mittee, to which the late Government was committed. Mr. Balfour had suggested no alternative. The Government had looked carefully into the German scheme, and, like Mr. Chamberlain, rejected it. It would not meet the case of the women. There were difficulties, and others would arise, but they had to begin. In spite of Mr. Snowden's "acrid ferocity," they were giving pensions to 572,000 people, and were pledged to deal with the pauper next year.

After other speeches, the third reading was carried by 315 to 10, amid cheers.

The scale of pensions was now as follows: If the yearly means of the pensioner were under 211., 5s. per week; 21l. to 231. 12s. 6d., 4s.; 23l. 12s. 6d. to 26l. 5s., 3s.; 261. 5s. to 281. 17s. 6d., 2s.; 28l. 17s. 6d. to 31l. 10s., 1s.; over 317. 10s., no pension.

On the same day another measure of social reform, the Land Values (Scotland) Bill emerged from the House of Lords in a considerably modified shape. A week earlier, at the report stage, amendments had been moved by the Earl of Camperdown which were described by the Lord Chancellor as a considerable advance towards the position of the Government. The most significant of these provided that where land proved to be required in the public interest for building or industrial purposes was held back, the yearly value should (with certain exceptions) be taken as if it were in use for such purposes. The amendments were accepted by the Government, though not regarded as satisfactory, the Lord Chancellor saying that people ought to be rated according to their property and not to their conduct, and strongly objecting to the substitution of annual for capital value (p. 104). On the third reading, Lord Balfour complained that the Bill as originally introduced had seemed to be devised either to commit that House to the acceptance of capital value as a basis of rating, or to use a rejection in the agitation against the House. He defended the course of resistance adopted. The Lord Chancellor replied that the Government had only desired fair-play to the ratepayers. The Lords' amendments would make the Bill unworkable, but it had little prospect of passing. The Government could only put forward their proposals and leave them to the country in the event of their rejection by the Lords.

The Bill was not proceeded with in the autumn session.

More exciting matter had been provided earlier in the week by a new naval scandal. The changes in the navy initiated under the Unionist Government and continued under its Liberal successor, and ascribed to Sir John Fisher, First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, had called out much unfavourable criticism in the Service and the Press. It was reported that Lord Charles Beresford, who was in command of the Channel Fleet, was among the dissentients, that he had ignored Sir John Fisher at a levée (though this was explained as an accident), and that strained relations continued to exist between him and Admiral

Sir Percy Scott, who was in command of the First Cruiser Squadron (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1907, p. 246). It was even stated that during the first week in July Lord Charles Beresford had signalled to the Argyll and the Good Hope, of the First Cruiser Squadron, to turn towards one another in a manner which would have produced a disaster like that of the sinking of the Victoria by the Camperdown in 1893, but that the Good Hope had disobeyed the signal. Attention had been called to the disagreement by Captain Murray in the House, but the First Lord had dismissed the rumour as gossip; but Mr. Arthur Lee brought up the subject again in The Times on July 6, and asked what steps the Government proposed to take to end the scandal. A similar question was put to the Prime Minister in the House by Mr. Bellairs (King's Lynn) on July 8, coupled with a suggestion that inquiry might be made into "the method of introduction and the value of the changes in administration and organisation which originated this antagonism." Mr. Asquith, ignoring supplementary questions interpolated by Mr. Swift MacNeill and Captain Murray, replied that apart from unverified rumour the Government had no knowledge of the alleged dissensions, but, should the discipline of the Fleet appear to be compromised, they would take prompt and effective action. The direction of naval policy lay with the Government, and officers on active service had to carry it out with a single eye to the efficiency of the service.

The matter was referred to next day in the House, and in the adjourned debate on the Naval Estimates on July 13; but it was intimated that the dissensions had been exaggerated and were abating. On July 30 Mr. McKenna stated that the movement ordered was not dangerous, but that the rear-admiral was justified in turning the other way, and had been told so at the time by signal from the Commander-in-Chief. It was clear that too much had been made of the incident, and shortly afterwards it was announced that Sir Percy Scott would take. command of the cruiser squadron to be sent to South Africa.

