the Government on its intention to introduce an Irish University Bill, which would be favourably received by the Catholic laity and, he believed, by the clergy if it recognised the principle of equality of treatment between Catholics and Protestants. He welcomed the announcement that compulsory land purchase would not be confined to the congested districts, and declared that there was a conspiracy to represent crime as rife in Ireland in order to injure the Home Rule cause. It was a fallacy to describe cattle-driving as an attack on a prosperous industry; it was a symptom of a very old evil, the depopulation of the rich lands to make room for bullocks. The second-class pastures, Sir Horace Plunkett said, would be better under a system of mixed farming. He congratulated the Chief Secretary on his refusal to apply the Crimes Act; to resort to it would have been to court disaster.

Mr. A. Henderson (Barnard Castle), who had just been elected chairman of the Labour party in succession to Mr. Keir Hardie, promised its hearty assistance to the Ministry in social reform, and pressed for attention to unemployment; and, after other speeches, the adjournment was moved by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Leicester), who next day (Jan. 30) moved an amendment to the Address regretting that no legislation had been recommended on that subject by the King's advisers. Unemployment, he said, now amounted to 6'1 per cent. of the population, yet this was after a boom in trade. The Act of 1905, a most courageous piece of statesmanship, was only passed for three years. He deprecated awaiting the report of the Poor Law Commission; the Local Government Board possessed sufficient information. The amendment was seconded by Mr. Pete Curran (Jarrow), who declared that the statistics understated the amount of unemployment in unskilled labour, and urged that the State should give employment to those willing to work, even to the detriment of private enterprise. Mr. Masterman (West Ham, N.), who declared that it was only through the hope of work for all that tariff reform was making progress, repudiated this Socialistic solution, and concluded that the most hopeful remedy was migration or emigration. Dr. Macnamara (Camberwell, N.), Secretary to the Local Government Board, gave particulars of what had been done under the Act and declared that there was no sovereign remedy. The Socialist scheme he dismissed as chimerical, and, as to tariff reform, there were demonstrations of unemployed in Berlin and Chicago. One cause of unemployment was rural immigration, another drink, and a third juvenile labour, and these might be modified by the Ministerial legislation. A permanent cause also was our treatment of the tramp and loafer class. Mr. Austen Chamberlain defended fiscal reform as a remedy on the whole; Mr. Harold Cox (Preston), in a very effective speech, argued that to take money to employ people in uneconomic ways tended to throw others out of employment, and suggested

that the question could only be solved on existing historic and economic lines. After other speeches, including one from Mr. Long (Dublin, S.), Mr. John Burns (Battersea), President of the Local Government Board, wound up the debate. He was not disposed to pessimism. Some 50,000 to 70,000 less per million of unskilled labourers were unemployed at that time than twenty years earlier. Pauperism was decreasing in the country generally; it was swelled in London by the attraction of charities. He himself, on the day of his call to office, had gone down to the Thames Embankment at 1 A.M., taken his place among a string of unemployed, and received his portion of soup and bread. The pauperism in this country had been greatly exaggerated, and whatever test was applied, the workers in Free-Trade London were better off than those in Berlin. The attacks on the administration of the Act and the demand for legislation before the Poor Law Commission reported were unsupported by any responsible authority. He intended to continue the Act pending the publication of the Report, and to go on supplying funds to the districts most in need of help. The Government were not neglecting the interest of the workers, and would do nothing to enlarge the field by pauperising employment.

The debate was then closured by 315 to 80, and the Labour amendment was negatived by 195 to 146. 24 Liberals and 24 Unionists voted in the minority, and 7 Unionists in the majority, the rest abstaining.

