He was supported by Lord Sydenham, who questioned the Government's right to impose on the country a loan of 2,500,000l. Viscount Grey desired to know if it was true, as had been alleged, that British Governments had given various pledges which were inconsistent with each other. They were, he said, placed in a position of considerable difficulty by the Balfour Declaration. If 93 per cent. of the population of Palestine were Arabs, he did not see how they could establish any other than an Arab Government without prejudice to the civil rights of the population. He was not speaking with any want of sympathy for the idea of a Zionist home, but all commitments which might involve this country in the use of force were things which needed very careful consideration, and ought to be avoided if possible. Lord Buckmaster said that communications published in the Press, the accuracy of which had not been denied, showed, not that there had been a mere casual inconsistency between different announcements at different times, but that there had been a deliberate pledge given on the one hand which had been abandoned on the other.

On behalf of the Government the Marquess of Salisbury, Lord President of the Council, said it must be remembered that the present British policy in Palestine was adopted in the first instance by the previous Government, but once it had been adopted it became the policy of the country, and there could be no worse administration than one which pursued a zig-zag course, so to speak. He admitted that he found some difficulty in carrying out certain parts of the policy of the previous Government, but they must have regard to it in order to uphold the honour and consistency of the country.

Early in March the Navy, Army, and Air Estimates were published. The Navy Estimates were (net) 68,883,7007., a reduction of 6,883,700l. on the previous year; the Army Estimates were 52,000,000l., as against 63,300,000l.; and the Air Estimates 12,011,000l., an increase of 1,116,000l. In introducing the Navy Estimates in the House of Commons (March 12), Mr. Amery, First Lord of the Admiralty, said that these Estimates embodied the full financial results of the Washington Agreement. But for that step the replacement by modern capital ships of ships which were becoming obsolescent, in face of the building programmes of America and Japan, would have forced the Estimates up by another 15 or 20,000,000l., whereas now they had in barely twelve months brought down the gross Navy Estimates from 92,500,000l. to under 61,500,000l. and the net Estimates from 83,400,000l. to 58,000,000l. In taking action. immediately as they had done on the conclusion of the Agreement before it had been ratified by themselves or any other Power, they had run no small risks, but they had by their act of faith secured for the taxpayer economies for which otherwise he might have had to wait two years. The main principle of limitation was that there should be equality in battle strength

between the United States and the British Empire. They had twenty-two capital ships and two just laid down, while the United States had only eighteen; but both the United States and Japan were much stronger in ships of over 30,000 tons. Also, while stronger in light cruisers and air-craft carriers, they were markedly inferior to the United States in destroyers and submarines. The total personnel provided for in these Estimates was 99,500 as against 116,400 in the United States. He considered that this was the irreducible minimum of their naval strength, as they could not run the risk of being obviously and demonstrably inferior to any other Power, however friendly. Mr. Amery in the course of his remarks also referred to the creation of a naval base at Singapore and the relations of the Admiralty and Air Service, matters of which much more was to be heard in the course of the year.

Mr. Snowden moved "that this House regrets that the sum proposed to be spent on the Naval Services is not consistent with the pledges of retrenchment given by the Government, and calls on the Government to use its influence to summon an International Conference for considering the extension of the principles of the Washington Treaty to all non-signatory States." He said that when members asked for reforms in this or that direction, they were told by Ministers that they were impossible because of the expense. He refused to accept that view, and was not prepared to take Dreadnoughts for widows' pensions, for better old-age pensions, and other much-needed reforms. He hoped that the Government, if it could not accept the whole motion, would at least be sympathetic to the latter part. Commandant Bellairs twitted Mr. Snowden on having said in 1910 that, owing to the growth of Socialism and internationalism, no Great Power dared to go to war, because they could not trust their armies and navies. He said that while in regard to the Washington Conference their motto had been "Trust and Scrap," the other Powers had nailed to the mast "Wait and See.' This particularly applied to France, which was holding them back in the matter of disarmament, all over the world. Mr. Snowden's motion was ultimately defeated by 240 votes to 153.

The Army Estimates were introduced by the UnderSecretary of State for War, Col. W. Guinness, with a warning that retrenchment had been carried to a point which was only safe so long as the world was exhausted by war, and that the country was facing the same risks as before the war with dangerously decreased resources.

The Air Estimates, presented by the Secretary of State for Air, Sir S. Hoare, on March 14, excited greater interest, owing to the continual increase of friction in British relations with France, which was maintaining an Air Force far stronger than England's. Sir S. Hoare, as was natural, deprecated even the remotest idea of hostility to France; nevertheless he took a comparison of the British and French forces as the basis of his

remarks. He pointed out that to-day while Great Britain had 371 first line aeroplanes, France had 1,260, and in 1925, according to present programmes, the disparity would be much greater. If therefore they decided to apply a one-Power standard to the Air without making corresponding reductions in the Estimates of the Army and Navy, they would have to add 20,000,000l. at once, and 35,000,000l. in all, to keep pace with the growing programmes of other Powers. In these circumstances the Air Minister did not take upon himself the responsibility of proposing any addition to the Air Force, but asked the House to await the result of the comprehensive inquiry into the whole problem of Imperial and national defence which was being undertaken by the Committee of Imperial Defence. Meanwhile he proposed to concentrate his attention on making the quality of Britain's Air Force as good as possible.

