only, under the title of War Debt Redemption Tax, on all fortunes above 5000l., and to be applied solely to Debt reduction. In the field of foreign policy it advocated the calling by Great Britain of an immediate Conference of all Powers concerned, including Germany, to deal with the revision of the Treaty of Versailles, and also the resumption of free economic and diplomatic relations with Russia. Needless to say, it outlined a comprehensive scheme of social reform, with the nationalisation of some of the main sources of production and channels of distribution as its basis.

The Liberal manifesto was issued on November 19, signed jointly by Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George on behalf of the whole party. It occupied in character an intermediate place between Mr. Baldwin's address and the Labour manifesto, inclining on the whole to the latter. It gave the place of honour to foreign affairs, critising the Government most sharply for its mismanagement in this sphere. It called for an earnest endeavour to co-operate with America in bringing peace to the world, and undertook that the whole force of the Liberal Party should be thrown into support of the League of Nations. In regard to the evil of unemployment, it rejected with equal emphasis both the remedy proposed by Mr. Baldwin-Tariff restriction-and those of the Labour Party-Socialism and the Capital Levy-and proposed instead a bold and courageous use of the national credit, which the country had restored by enormous sacrifices, on enterprises that would permanently benefit the home country and the Empire. Agriculture it proposed to assist not by means of a subsidy but on lines similar to those advocated in the Labour programme. It laid stress on the need for economy in the public service, but not to the detriment of education, and advocated local option in the matter of the sale of drink.

While the turmoil of the election was gathering force at home, a new complication of the first importance had arisen abroad. Just before Parliament rose, the Council of Ambassadors at Paris had been called upon to consider the question of making effective its control over the growth of German armaments, and also of allowing the Crown Prince, who had just returned to his home in Silesia, to remain in Germany. France was for applying drastic sanctions and for demanding the expulsion of the Crown Prince, but England was strongly opposed to both these measures. There was grave fear for several days that France would act alone, but after repeated conferences Lord Crewe, the British ambassador, induced M. Poincaré to consent to the delivery of two Notes to Germany which were drawn up on the whole in the British sense. one of these the German Government was called upon somewhat sharply to observe its obligations in the matter of disarmament, but was not threatened with the application of fresh sanctions. In the other the presence of the Crown Prince

In

1923.]

Shipbuilding Dispute Settled.

[137

in Germany was noted with some displeasure, but no demand was made for his expulsion. It was obvious that if Germany did not conform to the first of these Notes the problem of sanctions would again arise in an acute form, and there was still nothing to prevent France from taking independent action. Nevertheless relief was felt both in England and in France that a breach had at least been postponed, and in England the fact that for the first time in the life of the present Government France had deferred to British representations was thought to mark the turning over of a leaf in the relations of the two countries.

Satisfaction was caused in the country at large, and in labour circles in particular, by the settlement, on November 16, of the dispute between the Boilermakers' Society and the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation, which had been going on for nearly seven months. The Minister of Labour had intervened as far back as the beginning of September, but it required a further two and a half months of parleying to overcome the obstinacy of the men. The dispute had arisen out of the refusal of the boilermakers to accept an agreement entered into by the Federation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades with the employers regarding overtime and night-shifts, on the ground that they had ceased to belong to the Federation when the agreement came into force in April, and their action was strongly resented by the other shipbuilding trade unions both as being disloyal to the Federation and as being responsible for throwing 60,000 of their own members out of work. It was the pressure of their own fellow-workmen not less than that of the employers and the Government which finally induced the boilermakers to accept the agreement with some modifications.

