The case of the Vatersay crofters (post, Chapter VI.), which had been discussed by the House of Lords on March 31, gave rise to a heated debate in Committee of Supply on June 25, when a motion by Mr. Mitchell Thomson (Lanark, N.W.) for the reduction of the vote for the Scottish Secretary's Department was rejected (after closure) by 175 to 52. Mr. Balfour made. an eloquent defence of the management of Lady Gordon Cathcart's estate, contending that in substance Barra was an example of the congestion of population partially checked in Ireland by the famine, that the subdivision of Vatersay would have made matters worse, and that no good could be done in the Highlands by subdivision. The action of the Government was defended by Mr. Sinclair, Scottish Secretary, who explained that the negotiations with the Government fell through because the estate managers would accept no settlement which did not involve purchase of the island by the Government, and the Lord Advocate, replying to a suggestion that the Trespass Act (or "Tinkers Act") of 1865 might have been enforced against the squatters, declared that it was not suitable for cases of continuous possession. The estate lawyers had suggested its application to save expense, but he had referred them to the civil remedy [under which the ringleaders had been imprisoned for contempt of court] with the effect of which he could not interfere. He expressed the hope of the Government for an equitable arrangement in which both sides could acquiesce.

Meanwhile the House of Lords had been occupied with less exciting topics. Attention was called by the Earl of Onslow on June 24 to the additional duties imposed by Parliament in recent years on local authorities and the consequent increase of burdens both on members and officials of those authorities, and on urban and rural rates. In twenty years, he said, rates had increased by 34,000,000l., half of this being for education, while municipal debts exceeded 500,000,000%. Additional duties and burdens were being placed on local authorities, not only in connection with education, but by legislation providing for isolation hospitals, notification of births, the unemployment problem, and the medical inspection of school children. He feared that the character of the local authorities would deteriorate. Forms of wealth other than real property should pay their fair share, and the administration of, and payment for, national services should be taken over by the central government. The system of compounding for rates hid the burden from the mass of the ratepayers. After a speech from Lord Allendale, intimating the need of a Valuation Bill as a preliminary to reform, Viscount St. Aldwyn mentioned that 283 Acts had been passed imposing various duties on the London County Council; he also condemned the vicious system of compounding, and remarked that the provision in the Small Holdings Act and in the Housing Bill, enabling the central government to override a recalcitrant local authority and put

these measures in operation at the cost of the rates, almost violated the maxim coupling taxation with representation. He suggested the transfer of services rendered to the State to the Central Government, as under the Prisons Act of 1877. Lord Fitzmaurice, replying for the Government, held that an inquiry as to valuation could alone reveal the true relation of rateable and non-rateable property, and would reveal cases of astonishing injustice. He thought the increases most felt were in the cost of maintaining main roads, education, and police; but, while approving strict central control of expenditure, he viewed centralisation with apprehension. The Government would keep valuation to the front. Lord Balfour hoped this question would not be complicated with others, such as taxation on capital value. Next day the debate was continued, but the speeches added little to its substance. Ultimately the Earl of Crewe reviewed it, and concluded by saying that the Government attached extreme importance to the forthcoming report of the Poor-Law Commission in connection with the whole system of local taxation.

The Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill, introduced on June 1 to meet a difficulty on the Clanricarde estate (p. 115), was read a second time, after a protest from the Earl of Mayo, in the House of Lords on June 26. An amendment to the Bill passed in 1907 had prevented the compulsory acquisition of land held by "planters" who were bond fide farming it; certain "planters' on the Clanricarde estate had since agreed with the Estates Commissioners to vacate their land in order that it might be restored to evicted tenants; but the landlord had claimed that his consent was also required, and, his view being upheld by the Court, had refused it. This Bill, therefore, proposed that the proviso in question should not apply where the tenant consented in writing to the compulsory acquisition of the land by the Estates Commissioners. In Committee, the Bill was amended on the motion of Lord Atkinson by providing that the consent must be signed before two witnesses and filed in the office of the Land Commission and would not be acted on if the landlord satisfied the Judicial Commissioner that intimidation had been applied to induce the planter to give it. This latter proviso was opposed by the Government and discountenanced by the Marquess of Lansdowne but carried by 88 to 36 (July 8); but it was struck out in the Commons on July 27, and, the alteration being accepted by the Lords, it passed into law.

