against the visit, the latter [a Liberal] asking what Mr. Gladstone would have thought of a Royal visit to the King of Naples during the struggle for Italian freedom, and Mr. HartDavies (Hackney, N.) supported it as strengthening the Liberalising influence of England on Russia.

Sir Edward Grey, dealing first with the constitutional question, said that what the House had a right to demand was that the responsibility of the Cabinet for affairs of State should be maintained. This had been, and would be, the case now; and the previous foreign visits of the King were believed to have been beneficial to the State. Sir Charles Hardinge, Permanent Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office, was going to Reval, but as a member of the King's suite, not instead of a Cabinet Minister, and he would be responsible to the Foreign Secretary in the same way as an Ambassador. No negotiations were on foot for any treaty or convention with Russia, and none would be initiated during the visit. But it was intended to signify the existence of friendly relations and a desire for their continuance. The protests received hung together with those against the Anglo-Russian Convention, an arrangement cordially supported by the late Premier. To boycott Russia and refuse to discuss a Convention would have brought Great Britain nearer to conflict with her over Persia and India. He was for a policy of agreement with Russia, and if that policy were rejected, he should fall with it. The course suggested must lead towards war, to a point where matters were beyond the control of its pacific supporters. The King's visit to the Tsar was long overdue, and could not be postponed without marked discourtesy. The aspersions on the Tsar's character were not credited in his own country, and, if the Government were to give the advice suggested, it might as well tear up the Anglo-Russian Conven- tion, and the continuation of negotiations on Macedonian reform would be ludicrous. Moderate and Liberal Russians approved the visit; the extreme reactionaries and revolutionists opposed it. The latter hoped to create difficulties for their country and shake its credit; could we lend ourselves to such a manoeuvre ? A Foreign Minister could not either defend or criticise the internal state of Russia, but the members of the first and second Dumas who were sentenced were not sentenced merely for expressing Liberal opinions. Crimes had been committed by the revolutionists as well as by the reactionaries, and he stated authoritatively that the system of government in Russia had been getting practically better. In three years extraordinary changes had been effected in the Constitution. Was the House going to help or hinder the progress made? We must interfere where we had treaty rights, and separate and oppressed nationalities had always our sympathy; but that did not apply here. Suppose that after the South African War a foreign potentate had refused to visit the King officially until the Transvaal should have received full self-government, would that have helped or

I

hindered the grant? The policy advocated must in the long run make bad blood between the two peoples, and the peace of the world as well as the welfare of the two nations might largely depend on the relations between England and Russia.

Some observers stated that this speech, which was very impressive and animated, did much to recover doubtful Liberal votes for the Government. It received the emphatic approval of Mr. Balfour, who pointed out that it was impossible for the House to pass judgment on the internal affairs of foreign countries. Who would benefit if the amendment were passed? Our liberties would not be imperilled. Barren intervention such as the motion implied would be interpreted either as an insolent mark of superiority claimed over other nations or as a mark of British hostility to Russia. It would only hinder the growth of autonomous institutions. The Government believed that this visit would smooth the path of diplomacy. To divest it of its official character would be to put a deliberate insult on the Russian Government which the Russian people would bitterly resent.

Mr. Keir Hardie (Merthyr Tydfil) contended that an official visit would condone the "atrocities" for which the Tsar's Government and the Tsar must be held responsible. This term he only withdrew under strong pressure from the Chairman, and after some advanced Liberal, Labour and Nationalist members had supported him in resistance. Indeed, it was only when the Chairman threatened to name him and suspend the sitting that, in order not to prevent a division, he formally withdrew the word as applied to the Russian Government and the Tsar. Mr. Maddison (Burnley), a Liberal-Labour member, supported the Government; and the debate was eventually closured on the motion of Mr. Henderson, leader of the Labour party, amid protests from some Independent Labour members. The reduction was rejected by 225 to 59. Twelve Liberals, 22 Nationalists, and 25 Labour members made up the minority.