Nomination day for the election was on November 26. Fifty candidates were unopposed-35 Unionists, 11 Liberals, 3 Labour, and one Irish Nationalist, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, the 'Father of the House." For the other 565 seats there were 1396 candidates, of whom 502 stood as Unionists, 444 as Liberals, 420 as Labour, and 30 under other denominationsIndependent, Co-operative, Communist, etc. There were thirtythree women candidates. An analysis of the nominations. showed that 116 of the contests would be between Unionists and Liberals, 100 between Unionists and Labour, and 52 between Liberal and Labour, while 249 would be "three-cornered," or in one or two cases even "four-cornered." A small number of Unionists-mostly in Lancashire-stood as Free Traders, but this did not prevent them from receiving the support of the central organisation. Among the Labour candidates there were a few who professed themselves to be Communists, but who nevertheless subscribed to the Labour Party programme.

The protagonists in the election campaign were Mr. Baldwin for the Conservatives, Mr. Lloyd George for the Liberals, and

Mr. Macdonald for Labour. Having safe seats, these gentlemen were able to tour the country, and they were all three received with great enthusiasm wherever they showed themselves. Mr. Lloyd George, it was noted with regret by many Liberals, reverted to his "Limehouse" style of 1909, and raised cheers by methods of questionable taste. Of the other popular leaders, Mr. Asquith and Mr. Churchill found themselves too hard pressed in their own contests to be able to divert much of their energies elsewhere, while Mr. Austen Chamberlain judged it best to devote most of his work to his own constituency. Lord Birkenhead, however, made some brilliant oratorical efforts in Lancashire. Lord Curzon excused himself from taking part in the campaign on the ground that the Foreign Office required his unremitting attention. It was certainly part of the Unionist policy to keep foreign affairs in the background as much as possible, and in this they were assisted by M. Poincaré, who, whether by design or not, refrained during the campaign from further offending British susceptibilities.

The interest taken in the election by the public was at first somewhat lukewarm, but it gathered strength rapidly as the campaign proceeded. The dominant issue was almost everywhere the tariff, and in many ways the battle of the 1905 election was fought over again. Free Trade on this occasion found as staunch support in the Labour as in the Liberal ranks. Mr. Macdonald denounced Protection no less vigorously than Mr. Asquith and Mr. Churchill; and Mr. Clynes, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Smillie and other spokesmen of the working classes poured scorn on the idea that tariffs could cure unemployment. This fact did not lead to any rapprochement between the Liberal and Labour parties. Each fought for its own hand, intent on gaining, if not office, at least the second prize, the place of official opposition. On the other hand, there was in a number of constituencies a more or less formal combination of Liberal and Unionist forces to oppose Labour; otherwise the number of three-cornered contests would have been considerably augmented.

The sensation of the election campaign was the attitude taken up by the press organs of Lord Rothermere and Lord Beaverbrook. (These press magnates had a few weeks earlier considerably extended their Trust by purchasing, at a cost of £6,000,000, the Manchester Daily Dispatch and the other papers owned by the Lancashire newspaper proprietor, Sir Edward Hulton.) This section of the Press, which according to its traditions should have been a strong advocate of Protection, gave its support not to Mr. Baldwin but to Mr. Lloyd George, and hinted not obscurely at the desirability of a Coalition Government in which Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Churchill, Lord Birkenhead and Mr. Austen Chamberlain should be the leading figures. Thus Mr. Baldwin's party, already rent on the Free Trade issue, was still further distracted, and its chances correspond

1923.]

ingly weakened. Nevertheless the general feeling among the Unionists was one of confidence that they would go back to Parliament with a clear majority over the other two parties. This was also the opinion reflected in the Stock Exchange, where the greatest "election risk" speculated upon was that of a Unionist majority of not more than twenty-five.

