tion of Scottish grievances by Mr. Pirie in his opening speech, condemned with unwonted warmth the introduction of the Bill under the ten minutes' rule and with so insufficient an explanation, and insisted on dividing the House against it. But leave to introduce the measure was given by 257 to 102. But this multitude of domestic questions had occupied the House of Commons rather than the general public. Since Empire Day fell on Sunday, May 24, its celebration was carried out, with no diminution of enthusiasm, on Friday and Saturday, May 22 and 23. It was estimated that 2,250,000 children saluted the British flag, twice as many as in 1907. Earlier (May 4) the tendency to union visible in the Empire had been effectively expressed by the Prince of Wales and the Earl of Crewe at the annual dinner of the Royal Colonial Institute, where Dr. G. R. Parkin had laid stress on the necessity of education in Imperial affairs as a basis for the movement. At the annual meeting of the Victoria League on May 21 Sir Edward Grey had dwelt on the value of a healthy Imperial sentiment, free from the mere pride of dominion, and of the value in the world of the free British Empire. At the Empire Day banquet at the Hotel Cecil on May 25 Lord Curzon of Kedleston emphasised the growing consciousness of the Empire, insisting that India's place in it must not be ignored; he pointed to the influences stimulating the growth of Imperial feeling, referred to the possibility at some future date of creating an Imperial Senate by a reform of the House of Lords, and declared that nothing could exceed the importance of the last two Imperial Conferences; he also expressed a hope that the next would have a different result.

66

A few days earlier, however, at the dinner of the Central Asian Society, on May 20, Lord Curzon had expressed a very unfavourable view of the effect on Afghanistan, Persia, and Tibet, of the Anglo-Russian Agreement, and in regard to South Africa a pessimistic speech was delivered by Viscount Milner at a dinner given to him by the Duke of Westminster as President of the Imperial South African Association at the Hotel Cecil on May 21. He described the existing state of things as government by commandoes," and as tending to make the South Africa of the future resemble in most respects its condition before the war; scoffed at the claim that the change was a great triumph of statesmanship, condemned the sacrifice of British Civil servants, and pleaded that the contemplated union of South Africa should be conducted as a national settlement and with due respect to native rights. Eight days later, however, the Ministerial view was given by Mr. Churchill at the fifteenth banquet of the South African Dinner Committee. He thought South African affairs were on the mend; they were passing out of British party politics; there was less political division in the Transvaal than in Great Britain or Continental countries; its Government had specially regarded

Imperial interests on the Indian question; had shown a lively conception of South African traditions by preserving the Imperial Light Horse; and in presenting the Cullinan diamond to the King had given a pledge of reconciliation and peace. It was unfair and silly to describe such a Government as governing by commandoes." He dwelt (amid some dissent) on the mining revival, and said they were now at the end of the racial struggle and at the beginning of the federation of the States.

In regard to the foreign policy of Great Britain, however, there was practically no difference of view between Unionists and the Government. During all this time fresh proofs had been given of its success and of the active promotion of peace and goodwill in Europe by the King. His visit, in company with the Queen and Princess Victoria, to the three Scandinavian capitals (April 21-May 6, Foreign History, Chapter IV.) had given opportunities for calling to mind the sympathy between Great Britain and these northern nations, and for dwelling on the additional guarantee of European peace furnished by the Baltic and North Sea agreements. A still better illustration of the strengthening ties between Great Britain and her neighbours was afforded by the state visit of the President of the French Republic (May 25-28). Its immediate occasion was afforded by the establishment of the Franco-British Exhibition at Shepherd's Bush, beyond Hammersmith. This had already drawn the French Minister of Commerce, M. Cruppi, to London (May 7), and had been opened, though still very incomplete, by the Prince of Wales on May 14. It was, however, crowded throughout the summer, attracting many French tourists of all grades of society, and its success was brilliant. The President, who was accompanied by the Foreign Minister, M. Pichon, crossed on May 25 in the French cruiser Léon Gambetta from Calais to Dover, and was saluted at the latter port by the Channel Fleet and received at Victoria Station by the King and the Prince of Wales. The enthusiastic popular welcome accorded him as he drove thence to St. James's Palace was repeated next day on the route to and from the Exhibition, which he inspected in the afternoon in company with the King, and on the day following as he went to and returned from the Guildhall, where he was entertained by the Corporation of London. The King's Speech at the State banquet at Buckingham Palace dwelt on the strength and value of the Anglo-French entente, and expressed the hope that it might be permanent, as being necessary for the welfare and prosperity of the two nations and the maintenance of the peace of Europe. These sentiments were cordially reciprocated by the President, and emphasised in the speeches at the Guildhall, where reference was made to the visit of President Loubet in 1903. It was stated by M. Pichon that the President had been profoundly impressed by his magnificent reception, which proved that the entente had become the