The House then adjourned for the Whitsuntide recess. The House of Lords had preceded it on June 1, after a somewhat warm debate on a local branch of the education controversy, and other business, including the introduction of the Evicted Tenants Act Amendment Bill.

In spite of the signs of a reaction in favour of the Government in Scotland and on the Licensing Bill, the Ministry had not greatly strengthened its position in the country during its first two months of office. Fears were expressed of the failure of Mr. Haldane's territorial army, seeing that by the end of April only 106,000 men of the 300,000 asked for had been enrolled, and his plan was attacked by means of questions in the House of Commons, notably on May 25, by Mr. ArnoldForster and other members. It was doubted if employers would give their men facilities for the necessary training, though an excellent example was set in this respect by a number of firms and companies in the City, who formally promised to

do so (June 1). Again, a well-founded fear of a decline in the revenue for 1908-9 emphasised the anxieties felt as to the effect of the Old Age Pensions Bill on future Budgets; and the Bill itself, published on June 2, disappointed some advanced Liberals. Indeed, it was among these and the Labour party that the disquiet at the course of the Government was most pronounced. Since the Liberals had come in as many Peers had been created as sat in the first Parliament of Henry VII. The Government, again, seemed to fail in Parliamentary management; it had great energy, the Nation said, in laying down ground plans, but was apt to be embarrassed in completing the edifice. It had disappointed its supporters by renewing the Sugar Convention; and some of them still murmured at the King's visit to Russia and complained of undue timidity in the foreign policy of Sir Edward Grey.

CHAPTER IV.

FROM WHITSUNTIDE TO THE SUMMER RECESS.

THE chief event of the Whitsuntide recess was the muchcanvassed State visit of King Edward VII. to the Tsar at Reval, the first visit ever paid to Russia by any British Sovereign. The King and Queen, with Princess Victoria, left vid Charing Cross and Port Victoria, on the evening of Friday, June 5, and arrived at Reval on board the Victoria and Albert, escorted by warships, on Tuesday morning, June 9. There, in beautiful weather, they were visited by the Tsar and the Imperial family, and at once returned the visit on the Imperial yacht. The speeches at the State banquet in the evening laid stress on the effect of the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1907 in drawing the two countries together and consolidating the peace of the world; and it was stated that Sir Charles Hardinge and M. Isvolsky, who had accompanied their respective Sovereigns, had come near to a complete agreement on the projected reforms in Macedonia. The Russian Press, especially the more progressive organs, regarded the meeting as tending to encourage the hopes of domestic reform in Russia as well as to increase the prospect of peace in Europe. In Germany and at Vienna there was some apprehension expressed as to the effects of an AngloRussian understanding on the diplomatic interests of the German Empire.

An unfortunate after-effect of the debate in the Commons (p. 128) on the visit was the omission of Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Victor Grayson and Mr. Ponsonby, the newly elected member for Stirling, from the list of invitations to the King's garden party on June 20. The Labour party formally resented the omission of Mr. Keir Hardie (July 9) as "an attempt by the Court to influence members of Parliament," and requested

the Lord Chamberlain to remove their names from the official list of royal guests until Mr. Keir Hardie's was restored to it. Mr. Keir Hardie himself alluded to the episode at Merthyr on July 14, remarking that the King had stood outside politics since the days of Charles I., and intimating that he had better remain there.

At home the Whitsuntide recess was occupied by the usual congresses and meetings. The annual Convention of the United Irish League at Leeds (June 8) emphasised the breach between. English Catholics and Irish Nationalists by unanimously passing a resolution of thanks to the Executive for disavowing the dictation of certain organisations in the Manchester and Birmingham bye-elections, and this disavowal was strongly upheld by Mr. John Redmond and Mr. Dillon, the latter of whom advised acceptance of the Irish University Bill. The Co-operative Congress at Newport, Monmouthshire, which was attended by delegates representing ten foreign countries, passed resolutions. in favour of women's suffrage and the Housing and Town Planning Bill, rejected one in favour of direct Parliamentary representation for co-operators, and showed that its general feeling was adverse to Tariff Reform. The various congresses of Friendly Societies expressed dissatisfaction with the Old Age Pensions Bill, or at least with its details, as giving no encouragement to thrift; and other labour organisations treated it as only an instalment, and qualified their gratitude.

