poor food and housing, but we were ahead both of other countries and of our own position thirty years ago. As to the unemployed, he explained in detail what had been done, and said there had been no complaint of lack of promptitude on the part of the department. He did not think the outlook was so gloomy as some members expected, but he had, on occasion, to be firm in resisting appeals, for one could not administer an Unemployed Workmen Act so as to satisfy sentimentalists. He was not going to be driven into foolish courses by panic-mongers or political mischief-makers. The administration of the Act had been conducted with sympathy and reasonable moral courage.

Sir Charles Dilke drew attention to the increased employment of girls on machinery, and the need of enforcing the law regulating the employment of children; and Mr. Atherley-Jones laid stress on various evils exhibited in the Report of the Police Commission (p. 155), while Sir Henry Craik complained of undue laxity in licensing motor omnibuses. [The nuisance caused by these in the City had been the subject of a Mansion House meeting and a deputation to the Home Secretary on July 14; but Mr. Gladstone had said the existing law was sufficient, and had mentioned that they were used by 200,000,000 passengers annually in the City alone.] In a brief reply Mr. Gladstone mentioned that the Government had never doubted the efficiency of the police force, and that he would not have consented to the inquiry had it not been pressed on him by the Chief Commissioner in the interest of his men. London was proud of the remarkable testimony of the Commission to the character and efficiency of the force.

The reports of the resolutions of votes in Supply were then passed without debate, but with a few divisions, and the Appropriation Bill was introduced.

The debate on the second reading of this measure next day (July 30) gave Mr. Balfour an opportunity for reviewing the conduct of business by the Government. He contrasted their use of the guillotine in Supply with Mr. Asquith's condemnation of that device in October, 1905, pointing out that in 1907 53,000,000l. of public expenditure had been left undebated, and complaining that Supply debates had been curtailed to find time for the Licensing Bill, presumably because Ministers had to show their temperance supporters that they were in earnest. That the Education Vote had been left undiscussed was almost a scandal, and the time allowed for the Irish Estimates had been curtailed; opportunity had been refused for a debate on the Chief Secretary's salary, so that the administration of Ireland could not be properly discussed. The arrangement had been made for the convenience of the Nationalist party, who were coming into a kind of subordinate alliance with the Radical party at large [Nationalist dissent]. Each of these parties, Mr. Balfour continued, was trying to keep its supporters from breaking with the other over Home Rule, so that the National

ists could scarcely be independent critics of the Government. Disorder in Ireland was shown by the returns to be increasing, and cattle-drivers were now merely bound over to keep the peace, and in only one case had the recognisances been escheated. Though large sums were required for extra police, the Government would not use the Crimes Act. Though there was no apparent danger of international complications, yet there was acute general disquietude, which he attributed to the financial outlook. Considering the price of Consols, the effect on the public of the debates on finance, the vast commitments of the Government, and the contradictory statements as to national armament, the prevalent uneasiness was justified. He hoped next year the Government would redeem its pledges as to the maintenance of the national armaments.

Mr. Asquith replied that he saw no signs of the disquietude in the House. [Few members were present, and there was an air of apathy among them.] Consols were higher than a year ago. Would members, after three years of Liberal Government, change places as to national credit with any other country in the world? Did the Opposition leader mean to suggest that the Navy was not in a position of unassailable superiority? Such unfounded insinuations did harm abroad. He thought the dignity and efficiency of the House had been vindicated by the Liberal party. They had provided a plan, after full examination, for dealing with the abuse of blocking motions, and, had they had Mr. Balfour's assurance that it was generally accepted, it would now have been in force. The Education Vote would have been discussed if a discussion had been desired, and this was the fifth debate on Irish administration. He protested good-humouredly against Mr. Balfour's description of the Nationalists, and pointed out that thirty-three Government Bills and fifteen private members' Bills had been passed. He recognised the loyal co-operation of both sides of the House, and thought it might look back to five months of fruitful legislative work.