fundamental basis of the policy of both countries; that this entente was supported by all but an insignificant minority in France, and that it was one of the surest means of counteracting any combinations hostile to European peace.

Meanwhile, the supposed antagonism between Great Britain and Germany was being counterworked by private enterprise. A body of German burgomasters and municipal councillors had visited England (May 17-23) under the auspices of the British Society for the Study of Colonial and Foreign Municipal Institutions, and had been entertained by the Lord Mayor, and received at the Houses of Parliament by representatives of the Government, and at Buckingham Palace (May 23) by the King. The following week saw the visit of a deputation of German ministers of religion, Protestant and Roman Catholic, who were also entertained by the Lord Mayor at the Mansion House, where the Primate and the Archbishop of Westminster were among the speakers, and by members of the House of Commons, where they were welcomed by Mr. Runciman; and Mr. LloydGeorge subsequently promised that a grant of money for such international hospitalities would be made by the Government in the interest of peace and goodwill in Europe.

A party of 120 German workmen from Duisburg and Düsseldorf, the guests of a Travel Club connected with the Browning Settlement in Walworth, followed on June 6. They were entertained by various London workmen's organisations, at the House of Commons, and by some of the Mayors of London boroughs, and were received by the Chairman of the London County Council.

Another interchange of compliments with the head of a foreign State provoked strong dissent among supporters of the Government. The King's visit to the Tsar was first announced (unofficially) in The Times of May 20, and officially next day, and was cordially welcomed in the Russian Press. It was unfavourably regarded by the Labour party and some advanced Liberals, and on May 27 questions were put to the Prime Minister by Mr. O'Grady (Leeds, E.) implying disapproval of the visit as a State visit in view of the internal situation in Russia. Mr. Asquith replied in effect that the visit was overdue, that it could have no bearing on internal politics, and could do nothing but good to Anglo-Russian relations; and an attempt to move the adjournment in order to raise a debate was stopped by the suggestion of the Speaker that the subject might be discussed on the motion for the Whitsuntide adjournment. The discussion seemed likely to be barred by a blocking notice put down by Lord Robert Cecil in order to call attention to the continued neglect of the Government to deal with the abuse of such notices (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1904, p. 141), but this obstacle was removed and the debate took place on June 4.

To the Opposition, however, the foreign policy of the Government offered no ground for attack; and it was the domestic

situation alone which was reviewed by Mr. Balfour, as the guest of the Liberal Union Club, at the Hotel Cecil on May 29. The Marquess of Lansdowne, who presided, emphasised the strength of the alliance between the two wings of the Unionist party, remarked on the revival of the Home Rule movement-even for Scotland-and cited, as instances of the same disintegrating. tendency, the rejection of the Colonial overtures for preference and the establishment of self-government in South Africa. He also condemned the domestic policy of the Government on temperance, education, finance, and the campaign against the House of Lords. He closed with a eulogy of Mr. Balfour's ability and equanimity, declaring that he dominated the House of Commons by sheer intellectual superiority. Mr. Balfour, in reply, declared that the attack on the House of Lords had failed utterly, and denounced the Ministry in this its culminating session (p. 110) as weak and uncertain, alike in education, financial policy, franchise reform and Home Rule. On the Licensing Bill they appeared to show some decision, but he regarded it as a blow struck at public morality, and he commented severely on Mr. Lloyd-George's appeal at Edinburgh for Scottish votes for it as contrasted with the Ministerial acceptance of Scottish Home Rule. All this, he said, showed that the Government had not thought out their general policy, and that the Unionist party must draw even closer together. He believed that the financial necessities imposed by the Government would alone make fiscal reform an absolute certainty.