The new system of training naval officers, which was one of the questions dividing naval opinion, was attacked by Mr. Barnes (Blackfriars, Glasgow), a Labour member, on July 8, as being costly and undemocratic. It was hinted by Dr. Macnamara that the field of selection might be widened, but the system was defended by the Government and approved by the front Opposition bench, and the amendment was rejected by 205 to 90.

The shipbuilding vote, however (July 13), gave the Opposition an opportunity to criticise the naval policy of the Government. Mr. Lee contrasted the spasmodic shipbuilding of Great Britain with the steady increase of the German navy, and pointed out that in 1912 we should have twelve Dreadnoughts and Invincibles, while Germany would have thirteen, with four more in the autumn of 1912. As the Prime Minister had

stated in March that we were not going to be left behind (p. 54), our programme for 1909 must provide for the laying down of five such ships, if possible early in the year. But the only safe course was to complete two ships for every one constructed by our chief rivals. Experts held that not more than 50 per cent. of our torpedo destroyers were capable of continuous service in the North Sea, and twenty-five more should be laid down this year to maintain our superiority to Germany. Again, three Brazilian warships were building in private yards; should these be bought by any great Power, it would upset the calculations at the basis of our naval programme. Mr. McKenna replied that while in Germany five Dreadnoughts and Invincibles had been laid down, we had ten very nearly complete. In 1911 we should have eight Dreadnoughts and four Invincibles, while Germany, if she completed her programme as speedily as she hoped, would have seven and two respectively. He admitted that in the 1909 programme regard must be had to the comparative position of England and Germany in 1912, but our superiority in other types of warship must also be taken into account. For security the country would make any sacrifice, but to go beyond it was needless waste. Foreign construction would be considered, and next year the Government would lay down all the ships needed to ensure security in 1911 and 1912. He thought the provision on the Estimates for destroyers was sufficient, and there would be twenty-nine more in 1909. Mr. Arnold-Forster suggested a return to the system. of works loans for the coming naval expenditure. Subsequently Dr. Macnamara, Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, gave details supporting the Government contention that British Naval strength was far ahead of other nations, and later, Mr. McKenna confirmed and amplified the promise to secure its superiority in 1912.

The postulate of the adequacy of the Navy, it may be added, was the main ground of the conclusion adverse to the establishment of a national guarantee for shipping risks in war time, which was arrived at by the Treasury Committee whose report was published on July 9. The views of the witnesses examined had varied greatly; but the Committee concluded that, though the risks might handicap certain trades and even appreciably raise the cost of living and manufacture, yet if the Navy were adequate British shipping would neither be extensively laid up nor transferred to foreign flags, and that a guarantee, whether contributory or otherwise, was beset with so many difficulties and drawbacks as to be impracticable.

For the public, at any rate, no light was thrown on the adequacy of the navy by the annual manoeuvres, which took place towards the end of July in the North Sea. Some 250 vessels of all classes were engaged in working out and testing certain strategical problems; but correspondents were not allowed with the fleets, and no particulars were published as to

L

the scheme or results. Possibly this secrecy, combined with the choice of locality, heightened that apprehension of an AngloGerman war in the near future which expressed itself in rumours of a recent German staff ride through England (about which Colonel Lockwood, M.P. for Epping, asked a question in the House on July 13), as also of the activity of Germans in collecting topographical information in Epping Forest and the Isle of Wight, and of the possible services in this direction performed by the numerous German waiters and clerks in Great Britain. These apprehensions, however, were not widespread, though they provided exciting "copy" for a section of the Press.

