In the House of Lords, the Address in response to the Speech from the Throne having been moved by the Marquess of Winchester, and seconded by Lord Oranmore and Browne, who welcomed the announcement of Redistribution proposals as "good tidings to every loyal man in Ireland," Earl Spencer opened the Parliamentary year on the part of the Opposition. In the course of his speech he complimented Lord Lansdowne on the prudence and patience which he had displayed in dealing with the difficult questions arising out of the war, but urged that pressure should be put on the Turkish Government by this country, in concert with other Powers, to bring to an end the scandals which still prevailed in Macedonia. He pressed for more information as to self-government in South Africa, asked why no mention was made of the Orange Free State, and further required more information as to finance and Chinese labour. Dealing with Tibet, he warmly supported the attitude taken up by the Secretary for India, though he admitted that Sir Frank Younghusband had been rather hardly dealt with, the Government of India, which wanted to do a great deal more than the Home Government did, and which directly instructed him, being to blame, if anybody was, rather than he. As to Afghanistan, he asked that at the earliest day possible full papers should be laid before them as to what was going on there. He criticised the gigantic expenditure of recent years in a time of peace, and twitted the Government with rushing Army schemes one after the other, only to be torn to ribbons. Radical changes had been made in the Auxiliary Forces, but as to this they had no information. He denied that, as had been alleged by Ministerial speakers in the country, it was the Opposition which defeated the Aliens Bill; it was the Government who rejected a fair compromise. As to the announced Redistribution Bill, while not at all opposed to a just and comprehensive treatment of that subject, Lord Spencer stated that he should oppose the introduction of a measure which would have the effect of postponing the indispensable appeal to the people on the momentous fiscal question.

The Marquess of Lansdowne followed. Referring to a hope expressed on the subject by Lord Spencer, he declared that if an opportunity presented itself to bring the war in the Far East to a close the Government would avail themselves of it with alacrity, but intervention might be fraught not only with rebuffs, but with the worst possible results. This country, the Foreign Secretary said, had adopted an attitude of the most impartial neutrality. They had endeavoured also to uphold the time-honoured policy of the country to reduce contraband to the narrowest possible restrictions; and since July, 1904, no British vessels had been interfered with, with the exception of those engaged in blockade running. There was only one occasion when they were in danger of being drawn into the vortex of war-he referred to the North Sea incident, on which, as being

under the consideration of an International Commission, he could not dilate. Dealing in some detail with the state of Macedonia, he remarked that it was satisfactory to know that there was an agreement among the Powers in favour of the introduction of wider and stronger reforms, especially in the financial sphere. A new reform scheme going far beyond anything they had yet propounded had been put forward by Russia and Austria. On this project His Majesty's Government would exercise full freedom of criticism and suggestion, which, they were assured, would not be taken amiss. To South Africa, the Foreign Secretary referred only briefly. He understood that the proposals for representative institutions in the Transvaal being only tentative, it was deemed advisable to limit them in the first instance to that Colony. He added that sinister prophecies as to Chinese labour had not been and were not likely to be realised. As to Tibet, Lord Lansdowne observed that Sir Frank Younghusband had frankly admitted that his action was not covered by his instructions, but, long after the censure which they had been obliged to pass upon him had been forgotten, he believed the memory of the great feat of arms and diplomacy which he and those with him had achieved would live. As to Afghanistan, negotiations were still in progress.

Replying to Lord Spencer's remarks on military affairs, Lord Lansdowne said that the War Secretary had achieved a great deal in reforming the War Office, and not a moment had been lost. Having pointed out the importance of the aliens question and dwelt on the unemployed problem, Lord Lansdowne referred to Redistribution in terms which at once reduced very largely the significance of the announcement in the King's Speech. He said that he was under the impression that it was physically impossible" to pass a Bill on that subject in the session just opened. "I understand," he said, we shall act on the lines usually followed in cases of this kind, and these lines will, of course, presuppose the possibility of His Majesty's Government passing a Redistribution Bill next year.'

