The

gradual supersession of the capitalist system by an industrial and social order based on the public ownership and democratic control of the instruments of production and distribution.' subject drew a full house, and a large gathering of visitors, Mr. Snowden's speech being awaited as an authentic exposition of the Socialist creed in England. It proved to be much more moderate in tone than was anticipated. In the name of his party, Mr. Snowden repudiated revolution. Further he said. that they did not propose confiscation, which was the longest way to obtain an object, and was certain to end in disaster. There was, he continued, no analogy between Socialism and Bolshevism; as a matter of fact they were antitheses, for Bolshevism, in its political theories and in its practice of dictatorship and confiscation was not Socialism but Die-Hard Toryism. For the rest the speech was an attack on the capitalist system on familiar lines; while the other side of the picture was effectively presented by Sir Alfred Mond and Sir P. Lloyd-Greame. So keen was the interest aroused by the debate, and so large the number of would-be speakers that the Premier promised as soon as possible to allow another day for its continuation; a promise which was actually fulfilled after a lapse of nearly four months.

On March 22 the House of Lords discussed the question of its own reform. Lord Newton proposed that its membership should be confined to 250 to 300 peers who should be possessed of high qualifications. Lord Curzon agreed that the House was too large, and that it had been unduly swollen by the excessive number of new creations in recent years. But he was not sure that if the House was constituted in some other way they would get a better attendance. While the evil was acknowledged, the difficulty was that there was no agreement as to the remedy. Challenged by Lord Birkenhead to state when the Government was going to deal with the problem, Lord Curzon replied that, while the reform of the House of Lords was one of those obligations which the Government accepted and which they hoped to redeem, he did not think anyone had expressed a hope or desire that the Government should undertake this reform in the first months or the first years of their office. Lord Birkenhead thereupon made a speech of some bitterness in which he pointed out that when the Coalition Government was in office it had been upbraided by the Conservative Party outside with neglecting to reform the House of Lords while there was an immediate positive risk of a Socialist Government, yet now the Conservative Party was in power they were told that the question might be dealt with in two or three years. Were they certain that this Government would be in office after a couple of years? It was an extraordinary thing that the Government should tell them to wait this time for a reform of the House of Lords when they could not find a seat for the Lord-Advocate of Scotland in the House of Commons.

On March 28, in the debate on the Consolidated Fund, the

C

question of the Ruhr was again discussed in the House of Ĉommons, and once more an attempt was made, and without success, to stir the Government to a more active policy. Mr. Lloyd George had announced his intention of initiating the debate, but at the last moment he handed over the task to Sir E. Grigg, who had formerly been his private secretary. The speaker laid stress on the great harm which was being done to British commercial interests by the Ruhr embargo. It was evident, he said, that France was not thinking mainly of reparations, and that she had in mind the making of a new peace with Germany which should supersede the Treaty of Versailles. He saw great difficulty in reconciling the British point of view and the British sense of right with the policy now advocated by France. He therefore asked the Government first to consult with the Dominions, which had also been parties to the Treaty of Versailles, and secondly to be ready with some declaration on behalf of the British Empire within a few weeks.

Mr. Asquith called attention to a speech delivered the day before by the German Foreign Minister, Dr. Von Rosenberg, in which he stated Germany's willingness to submit the question of reparations to an international commission of experts, and abide by their decision. He wished to know whether the Government, after this expression of German views, was still going to adhere to its policy of what he called "benevolent impotence." Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, who followed, stated that the speech of the German Foreign Minister referred to, which made clear for the first time since the French occupation of the Ruhr the German attitude in regard to that step, was the direct result of representations made by a Conference of Labour members of the Parliaments of England, France, Italy, and Belgium. He then proceeded to deliver a vigorous attack on the Government. The question, he said, was asked on all sides, Why does not the British Government say where it stands?" Silence served neither side. It deprived the silent country of all credit and respect, and did nothing whatever to protect its interests. The Government could have spoken quite definitely about trade. It had never said quite clearly that we were not going to allow our trade to be hampered, and that we stood for the same conditions after the occupation as existed before. The Government ought to have insisted before now on some clear statement of French intentions. It should insist on the fact that the French occupation did not give France any additional rights under the Treaty, nor destroy Britain's rights under the Treaty. We had responsibilities and could not relinquish them.