Political interest, indeed, was concentrated in the House of Commons; but a relief to its somewhat arid proceedings was afforded by a series of important functions in great provincial cities. The new university buildings at Leeds were opened by the King accompanied by the Queen and Princess Victoria, on July 7. It was the first visit of a Sovereign to Leeds since. 1858; the day was observed as a Bank holiday, and the reception of the Royal party was enthusiastic. Their Majesties were presented with an address at the Town Hall, and the Royal procession was witnessed by some 700,000 persons, including 80,000 school children who, stationed in stands along the route, sang patriotic songs at intervals. Proceeding next day to Bristol, vid Hereford, their Majesties slept on board the Royal yacht at Avonmouth, and, after a progress through Bristol, the presentation of an address, and an enthusiastic welcome, formally opened the Royal Edward Dock at Avonmouth (July 10). On July 8 the Prince and Princess of Wales opened the new Town Hall at Stockport. The King's speeches were thought to be more spontaneous and less conventional than the usual utterances of Royalty on these ceremonial occasions.

Another function of a different order took place at the University of Manchester on Thursday, July 10, when Lord Morley of Blackburn was installed as Chancellor and delivered an address. Noting that John Owens, the founder of the college out of which the university had grown up, had provided for literature as well as for science in the face of a great industrial development, Lord Morley said that when they were sure that the "ancients" had nothing to teach, they might omit classics, but not before. The character of the benefactions gave hope that technical teaching would not drive out teaching of the purely university type. Honorary degrees were afterwards conferred, including that of LL.D. on Mr. Balfour, who declared that the motive power which would change the external surface of civilisation lay with science, and that he himself "would rather be known as having added to the sum of knowledge of the truth of nature than anything I can imagine."

Two other non-political events may also be mentioned here.

The dinner given to Mr. Asquith in the Inner Temple Hall on July 10, and the similar compliment paid him by Parliamentary colleagues from Balliol on July 23, exhibited at once his personal popularity and that sense of corporate comradeship which in England happily overrides the divisions set up by politics.

For the last half of July public interest was largely diverted from the political arena by the Quebec celebrations (Foreign and Colonial History, Chapter VIII.), by the Franco-British Exhibition, and by the Olympic Games held in connection with it, of which some particulars are given on a later page (Chronicle, July). The exhibition occasioned some further international courtesies, notably a visit of some eighty French Senators and Deputies, in connection with the opening of the Social Economic Section. They received the good wishes of the King, and were entertained by Mr. Harcourt at luncheon at the House of Commons on behalf of the Government. The games eventually, like other international sporting contests, gave rise to a regrettable dispute between high athletic authorities in England and America.

That political activity would not slacken, however, was made clear by the programme of business for the remainder of the session, as set forth by the Prime Minister on July 10, the opportunity being offered, as usual, by the motion appropriating the whole time of the House to Government business and suspending the 11 o'clock rule. The House, he said, would adjourn for a recess, on Saturday, August 1, after voting Supply and passing the Finance Bill and Appropriation Bill. The long list of other measures to be passed before the adjournment included the Irish University Bill and two private members' Bills which the Government had taken up (dealing with housing in Ireland and the further protection of wild birds). The Licensing Bill would be the main business of the autumn session; but before the adjournment the Government would submit a time-table and devote two days to the Committee. This statement provoked Mr. Balfour to criticise the Ministerial method of conducting business. The system of Grand Committees, he said, though it had great potentialities of usefulness, overburdened hard-working members and shut out the most vital stage of the measures dealt with by them from the consideration of most of the House. Where Bills were considered in Committee of the whole House, the discussions. were cut short or destroyed by the time-table system. They were living under a permanent closure. He complained also, that supply now took the minimum period of twenty days instead of the maximum of twenty-three, and that the Opposition were not, as formerly, invited to specify the votes they desired to discuss. For several important departments the votes had not been discussed at all, and the Colonial and Foreign Office Votes had only been discussed inadequately. Mr. Asquith, in