood Benn in the House of Commons on July 28. He took the view that broadcasting would be a supplement to the newspapers, and would be the biggest development in the dissemination of information since the invention of the printing press. It was not right that the development of this great invention in this country should be left in the hands of a combine. In the sale of its receiving instruments it would be free from foreign competition. What arrangements, he asked, had the Postmaster-General made for the copyright of messages?

Mr. Kellaway contended that there was no monopoly under the scheme. Every one of the manufacturers of apparatus could become a member of the broadcasting company. The Post Office had been pressed to undertake the work itself and

had declined. He said that the Post Office had neither the audacity nor the ingenuity to perfect new inventions, and if it had agreed to carry on the work loud objection would have been taken to any proposal for buying German or American instruments. He said that we had to keep this new form of communication in this country in the hands of our own people. Whether in the matter of broadcasting or reception, our manufacturers had a technical skill and capacity in production equal to any in the world. He stated that he was advised that in the two years 6,000,000l. would be spent in the purchase of receiving apparatus and broadcasting stations, and of that sum 80 per cent. would go in wages. To have German or other foreign firms controlling the communications of this country was unthinkable; we could look after our own communications. He asserted that an attempt had been made to score political capital in the interests of free trade, but it had met with no response in the country.

At the end of July Lord Grey of Fallodon made a speech at Newcastle dealing with the policy of the Government at home and abroad. Referring to unemployment, he said that the only real remedy was better trade. The one thing on which any Government ought to concentrate, as far as its home policy was concerned, was to take the burden of taxation off the springs of industry by reducing unnecessary and wasteful expenditure. Dealing with our foreign policy, he said that if an agreement with the Bolshevists meant approaching the European question from the wrong end, in his opinion the right end from which to approach that question was by beginning with the question of reparations, but it would be a vital mistake if the French and British Governments attempted to discuss the question of reparations without also discussing the question of inter-Allied debts. As to maintaining peace, Lord Grey said that the main thing in the minds of the French at the Peace Conference was security for the future. If peace was to be secured for the future there should be a pact, but not exclusive, beginning with France, securing France against aggression, but in a form in which other nations could join. It was not enough to assure France of security against German aggression; they must also assure Germany, if Germany fulfilled her Treaty obligations, that she too would be secure against aggression from outside.

On the last day of July an important debate took place in the House of Commons on a motion to exclude fabric gloves and glove fabric from an order under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. This order, which the Board of Trade proposed to make, required the approval of the House. If this approval was given it was to come into force on August 8.

In the course of the debate Mr. Asquith denounced the policy of the Government in applying the Safeguarding of Industries Act to fabric gloves and other articles. He described this policy as little short of political and fiscal insanity, and

claimed that no case had been made out for this petty and disastrous interference with the free course of trade. Mr. Bonar Law, on the other hand, supported the order, referring to Mr. Asquith as one of those people who regarded the fiscal question as a religion. He claimed that the Government was simply carrying out the pledge that had been given at the Paris Economic Conference. The present proposal appeared to him to be of small importance; it had only assumed greater importance by the opposition of Lancashire. If Germany intended to increase the number of her fine spinners, he said, we should not stop her by this small duty, and however small this industry was it would be a certain market for Lancashire yarn. if it could be kept here.

Mr. Baldwin, President of the Board of Trade, then pointed out that the Safeguarding of Industries Act was already on the Statute Book, and necessitated orders being made. Admitting that there had been no importation of goods affecting the great staple industries of the country which had caused them to seek assistance of the Act, he said that there had been importation of goods of other kinds which had caused anxiety among manufacturers. No fewer than 120 trades had made preliminary inquiries at the Board of Trade, but a large number of these applications had not proceeded further. Of the cases which had proceeded further, and been subjects for investigation, 23 were rejected. There were 12 cases in which further information was awaited and 15 had been referred to committees. Of the latter 4 appeared in the order now before the House; 4 were adversely reported on by the committees, and 7 had not yet been reported upon. He denied that he desired as a protectionist to tax fabric gloves. In this industry employment had shown very wholesome improvement, but this was not sufficient to relieve it from the category in which it was placed by the Committee as one in which there existed serious unemployment. The Lancashire case in regard to fabric gloves, he said, was the weakest he had ever read. He had a conviction that in three months time all Lancashire except politicians would have forgotten that there ever was such a thing as fabric gloves.