Subsequently Mr. Birrell defended himself vigorously against Mr. Balfour's criticism. He admitted the increase of crime in parts of Ireland, but some of the crimes were not agrarian, but arose out of disputes between recipients of land, who exaggerated the value of landholding. Elsewhere the increase was due to the passion of the people for the grass lands, which the Dudley Commission had said should be broken up. Unionist land legislation had done much to demoralise the people by creating the belief that England backed their desire to divide the grass lands. He defended his decision to keep to the ordinary law. Cattle-driving had become difficult to deal with because it was carried on at night, and the offenders frequently could not be caught. Binding over had produced very good results. He appealed to the Irish leaders to influence their followers to abate the practice.

The subsequent debate included some further discussion of Irish matters and of the details of the administrative action of the Board of Education.

Mr. Balfour, in his review of the causes for disquietude, had referred to a speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the seventeenth Universal Peace Congress, representing 280 societies and 22 different nationalities, which sat in London from July 27 to July 31. The King received a deputation with an address expressing profound gratitude for his efforts in promoting peace in Europe, and, in reply, declared that peace among the nations was the surest and most direct means by which humanity might be enabled to realise its noblest ideals. A Christian Conference at Caxton Hall which preceded the opening meeting received an address of sympathy from the Bishops in session at Lambeth, and was addressed by the Bishop of Carlisle, Dr. Horton of Hampstead, and other religious leaders. At the inaugural meeting a letter was read from Mr. Balfour, expressing his sympathy with the aim of the Congress. Lord Courtney of Penwith, in his Presidential address, dwelt on the interdependence of peace and justice, and indicated that the aim of the movement was to regulate disputes between nations. by international law and international tribunals, and to promote better understanding between the nations; and, at a public meeting at Queen's Hall (July 28), he illustrated the falsity of the superstition of the "inevitableness" of war by reference to Queen Victoria's Letters" and the "Life of Delane." Mr. Lloyd-George followed, and, amid repeated interruption from women suffragists, who were successively ejected, mentioned that war with France was supposed to be "inevitable" in 1853, and ridiculed the Anglo-German war scare. Great Britain had started it by building Dreadnoughts, and though the German Army was as vital to the defence of Germany as our Navy to us, yet Germany had not a two-Power standard on land. Could not the nations give up spending 400,000,000l. a year in means of destruction, and rescue humanity from its sufferings from intemperance, ignorance, crime and disease? On Friday, July 31, a dinner was given to the members of the Congress at the Hotel Cecil by Mr. Lewis Harcourt on behalf of the Government. Mr. Asquith, the principal speaker, said that he was not much impressed by the argument that war was now too costly to undertake. Armaments were meant to be used, and at some moment a sudden outburst of passion might bring them into use. In some ways there had been real progress-in international agreements for arbitration, the demarcation of spheres of influence, the development of commercial intercourse, and the substitution (attended, however, with great difficulties) of international litigation for the barbarous methods of slaughter and conquest; and he laid stress on the effect of moral influences in promoting international peace. Lord Courtney of Penwith and several foreign delegates also spoke. The Congress closed on

August 1, and a Labour demonstration in sympathy with it was held in Trafalgar Square on that day.

The House of Commons, meanwhile, had prepared for an intermission of its labours. On July 31, after the Lords' amendments to the Old Age Pensions Bill and the Irish University Bill had been dealt with (pp. 177, 176), Mr. Asquith moved a resolution providing that the House should adjourn from August 1 to October 12, and that its whole time in the autumn session should be reserved for Government business. In reply to expostulations from Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Balfour, and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, he intimated that the adjournment might be moved to discuss matters of urgent public importance on any days except those allotted to the Licensing Bill, that a day for a vote of censure would be given if demanded by the Opposition leader, and that if discussion on any topic represented to be of real interest was demanded by a number of members, arrangements would be made for its discussion. The session would not extend beyond Christmas.