During the last week of the campaign complaints were made in a number of constituencies by opponents of Labour candidates that their meetings had been interfered with by "rowdy elements," but the polling itself on December 6 passed off without incident. The first result announced gave a severe shock to Unionist complacency. It was that of the Exchange division of Manchester-the scene of many memorable contests-where a Liberal defeated the retiring member, Sir E. Stockton, who stood as a Unionist Free Trader, and was thought to have an absolutely safe seat. The general result of the election was in harmony with this prelude. Out of 346 seats held by Unionists in the late Parliament the party now lost no fewer than 107, and in return gained only 18 from other parties, so that their numbers were reduced by 89 on the balance. Thus history repeated itself, and Protection once more proved a disastrous policy for the Unionist Party. The voting figures showed even more conclusively that, in spite of the changed conditions of world-commerce, the electorate of Great Britain was no less averse to Protection than it had been eighteen years previously. The total number of votes cast for Unionist candidates was 5,500,000 against over 8,500,000 for the Opposition.

The Unionists lost 40 seats to Labour and 67 to Liberals, gaining in exchange 3 from the former and 14 from the latter. Their total poll decreased by some 75,000. A number of Ministers failed to secure election-Sir M. Barlow, the Minister of Labour, Sir R. Sanders, Minister of Agriculture, and Captain W. E. Elliot, the Hon. W. Watson, Mr. J. C. Davidson, Major A. BoydCarpenter, and Mr. P. J. Ford, who held minor posts in the Government. The losses of the Unionists were particularly heavy in Lancashire, and included 8 in Manchester and Salford and 2 in Liverpool; but nowhere in England-not even in the "solid South"-did they hold their own, save in Birmingham, where they still retained all 12 seats by very large majorities. In Scotland they even gained slightly at the expense of the Liberals.

Labour gained 22 seats from the Liberals and lost 13 to them. Its total poll was 4,358,045-an increase of some 250,000 But for the combination of over that of the last election. Liberal and Conservative forces against it in certain constituencies, it would undoubtedly have won even more seats. To this fact it owed its chief "casualty"-the defeat of Mr. A. Henderson in West Newcastle. Its crowning triumph was the victory of Mr. Pethick Lawrence at West Leicester over Mr. Churchill by over 4,000 votes.

Liberalism gained most ground in Lancashire. Its total poll increased by some 180,000 votes. Its successes were preponderatingly to the account of the Asquithian or "independent" wing of the party, and its defeats to that of the Lloyd George wing, which lost not only Mr. Churchill, but also Sir A. Mond and many of Mr. George's most notable supporters in the last Parliament. Some prominent "Independents," however, who had lost their seats at previous elections again failed to get innotably Sir Donald Maclean, Mr. W. Runciman, and Mr. J. M. Robertson.

Of the 33 women candidates 8 were elected-3 Unionist, 2 Liberal, and 3 Labour. The Communist member, Mr. Newbold, was defeated by an Independent Conservative, and none of the other Communists who stood as Labour candidates secured election.

The final results of the election may be tabulated as follows:

The Independents comprised 2 Irish Nationalists, 1 Sinn Fein, 3 Independent Conservatists, 1 Prohibitionist, and 1 Independent Christian Pacifist.

Thus after a lapse of only twelve months, the Parliament of 1922 was replaced by one of a very different complexion. The lesson of the voting might be summed up by saying that in the course of the year there had been in the electorate a strong drift to the left, so that Liberals gained at the expense of Unionists and Labour at the expense of both. While the Liberal gains could be explained by the Free Trade appeal, those of Labour were due chiefly to the growing volume of disgust among the public with the methods and outlook of both the older parties, and mistrust of their leaders; Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Churchill probably drove as many Liberals over to Labour as they won from Unionism. The verdict of the election could only be interpreted as being not merely a rejection of Tariff Reform but also a call for a new handling of the problems of unemployment and foreign affairs; and it therefore sealed the doom of Mr. Baldwin's Ministry, though it failed to indicate clearly his successor.

The fact that no party was left in possession of a majority in the House of Commons seemed at first sight to favour the designs of those who desired a Coalition Government the chief object of which should be to fight Socialism. It was reckoned by this section-of which the Daily Mail was the chief mouthpiece that if Mr. Baldwin resigned the King would entrust the formation of a Ministry to some other prominent member of the Unionist Party, which was still the largest party in the