66

66

After an intimation from Lord Goschen that the fiscal "inquest of the nation" must be continued in both Houses, the Address was agreed to.

To the proceedings at the opening sitting of the House of Commons a little variety was imparted by a motion by Mr. Dalziel (Kirkcaldy Burghs), to declare that the new Lord Alington had been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House in sending a letter to his tenants in North Dorset desiring them to vote for the Conservative candidate, Sir Randolf Baker, for the seat which he himself had just vacated. This proposal was, no doubt, strictly in accord with the Sessional Order of the House against interference by Peers in Parliamentary elections. That Order had for many years been ineffectually opposed by the late Mr. James Lowther, and was on this occasion resisted by Sir Wilfrid Lawson (Camborne, Cornwall), as being, unless

Lord Alington was to be dealt with, a greater sham than ever. It was, however, confirmed at Mr. Balfour's instance by 345 votes to 65. In reply to Mr. Dalziel, the Prime Minister, following the example of Sir W. Harcourt, when, on a similar occasion, Lord Rosebery had been attacked for making a speech while an election was in progress, moved the previous question, pointing out that there was nothing that the House of Commons could do to enforce its Order, which, however, served as a generally effectual indication of its view; and the previous question was carried by 287 to 191.

The Address was then moved by Mr. Mount (Newbury, Berks), and seconded by Mr. S. Roberts (Ecclesall, Sheffield). Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman (Stirling Burghs), after paying a tribute to the memory of Sir William Harcourt, whom he thought he would not be wrong in describing as "the most conspicuous and illustrious of our number, and a fine example (the last, I fear, that lingered among us) of the grand old Parliamentary type of statesmen," plunged into a general attack on the Government, which ranged over the unnecessarily late meeting of Parliament, the obscurity continuing to veil the Prime Minister's fiscal policy, the unconstitutional clinging of the Government to office in spite of the demonstrated disapproval of the country, the Prime Minister's rapid conversion to the necessity of a Colonial Conference on the fiscal question, and the "express image" presented by the working of the Sugar Convention of the policies of both Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain. On foreign affairs, Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman spoke in much the same strain as Lord Spencer. He asked various questions as to Chinese labour in the Transvaal. Were the Government satisfied with its effects on the general peace, security and morality of the country? Were there to be any limits to the numbers imported or to the duration of the system? As to the legislative programme of the Government generally, it was "plainly intended for show rather than for work."

After speeches by a few Members, including Sir Howard Vincent (Sheffield, Central), who threw on the Opposition the blame for the fact that the aliens question had not been long ago dealt with; Sir J. Gorst (Cambridge University), who dwelt upon the great national importance of the Report on Physical Deterioration (see ANNUAL REGISTER for 1904, p. 195), which found no mention in the King's Speech; and Mr. Gibson Bowles (King's Lynn), who declaimed against Mr. Chamberlain's religion of preference and protection, Mr. Balfour (Manchester, E.), First Lord of the Treasury, rose. He joined cordially in the tribute to Sir William Harcourt-"one of the greatest Parliamentary figures that we have known in our experience"; a vigorous controversialist" who "never allowed party differences to mar the perfection of personal friendship"-and then turned to deal with the Opposition leader's interrogatories. Certainly it was the policy of the Government to maintain, and

if possible to develop, friendly relations with Afghanistan. With regard to Chinese labour, the experiment was being carefully watched, and if it should be found that the immigration of coolies was having evil results, it would not be extended. White labour in the industries connected with the mines, Mr. Balfour observed, had increased, as had Kaffir labour, since the importation of the Chinese. He defended the Government against the charge that they had deferred calling Parliament together to a late date, showing that there was nothing abnormal in a meeting on February 14, and expressing the opinion that a vast majority of the House would have voted for that date if they had been asked to do so. He vindicated the policy of the Government in regard to the sugar bounties and twitted the Opposition with entertaining views on that subject which were irreconcilable with the doctrines of free trade.