The usual miscellaneous discussion followed. Asiatic immigration into the Colonies having been spoken of by Mr. A. E. W. Mason (Coventry), Colonel Seely emphasised the importance of the question for the Empire, pointing out, however, that the Colonies were free to exclude Asiatics if they chose. But certain principles might be laid down; Asiatics, if admitted, must eventually receive civil rights; and when admitted they should be treated well and fairly. The Imperial Secretariate would let each Colony know what the others were doing. The Government fully appreciated the manner in which the Canadian Government had met them, and believed that the same fine spirit would be shown by the other self-governing Colonies.

Other matters touched on were the hop industry, the alleged delay in obtaining small holdings, the distress in Glasgow, and the unemployed problem. This latter subject was again raised by Mr. Crooks on the third reading of the Appropriation Bill next day, as was the question of assent to the Natal Indemnity Bill (p. 183), but without much result. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to about 160 Bills, and both Houses adjourned until October 12.

The close of the session was immediately followed by the loss of another Ministerial seat, that at Haggerston (Shoreditch), vacated by the death of Sir W. R. Cremer, the well-known advocate of international arbitration. Mr. Rupert Guinness, the Unionist candidate, was returned by a majority of 1,143 over the Liberal candidate, and got 157 more votes than those given to his Liberal and Socialist opponents combined. The result was claimed as a victory for Tariff Reform, though the Licensing and Education Bills-the latter alienating the Catholics-were at least subsidiary factors.

CHAPTER V.

THE SUMMER RECESS AND THE AUTUMN SESSION.

THE echoes of the session were heard in a few Bank Holiday speeches, notably those of Mr. Long at Huntingdon and Mr. Wyndham in the Duke of Westminster's park at Eaton, near Chester, but the speakers dealt only with such well-worn themes as the Licensing Bill, Tariff Reform, and the need of increased naval strength. The naval alarmists, however, were partly answered by the remarkable voyage of H.M.S. Indomitable, bringing the Prince of Wales from Quebec at an average speed of twenty-six knots per hour. This performance drew attention to the value of this new class of cruiser-battleships, which, as The Times pointed out, possessed more armament than an armoured cruiser and more speed than a battleship, and were likely to be of the highest value both for purposes of reconnaissance and for actual warfare. To the Tariff Reformers a more comprehensive answer was offered by the International Free-Trade Congress, the first of its kind, which had been organised by the Cobden Club, and met in London from August 4 to 7. It was attended by 500 delegates from various countries, among them Professor Sumner of Yale, Mr. Franklin Pierce, and Mr. Joseph Fels from the United States; MM. Yves Guyot, Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, and Emile Ollivier from France, Signor E. E. Moneta from Italy, and Professor Brentano, Herr Georg Gothein and Dr. Theodor Barth from Germany. At the opening ceremony Mr. Winston Churchill, President of the Board of Trade, in welcoming the delegates, laid stress on the advantages claimed for Great Britain as the result of her Free-Trade policy, and insisted that international peace was preserved and strengthened mainly by the increase of international commerce, and that it was powerfully promoted by Free Trade. The same theses were developed by the Prime Minister at a dinner at the Hotel Cecil on the same evening. He laid stress on the existence of internal Free Trade over vast areas, notably within the United States and the German Empire, and ridiculed the common delusions of Tariff Reformers that English Free Traders were influenced solely by the Cobden tradition, or were slaves of an economic formula. Free Trade, he pointed out, had been adopted in England as an economic necessity, to give us the necessary food and raw materials; and in fifty years the imports of raw wool had nearly quadrupled, and the imports of raw cotton had just doubled. No sane Free Trader held that we could keep as far ahead of our great industrial rivals as we had been fifty years before, nor that foreign tariffs did not injure our trade; but we must still "fight hostile tariffs with free imports." Moreover, during these recent years of exceptional prosperity, our financial system had pro