Two other social questions were debated in the Lords at this period and hopes of inquiry as a step to reform were held out by the Government-a weekly rest day, which was the aim of a Bill introduced by Lord Hill, on June 24, but withdrawn as unworkable, and the treatment of merchant seamen, brought up on June 29 by Lord Muskerry and the Bishop of Bangor.

The following week Lord Curzon of Kedleston initiated an important debate on the condition of India. The recent fron

tier expeditions, he thought, had vindicated the frontier policy of the Indian Government; but he intimated that the attitude of the Amir was ambiguous both towards the disturbers and towards the Anglo-Russian agreement, on which his views should have been ascertained in advance. The Indian unrest Lord Curzon described as a new development of an old movement, insignificant relatively to the whole continent of India, but menacing the structure of Indian society. One of its causes was unsuitable education, which had given the natives the catchwords of modern civilisation without its ideas or its sobriety; another, the unrest set up by the victory of Japan; again, though there was not less sympathy than formerly between Anglo-Indians and natives, there was less social intercourse, for which the administrative system left no time. He condemned the attacks made before native audiences by English visitors on the Indian Government. It was absurd to put down the unrest to the partition of Bengal; he warmly defended that measure, and complained that the feeling against it had been intensified by a telegram from Lord Midleton when Indian Secretary (August 16, 1905). He defended his own policy against the charge of reaction, and generally approved of Lord Morley's measures, but condemned the Press Act as inadequate, and regretted that Sir Bampfylde Fuller's resignation had been accepted; had he remained in Bengal, it would have been pacified. He approved entirely of "broadening the basis of government" in India, but concessions should not seem to be extorted by fear or to weaken British rule, which might be the effect of enlarging the Legislative Council; and they should be preceded by a repression of disorder.

Lord Morley of Blackburn, who addressed the House for the first time, began by saying that it was unnecessary to appeal to him to resist sedition and repress disorder. He thought Lord Curzon had forgotten that the debate had listeners in India and Kabul. In spite of the ex-Viceroy's disclaimer, his speech contained partisan criticism. He had deprecated questioning the Government about India in the House of Commons; but could democracy be without its simpletons? He agreed that Indian education urgently needed reform. The partition of Bengal had been mistaken in its methods, but so far as he was concerned it was a settled fact. He regretted Sir Bampfylde Fuller's recent vitriolic attack (in The Times) on a Viceroy struggling with vast difficulties. The acceptance of his resignation was an act of salutary discipline. On frontier policy, they had not given way to those military men who, as Lord Salisbury once said, "would advise you to make a campaign in the moon to prevent being overrun from Mars." He believed the Amir had acted in the spirit of the friendship cemented by his visit to India. Lord Curzon had not indicated what policy he would pursue. One policy he had heard described as "martial law and no damned nonsense"; this was not Lord

Curzon's policy, but he made too little of native opinion. After a tribute to the Viceroy's manful courage, Lord Morley declared that they must persist in reform. To pause now because of bombs would not only expose them to the fury of the extremists and the lamentations of the moderate natives, but would disappoint a great mass of Anglo-Indian opinion. When the Hobhouse Commission had reported, they hoped to simplify administration and give local bodies some executive as well as advisory powers. Disappointment had been expressed in India with this Parliament, but he did not believe it would be deaf to reasonable demands.

The Earl of Cromer remarked that education in India was far too literary and insufficiently professional or technical, and that little was done for elementary education. Thus the system provided both an overplus of demagogues and a field for them. He commended the policy of moderate reform, but regretted that the policy of allowing freedom of the Press in Oriental countries, which he had always supported, could not be pronounced successful. He thought that there might be some interference with Englishmen acting as demagogues in India.