The Prime Minister then ridiculed the contention that the Government ought to go to the country, pointing out that it was still quite strong enough to be effective. The results of the bye-elections could be disregarded without any infraction of constitutional principle. Mr. Gladstone, he reminded the Opposition, affirmed, in a letter to Lord Granville, that to resign simply because bye-elections were unfavourable to a Government would be to create a bad precedent. In the course of both his first two Administrations he lost more seats at bye-elections than the present Unionist Government had lost; but he did not resign on that account. It was for the House of Commons alone to decide whether or not a Government should continue to exist as an efficient instrument for legislation. The argument employed by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, that the constituencies' mandate to the Government was confined to the narrow question of the Transvaal war was an afterthought on the part of the Opposition, and he quoted from speeches of Opposition leaders to show that in the first period of the Government's tenure of office it was contemplated on all sides that it would legislate in the ordinary way. The pretence that the Government was acting unconstitutionally was absurd. Defending his position in regard to the fiscal question, he declared that he had tried honestly to state his policy. Had the Opposition honestly tried to explain theirs? As yet the country did not know what they would do in the matter of education, or of licensing, or of Chinese labour, or even of Home Rule. As long as they kept the country in the dark on these and other questions, they surely had small right to catechise the Government further as to their action in a possible future Parliament.

This preliminary skirmish over, battle was joined on the following day (Feb. 15) on an amendment to the Address, setting forth that as the various aspects of the fiscal question had been discussed in the country for nearly two years, the time had come for submitting the issue to the people without further delay. In moving this amendment, Mr. Asquith incidentally

called attention (as Mr. Morley had done by interruption in the course of Mr. Balfour's speech on the previous day) to the fact that in a letter to Queen Victoria, in 1874, Mr. Gladstone had represented that the increasing weakness of the existing Government, owing to adverse bye-elections, made it advisable to appeal to the country. Adverting to the Prime Minister's surprise that any one could entertain doubts as to the nature of his fiscal policy, he asked whether Mr. Balfour agreed with the Member for West Birmingham, that there was no difference in principle between their policies. That question admitted of a monosyllabic answer. (Mr. Balfour remaining silent, there were loud cries of "Answer" from the Opposition.) Proceeding, Mr. Asquith invited enlightenment on the position of those members of the Ministerial party whom he would call "pure Balfourians," and he asked for information as to what was meant exactly by the doctrine of retaliation. Turning to the proposal for a Colonial Conference, he held that the country ought to be told whether our representatives would be empowered to entertain a scheme involving the taxation of food. The idea that this controversy could be allowed to go on simmering indefinitely was untenable. The real issue before the country was as between preference and non-preference, between the taxation and the free admission of corn and flour and meat; and the people should be allowed to decide it.

In reply, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after reminding Mr. Asquith of Mr. Gladstone's earlier opinion, quoted by Mr. Balfour on the previous evening, called attention to the fact that his speech contained no hint of any remedy for existing fiscal evils-his policy was merely one of free importation without free exchange. What the Government desired was to obtain fair terms for our industries, and they asked for greater liberty of action in respect of the taxes imposed to meet the expenditure of the State and for power to negotiate effectively with foreign Powers in fiscal matters. The Government also wanted greater liberty in order that they might promote closer union with our Colonies and possessions beyond the seas. To exclude the question of preferential treatment from the consideration of a conference with the representatives of the Colonies would, in his opinion, be absurd. To warn the Colonies, as Mr. Asquith would have the Government do, that if they made certain proposals we should refuse "to touch the accursed thing," would not make it easier to persuade them to take a larger share in the liabilities and responsibilities of Empire. To the conference our representatives and the representatives of the Colonies must go with hands untied.

The debate, which continued through two sittings, was chiefly interesting for the illustrations it afforded of the various stages of dissatisfaction with the Government, amounting in one or two notable cases to apparently imminent detachment, reached by Free Trade members of the Unionist party. Thus

C