66

The next day (Jan. 31)-after the issue of a new writ for Worcester had been moved by the chief Opposition whip and assented to by Sir William Robson (South Shields) in his first speech as Attorney-General-the debate was resumed with the moving of an amendment by Dr. Rutherford (Brentford, Middlesex), calling attention to the condition of India, representing that the proposals of its Government were inadequate to allay the existing and growing discontent, and urging reform in the direction of giving the Indian people control of their own affairs. The mover declared that India had lost confidence in British justice; it had been hoped in vain that Lord Curzon's reign of terror" would be reversed; and he advocated provincial Parliaments for India and an "Imperial Duma." The amendment was seconded by Sir Henry Cotton (Nottingham, E.) and supported by Mr. O'Grady (Leeds, E.) and by other members, some with Indian experience. They deprecated the existing bureaucratic system, and advocated reforms in the direction of popular government, and Mr. Herbert Roberts (Denbighshire, W.) advocated a Parliamentary Committee on India. Mr. John Morley, who was able to preface his reply by announcing the settlement of the British Indian difficulty in the Transvaal (post, Chapter VII.), in a speech strongly commended by the Spectator, saw serious drawbacks to a Parliamentary Committee, but promised to continue to bear

it in mind. He bantered Dr. Rutherford on his six weeks' tour in India, whence he had brought back twenty authoritative pronouncements of his own on the difficulties which were perplexing the India Office, and emphasised the absurdity of producing "standardised patterns" of Government for communities of widely different habits and ideas. He was surprised that he had received no thanks that afternoon for appointing two Indian gentlemen to the Secretary of State's Council (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1907, p. 153). The situation had greatly improved during the last two years. He justified the deportation of the leading agitators, and declared that he had always been sympathetic towards the natives, and that if he were shown where the system of bureaucracy was at fault he would do his best to show his sympathy.

The amendment was withdrawn, and Mr. J. M. Robertson (Tyneside, Northumberland) followed with another, regretting that though the British Consul-General in Egypt had expressed views favourable to Constitutional reform, the British Government had not enjoined on him the duty of granting the demand of the General Assembly that former forecasts of such reform should be fulfilled. This was seconded by Mr. Higham (Sowerby, W.R. Yorks). Sir Edward Grey, in reply, echoed what Mr. Morley had said as to the application of d priori political doctrines to totally different countries, and said he must await Sir Eldon Gorst's views. They must begin by developing existing representative institutions, and, in his opinion, they should begin from below with the powers and composition of the provincial councils, the powers of the municipalities and the provincial towns. The amendment was withdrawn.

The debate so far had shown that the chief danger to the Government came from their own more advanced followers; but the result of the South Herefordshire bye-election, declared on Saturday, February 1, gave a fresh stimulus to the hopes of the Opposition. The seat, indeed, had been won by the Liberals in 1906 for the first time in its history; Captain Clive, the successful candidate, was very popular locally, and the suffragists had made great efforts to defeat his opponent, Mr. Thomson; but the depression in the local hop industry had probably helped largely to this victory for Tariff Reform.

The militant women suffragists had been specially active at this as at the Mid-Devon bye-election; the calmer supporters of the cause had held a very successful meeting at Queen's Hall on January 24 "for women only," in connection with the Women's National Liberal Federation, and had sent a deputation from the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on January 30, whose members had urged the special claims of working women to the vote, and emphasised the recent and pending bye-elections as evidence of the change in the feeling of the electorate towards

the subject. But Mr. Asquith, while promising to give due weight to their arguments, said that, even were the Government unanimous, they could not take the initiative in a matter which was not before the country at the last general election. Meanwhile the more militant suffragists had been resorting to more demonstrative methods. At the opening of Parliament, banners advocating "votes for women" had been displayed, and four women bearing a petition had nearly reached the royal carriage. On the morning of January 30, at breakfast time, the houses of various Ministers were visited by deputations, whose purpose was stated to be to call attention to the omission from the Royal Speech of any reference to women's suffrage. They were refused admission; and several of their members, declining to leave, were arrested. In default of paying fines or entering into recognisances to be of good behaviour, they were sentenced to imprisonment, some for six weeks, others for a month. Efforts were made in both Houses to get them treated as firstclass misdemeanants, but it was explained that this was left to the magistrate's discretion.