A noteworthy speech was delivered by Mr. John Burns on Whit Monday at the opening of a new recreation ground at the Ealing Garden suburb. He condemned the "gladiatorial spectacles" now offered to the multitude as sport, and recommended individual pleasures and "the good old English games of tennis, bowls, cricket and quoits, as the best antidote to the "spirit of the horde." He commended also the movement of population towards the suburbs, and hoped that in ten years motor-omnibuses might be replaced by municipal trams every

where.

The Ministerial attitude towards the unrest in India, which was one of the causes of Radical dissatisfaction, was effectively set forth by Lord Morley of Blackburn at a dinner given by the Indian Civil Service Dinner Club on June 11. He was trying, he said, to feel his way through the most difficult problem that responsible Governments had ever had to face. The first duty of the Government was to keep order, but the ideals aimed at were desirable, and had to be reconciled with order, otherwise, for the first time in history, British statesmanship would have broken down. Pure repression was impossible. Macaulay had prophesied in 1836 that idolatry would be abolished in thirty years by the mere effect of teaching the Hindus English; but the natural operation of knowledge and reflection carried men of different mental structure and history into widely different paths. He defended the Press Act and Explosives Act against

Radical criticisms, declaring that to talk about the freedom of the Press in connection with incendiary articles was nonsense, and predicting that "we should get through the dark and ugly moment before us," but only with self-command and without any quackery or cant, whether that of order or that of sentiment. The House of Commons had reassembled on June 10. Its first day was occupied largely with the demands of the Customs and Excise Services, and its second (on the vote for the Board of Agriculture) with the working of the Small Holdings Act. Sir Edward Strachey, representing the Board, stated that no necessity had yet arisen to acquire land compulsorily, and that the County Councils would co-operate amicably with the Board. Some 16,000 people had applied and 250,000 acres were required for them. The great majority of the applicants were qualified by the possession of capital and knowledge. Several Liberal members imputed lack of energy to the Small Holdings Commissioners and inertia or hostility to the County Councils, and Mr. Collings (Bordesley, Birmingham) complained that labourers without capital had no chance of getting small holdings. Other members touched on the spread of swine fever, agricultural organisation, horse-breeding, and the restrictions on the importation of meat. The Commissioners were defended by Sir Edward Strachey, who mentioned also that the supply of horses was under consideration by the Board of Agriculture and the War Office.

The next day the House of Commons sanctioned in principle an important new departure in prison legislation. The Prevention of Crime Bill, introduced by the Home Secretary on May 27, established reformatories on the system adopted at Borstal prison for the detention of offenders between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one, the Home Secretary being empowered to release on probation those whose conduct had been sufficiently good. Courts were also to be empowered to sentence habitual criminals to detention until sufficient assurance was given that they would revert to an honest life, or until they became physically incapable of returning to crime. A man convicted of four offences would be a habitual criminal. For these the present system of punishment was little better than a farce. Such criminals would be committed (subject to appeal) to a new prison in the Isle of Wight, where the discipline would be less rigorous than in ordinary prisons, they would work and might earn wages, and all cases would be considered twice a year at least by a Special Committee and reported on to the Home Secretary. On the second reading (June 12) Mr. Akers-Douglas, a former Home Secretary, approved the principle of the Bill, the second part of which he claimed as identical with his own Penal Servitude Bill of 1904. Objection was taken by Mr. Pickersgill (Bethnal Green, S. W.), Mr. Salter (Basingstoke, Hants), and Mr. John O'Connor (Kildare, N.) to the new powers given to the Home Secretary, and Mr. Atherley