Sir Henry Norman, who moved an amendment to exclude fabric gloves and glove fabric from the Act, declared that Lancashire was thoroughly aroused. If Germany was to be able to pay reparations and return to industrial prosperity she must send something abroad. To tell her we would only allow her to sell what she could not sell in competition with our own. factories was the logic of protection and the canonisation of inefficiency. Sir Ryland Adkins, who seconded the amendment, declared that the Government by this order were flouting the judgment and knowledge of the most important part of the country. Colonel Hurst said that the Lancashire Conservative members regarded themselves as pledged to protect British industries against dumping, and they would not be deflected

in their duty by a passing local outcry. Captain Ainsworth, another Lancashire Unionist member, said he voted against the Act and should vote against the order. Mr. Greenwood claimed that it was not true to say that the whole of the industry was against the order. He said that the agitation started in letters from German agents saying that if this duty were imposed they would not be able to do any business. At the end of the debate a division took place and the Government obtained a majority of 164. Among those who voted against the Government was Sir William Edge, one of the CoalitionLiberal Whips. Sir William Edge was member for Bolton, the origin of an agitation which had delayed the presentation of the draft order to Parliament for nearly six months. His opposition to the policy of the Government in enforcing the order led to his resignation on the day on which the debate took place in order that he might be free to vote against the Government.

On August 1 Mr. Horatio Bottomley, member for Hackney, was expelled from the House of Commons. He had been convicted, during May, of fraudulent conversion of funds entrusted to him, and sentenced to seven years penal servitude. On July 25 a motion was agreed to in the House of Commons that Mr. Bottomley should be brought from Wormwood Scrubs Prison to the House of Commons to defend himself if he desired to do So. It was stated that he did wish to attend the proceedings, but it was considered advisable, on medical grounds, that he should not leave the prison hospital. The proceedings in the House were short. After the official communication to the House of Mr. Bottomley's conviction, Mr. Chamberlain moved that he be expelled the House, and the motion was passed without comment except for a short speech by Colonel John Ward, who said that he could not allow him to be expelled without at least expressing his personal regret at the necessity. A long letter was read from Mr. Bottomley himself, in which he emphasised his love of the House and his regret that he had brought a slur upon it.

The second reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill was taken by the House of Commons on August 2, when Sir S. Hoare raised the question of the present position and prospects of the Indian Civil Service. Sir W. Joynson-Hicks declared that the Indianisation of the British Services in India was proceeding apace, and that under present arrangements it was proposed that 48 per cent. of the Civil Service should be Indianised. Our offices in India had now to work in very difficult circumstances. Mr. Lloyd George said that, while it was true that the co-operation of Indians had been invited in all the public services, the Government had no intention of interfering with, or crippling in any way, the functions and privileges of the British Civil Service.

During August the Government were greatly occupied with the problem of reparations and of inter-Allied indebtedness.

On the latter point hopes had been expressed in France that Great Britain would agree to the cancellation of the large war debt owed by France. The attitude taken up by the Government on this matter was made clear by a Note which Lord Balfour addressed to the French Ambassador and to the diplomatic representatives of Italy and other States in Europe. This Note pointed out that the war debts, exclusive of interest, due to Great Britain, amounted in the aggregate to about 3,400,000,000. On the other hand, Great Britain owed the United States about a quarter of this sum, that is to say, about 850,000,000l., together with interest accrued since 1919. The Note then went on to declare that the British Government could not consider the cancellation of the debts owed to Great Britain independently of the question of the British debt to the United States.

The whole question was discussed in the House of Commons on August 3 on the motion for the third reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who initiated the debate, gave an account of the payments which had been made by Germany since the Armistice. These were as follows:

Of the total of 415,000,000l. Britain had obtained 56,000,000l., but practically the whole of this had been spent on the Armies of Occupation. The cost of the British Army of Occupation at the present time was not, however, more than 2,000,000l. a year.

Turning to inter-Allied indebtedness, the Chancellor said he wished to make it clear beyond all possibility of misapprehension that this country realised and recognised to the full our obligations to pay our war debt to the United States, and that we did not mean, in any shape or form, to evade that obligation. The foundation of Lord Balfour's Note was the payment of our debt to the United States. We had never been blind, he said, to the colossal burden imposed upon the nations of the world by the indebtedness of one nation to another, and the Government held the view that there was no greater impediment to the recovery of the world than the existence of that debt. To get rid of this indebtedness would be to give a new impetus to world reconstruction. We could not expect to

stand alone, however; we had got a burden of debt as a result of sacrifices in the war greater than that of any other nation. Our debt of 7,766,000,000l. compared with a debt of 5,147,000,000%. in the United States, and 6,340,000,000l. in France. Our debt was 1817. per head of the population as compared with 1637. in the case of France, and 471. in the case of the United States.