In the House of Commons the only serious criticism levelled at the Air Minister was on the ground that he was not doing enough to support civil aviation; but public anxiety on the military situation found expression a few days later in debates in both Houses. In the House of Lords, on March 21, Lord Birkenhead called attention to the relative air strengths of France and Great Britain. The question, he said, was one which had changed its aspect very largely in the last few months. Since the present Government came into office relations with France had not grown better; and though every one realised how immense would be the disaster if the previous harmony could not be restored, yet it was vitally important for those who were responsible for the security of this country to consider that security in terms of the new diplomacy and not of the old. The situation, according to the statement of the Secretary of State for Air, was that while Great Britain had 371 Service machines, France had 1,260, and in 1925, if the present programmes were maintained, the figures would be: Great Britain, 575; France, 2,180. Whereas in this country in 1922 they had built only 200 aeroplanes for military and civil purposes, France had built 3,300-3,000 for military and 300 for civil purposes. That seemed to him a most alarming state of affairs. Just as in the past they could not claim security for this country unless the Fleet was adequate, so to-day they would be lacking in their duty unless they could afford the people the guarantee of an adequate Air Force. This country could no more be content during the coming years with a position of inferiority in the air than it would have been content with naval inferiority prior to 1914. Nothing less than a onePower standard was safe.

The Duke of Sutherland, Under-Secretary of State for Air, who replied on behalf of the Government, said that if the present Cabinet decided that the axiom accepted by the late Coalition Government, that there was not likely to be a major war for ten years from 1919 no longer held good, and if the Com

mittee of Imperial Defence, which was now investigating the subject, also held the same view, and thought that the circumstances warranted a larger Air Force, then possibly a larger Air Force would be raised. If it was decided to adopt a onePower standard with France, it would mean an increase on the Estimates for 1923-24 of about 5,000,000l., which would mean a total expenditure on the Air Force of 23,000,000l. France at the present moment regarded her large Air Force as a first line of defence against an air attack both upon herself and Great Britain by a Russo-German combination in the future. He was glad the Committee of Imperial Defence was inquiring into the whole problem, so that they could be satisfied, before increased expenditure was undertaken, that it was really necessary for the safety of the Empire at the present time, when the need for economy was most imperative.

Viscount Grey pointed out that the question they were really dealing with was the defence not of the Empire as a whole but of this island and more particularly of its vital partLondon. He had listened to the debate with great uneasiness; Lord Birkenhead's speech contained grave statements regarding their present position to which he saw no answer. Since the Armistice things had become more and more uncertain, and as regarded Air Forces, they were on the brink of a new competition in armaments unless there could be created some sense of security in Europe which would cause a general reduction of Air Forces as well as of other forces. Without this, it was impossible for any Government in this country to hold its position unless it could show that as regarded aircraft they were in a position to secure the vital parts of the country against any possible attack.

The Marquess of Salisbury, while deprecating some of the language used by Lord Birkenhead in regard to France, said there was little difference between them on the main issue. He did not think, however, there was any necessity to take a tragic view of the situation. The Government was perfectly able, if the country wished, to put these matters right, and he asked them in this respect to trust the Government, which would soon announce the result of its deliberations.

When the Foreign Office Vote came up on March 13, Sir John Simon moved a reduction of 1007. on account of the Government's inaction in the Ruhr. The new facts in the situation to which he called attention were the encirclement of the British troops in Cologne by French outposts, the resulting injury to British trade in that quarter, and the imminent danger of an outbreak of violence in the Ruhr district. He pressed the Government to say whether they were really satisfied that the action of the French in advancing into Germany was within the Treaty of Versailles at all. A number of speeches from members of all parties, including Mr. Asquith, supported him in urging the Government to adopt a more positive attitude, but

without effect. Mr. R. McNeill (Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs) said he did not see what good purpose could be served by the Government expressing publicly-it might be through the law officers-the view that our Ally had violated the Treaty, if that really was the opinion of the law officers. The position, in the Government's view, remained the same as when the Prime Minister had spoken a few days previously, and therefore no new step could be taken. On a division the Government majority fell to 48, 201 voting for the amendment and 249 against.

If in regard to the Ruhr the Government was blamed for its passivity, in another direction it displayed an activity which equally offended its critics. On the night of March 11 the police, acting on the instructions of the Home Office and in accordance with a concerted plan, arrested a number of Irish men and women resident in various towns of England and Scotland who were suspected of plotting against the Irish Government, and deported them to Ireland, where they were handed over to the Free State Government to be interned until further orders. The number of deportees amounted to over a hundred. This high-handed action of the Home Office created a storm of indignation in Labour circles. Mr. Macdonald raised the question in the House of Commons on March 13, and in the subsequent proceedings great passion was shown by a number of the Labour members. The Home Secretary explained that the Government had come into possession of material clearly indicating the existence in England of a quasi-military organisation to co-operate with the Irregulars in Ireland in their endeavour to overthrow the Free State, and had taken action at the request of the Free State Government. The persons arrested, he said, had been informed that they might, if they wished, make representations to an Advisory Committee which would be presided over by some one who held, or had held, high judicial office. This did not satisfy the Labour members, who demanded that the arrested persons should be tried in England; and on March 23 application was made before the King's Bench on behalf of one of the deported, Mr. Art O'Brien, for a writ of habeas corpus in order that he might be brought up to trial and so test the validity of the order interning him. The Court refused to grant the writ, and an application was then made to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal took some weeks to form its decision, and meanwhile the matter remained in abeyance.

On March 20 the House of Commons took the unusual course of transforming itself for a few hours from a legislative assembly into a debating society. The change was due to Mr. Philip Snowden, who, having been fortunate enough to draw a place in the private members' ballot, took the opportunity to introduce an academic motion urging the House of Commons to declare that "legislative effort should be directed to the