The hopes of the tariff reformers had been again expressed by Viscount Milner, who dealt mainly with the Imperial aspect of the question, at the annual general meeting of the Women's Unionist and Tariff Reform Association on May 28. The strictly fiscal side was brought forward on the second reading of the Finance Bill (Monday, June 1) in an Opposition amendment calling for a broadening of the basis of taxation to provide for naval defence, old age pensions, education, and the relief of the rates from charges for national services. It was believed that the terms of the amendment had been modified at Mr. Balfour's instance; and it was entrusted to a non-official member, Mr. Laurence Hardy (Ashford, Kent). It was seconded by Captain Morrison Bell, the new member for Mid-Devon, who, in a maiden speech, mentioned that between 1889-90 and 1904-5 the amount raised locally for poor-law relief had increased by 70 per cent., that for police by 50 per cent., that for education by 206 per cent., and that for main roads by 134 per cent. Mr. Buxton, Postmaster-General, who described the amendment as a "platformula," said that local taxation could only be relieved after a reform of assessment and valuation; but the rates would be relieved by old age pensions, and by the Education Bill. "Broadening the basis of taxation" would be irritating and ineffective; the Opposition should state their proposals specifically. To this Mr. Austen Chamberlain replied that at

least 10,000,000l. more would be needed next year, yet the Government refused to say how they would raise it. The contribution to national revenue of those working-men who were abstainers and non-smokers was 4s. 7d. per head. If by a reformed tariff employment were increased, there would be more expenditure on taxed articles, but Germany and the United States under Protection had increased their imports, their exports and their revenue. As to local taxation, the Government were carrying on their predecessors' doles, and the relief they had given was trifling.

Mr. Bottomley (Hackney, S.), who was listened to with attention, suggested untapped sources of revenue, including a graduated income tax and a tax on motor-cars. He thought 10,000,000l. could be saved on the work done by the Civil Service, and recommended a tax on employers of 1d. in the £ on wages paid, to go towards old age pensions; a heavy surtax on foreign investments, taxation of advertisements and entertainments, as in France, of betting and racing, and of share certificates, and the interception of at least the interest of the balances lying dormant in banks. In London alone he had data for estimating these at 30,000,000l. [Afterwards, however, Mr. Tomlinson (Crewe), a bank director, declared that such estimates were imaginary. A Bill to facilitate the recovery of these balances was introduced by Mr. Bottomley on June 17, leave being given by 193 to 54, but it got no further.]

- In the subsequent debate Mr. Bowles (Norwood), a Unionist Free-Fooder, accepted the amendment as not entailing further taxation of commodities, and urged resort to direct taxation; Mr. Walsh (Ince, Lancs, S. W.), for the Labour party, pointed out that at foreign Trade-Union conferences the workers all agreed in condemning the "broadening" policy, and that in Germany and America wages had declined relatively to the cost of living; Mr. Hemmerde (Denbighshire) deplored the omission to tax land values; Mr. Beale (Ayrshire, S.), a Liberal, would not rule out duties on commodities for social reforms if properly balanced by an excise; and Mr. Chiozza Money (Paddington, N.), while protesting against the idea of changing social conditions by taxation, suggested a further graduation of income tax and a nationalisation of railways and mines.

Mr. Lloyd-George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that there had been no criticism of the two main features of the Budget, and no explanation of the details of "broadening the basis of taxation." Nobody doubted that that issue had been shirked at Mr. Balfour's instance. In the House every argument could be answered; it was safer for Tariff Reformers to trust to the gramophone. After emphasising the arguments of the Postmaster-General respecting local taxation, and remarking that the revenue demanded by the amendment would be insufficient to cover the purposes mentioned, he cited a resolution passed by the Radical supporters in the Reichstag of the