Lord Midleton condemned as unwise the language used about the Amir by Lord Curzon, and defended himself against the attacks of the latter. The Opposition desired to strengthen the hands of the Indian Secretary and the Viceroy. Lord Ampthill disclaimed any share in the partition of Bengal, and also endorsed the policy of the Indian Secretary; and, after other speeches, Lord Curzon replied, dealing largely with the personal questions raised between himself and Lords Midleton and Ampthill, and assuring the Indian Secretary of his warm support of his policy.

Meanwhile, the House of Commons had been again engaged in heated debates over the Old Age Pensions Bill; but of these only the barest outline can be given. Great pressure was put on the Government on Monday, June 29, to accept an amendment to the effect that the acceptance of outdoor relief should not disqualify for a pension, which was moved by Mr. Bridgman (Oswestry); but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the proposal would add 200,000 to the number of pensioners, and 2,700,000l. to the cost. The removal of the reduction for pensioners living together had used up all the resources available. He offered to accept an amendment terminating the disqualification on December 31, 1910, so as to ensure a revision; but the subject could not be dealt with apart from the relations between local and Imperial finance. Mr. Balfour sarcastically congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his intimation that financial arrangements would in future precede, not follow, the assumption of new liabilities, and on the "strategic movement to the rear" of the previous week. He himself, he said amid laughter, was a connoisseur in such movements. He bitterly condemned the restriction, and said that the money for

the change demanded might have been found by retaining the sugar duty; but the Finance Bill might yet be amended. After further criticisms from both sides and replies by Mr. Harcourt and Mr. Masterman, the debate was closured and the amendment negatived by 257 to 142. An amendment moved by Mr. Goulding (Worcester), leaving the disqualification to the discretion. of the Pension Committees, was refused by Mr. Lloyd-George as too wide, and rejected by 267 to 62. A Government amendment was then discussed, limiting the operation of the disqualification to the end of 1910, as promised, and providing that medical aid and other specified forms of assistance should not disqualify. This was carried by 348 to 95, and the clause, further amended by the Government, was carried by 276 to 158. Clause 4 (directions for estimating the means of applicants) was taken next day, June 30. Two amendments were rejected-one, that the income to be considered should be "net income," the other that it should be that which the pensioner might be reasonably expected to receive "as of right," i.e. excluding "tips" and Christmas boxes; this latter moved the Chancellor of the Exchequer to declare that the amendments, with their accumulating demands, represented a rake's progress. A third amendment, moved by Mr. Mildmay (Totnes, Devon), directed the pension authority to disregard sums under 40l. annually, received in consideration of previous payment, from a friendly society or trade union; and Mr. Chaplin met an objection made by Mr. Harcourt against distinguishing between various forms of thrift by moving to extend the amendment so as to cover all other approved provision against old age, sickness, or infirmity. This was supported by some Opposition and Labour members, and an attempt to arrange for the limitation of the issue to it having been opposed by the Liberals, much indignation was exhibited among the Opposition. Hereupon the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Opposition thought they were putting the Government into a hole. Their policy had been to move wild, illogical, irrational amendments, regardless of the cost, in order to say to every class in turn, "We voted for you and those wicked Radicals voted against you." Later, he said that Mr. Mildmay's amendment would add 100,000 pensioners and 1,300,000l. annually to the cost; Mr. Chaplin's 2,600,000l. The amendment, in the form given it by Mr. Chaplin, was rejected by 243 to 113; and, after discussion and rejection of various other amendments, the guillotine fell at 10.30 P.M. The irritation of the Opposition found vent in a refusal to vote in one division on a technical ground, and in an objection to the conduct of one of the divisions. Subsequently, clause 4 as amended was carried by 381 to 108, and clauses 5 (mode of paying pensions) and 6 (assignment of, or charge on, a pension to be void) were carried, the first with some amendment, without divisions.

Next day (July 1) the debate was quieter and more prac