The news of the murder of the King and Crown Prince of Portugal (Foreign History, Chapter IV., post) reached London on Sunday, February 2, and was received with astonishment as well as horror. Little attention had been paid by the general public to the progress of the struggle, and there had been no thought that any enemies of the Dictator might turn their vengeance from him to the Crown. The murdered King was popular at the English Court, and had repeatedly visited Great Britain. Sympathy was expressed universally, from the Court downwards, and on Monday, February 3, notice was given in both Houses that an address to the Crown would next day be moved expressing the "indignation and deep concern" of Parliament at the murders, and praying His Majesty to signify to the King of Portugal their abhorrence of the crime, and their sympathy with the Royal Family and the people. In the Commons this address was moved (the members uncovering) by the Prime Minister, who depicted in vigorous words the indignation and horror everywhere shown at the murder of "the kind, manly, friendly King"-an outrage on humanity redeemed only by the courage of a woman. Mr. Akers-Douglas, in the absence of Mr. Balfour, added a few appropriate words on behalf of the Opposition. In the Lords a similar motion was moved by the Marquess of Ripon and seconded by the Marquess of Lansdowne.

The debate in the Upper House (p. 12) had shown that the regular Opposition attack on the Government would be mainly based on the condition of Ireland; and in the Commons on Monday, February 3, Mr. Long (Dublin, S.) moved an amendment deploring the omission of any reference in the Speech to the increase of agrarian crime and disorder in Ireland, or any assurance of the adoption of measures for the better

B

protection of life and property or the repression of lawlessness in that region. He ridiculed Mr. John Redmond's allegation of a Press conspiracy against the Irish people, based his case on judges' charges and on the proclamation of counties just after the prorogation (ANNUAL REGISTER, 1907, p. 265) and attributed the abatement of cattle-driving to a compromise by the Government. An increase of shooting outrages had followed the repeal of the Peace Preservation Act; the number of people under police protection had increased; and he complained bitterly of the weakness of the Government in neglecting to punish the instigators of cattle-driving and to use the Crimes Act of 1887. He hoped, also, that a Bill would be introduced to regulate the sale of arms. Mr. Lonsdale (Armagh, Mid.) seconded the amendment.

Mr. Birrell replied with great animation. The permanent peace and prosperity of Ireland, he affirmed emphatically, depended on the settlement of the land question and the speedy acquisition of untenanted land for distribution in economic holdings. Under the Act of 1903, 19,500,000l. had been paid for land to the Irish landlords, agreements had been made respecting land representing 34,500,000l. more, and negotiations were pending as to land to the value of 4,300,000l. This total -roughly 58,500,000l.-represented only one-third of the total value of Irish land; two-thirds remained to be dealt with; the landlords were paid in land stock, which had recently risen from 81 to about 89, but even at that price the excess stock necessary to pay the landlords amounted to 124,000l. per 1,000,000l. issued. On 100,000,000l. it would be 12,400,0001., representing an annual charge for sixty-eight years of 403,000l. That charge could be met by the Irish Development Grant to the extent of 68,000l. and the balance was equivalent to a 5d. rate over the whole of Ireland. That was an impossible situation, and a readjustment was necessary; at the present rate of progress the Congested Districts Board would take 150 years to acquire the needful land. Yet in this difficulty the party opposite was calling for more coercion. What frightened him was not cattle-driving, but the price of land stock, the possibility of bad seasons, and the fear that Irish hopes might not be realised. The state of Ireland, regarding which he gave statistics of outrage, was less satisfactory than last year; but, though he loathed boycotting, some of its forms could no more be put down by law than could covetousness. As Mr. Gladstone had said, the source and character of crime must be considered as well as the amount. Cattle-driving aimed at breaking up the grass lands; it came of disappointed hope, it was usually unaccompanied by outrage, and there would be no contentment till compulsory powers were given to break up the grass lands. The executive had worked the ordinary law with the utmost vigour; juries had shown sympathy with the defendants in cattle-driving cases, but the use of juries was to enable the