Mr. Bonar Law being unable to speak owing to a cold, the reply for the Government was made by Mr. Baldwin, Chancellor of the Exchequer. He assured the House that the Government was keeping in close touch in this matter with the Dominions, and intended further to do so. He compared the position in

Europe to the beginning of a grave and extended strike in which both sides are determined not to yield, and he reminded the House that in such a state of things premature interference may lead to disaster. He believed that, owing to the course which they had pursued during the past few weeks, they had preserved the friendship of their Allies and their confidence and trust, and that they would be accepted by Germany as an honest negotiation when the time came. In regard to British trade in the Ruhr, the President of the Board of Trade explained that, in response to the Government's representations, the French had agreed that such trade during the occupation should be subjected only to the same obligations as regards licence and duty as had existed under the German administration. The German Government, however, had warned their nationals that if they traded in goods in respect of which the French issued licences or charged duties, they would be liable to five years' imprisonment, and when approached by the British Government on this point had refused to make any concessions. Consequently, he maintained, the onus of obstructing British trade in the Ruhr rested solely on the Germans.

This debate fitly closed a session in which foreign affairs, and especially the Ruhr situation, had occupied the attention of Parliament to a preponderating extent. In spite of the best efforts of the Government, it was felt that England and France had drifted appreciably further apart, and the rift would go on widening if France persisted in her policy. Trade fortunately had shown considerable improvement in the first quarter of the year, and this helped to counteract the anxiety caused by the unpromising outlook in foreign affairs.

CHAPTER II.

DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN DIFFICULTIES.

THE lull in the political field caused by the Easter adjournment (March 29) allowed public attention to be concentrated on the Labour situation, which just at this time assumed a very disturbed aspect. After a welcome respite of some months, the country found itself threatened with a recrudescence of labour disputes. Unrest was rife in several industries-in agriculture, in the building trade, in coal-mining, in the jute industry, in the shipbuilding trade, and among the railway workers-and during the whole of April the air was full of threats of strikes and lockouts on a large scale. Only in a few cases, however, did the trouble reach serious dimensions.

The most notable of the strikes which took place about this time was that of the farm labourers in Norfolk. The farmers in this district declared themselves unable to pay the men 30s. a week, which the latter considered a living wage, and accordingly the Union men went out on strike towards the

end of March. A number of non-Union men remained at work, and there was considerable friction between these and the Union men in the succeeding weeks. The strike caused a serious set-back to farming in Norfolk, but fortunately spread very little beyond the borders of that country, and was settled -largely through the mediation of Mr. Ramsay Macdonaldin time (April 21) to save the harvest.

The other threatened strikes were either averted, or ran their course without causing serious dislocation. On April 5 about 50,000 miners ceased working in South Wales without allowing their notices to run out, but they came back to work as suddenly as they had left it a few days later. On April 8 the building employers posted lock-out notices on account of the refusal of the men to accept a reduction in wages. It seemed for a time as if there would be a set-back in the erection of new houses, a matter in which the general public was so vitally interested. Fortunately, through the intervention of the Ministry of Labour and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, the two sides were induced to submit the questions in dispute to arbitration before the notices expired, and building activity was not interrupted. The arbitrator's award was not delivered till August, but meanwhile building activity went on apace.

One effect of the Norfolk farm strike had been to focus public attention on the condition of agriculture in England. After a brief spell of comparative prosperity during the war and subsequently, this industry was rapidly relapsing into its former unsatisfactory condition. The Government was loudly called upon to assist it, and a deputation had waited on the Prime Minister on March 16 to lay its grievances before him. It asked for a definite statement of the Government's intentions on two issues. The first was as to the permanent policy of the Government-whether it desired to see the industry conducted on a political and social basis or on a purely economic basis, in which case the farmers would largely have to give up trying to grow cereals; the second was as to the immediate action contemplated by the Government to arrest the growing chaos in the industry. On the latter point the Prime Minister was unable to give any definite promise, and in regard to permanent policy he said that the only way to give agriculture its desired place in the economy of the nation was either by a subsidy, which the country could not afford, or by protection, which it would not have. He therefore thought that the only course open to the farmers was to adjust the industry, if possible, to a profit-paying basis on existing economic conditions. However, the matter was not allowed altogether to rest there. On April 5 the Tribunal of Economists, which had been appointed in December to consider how agriculture might be helped, issued an interim report. It described its proposals as "a cautious use of the power of the State to obtain for agriculture a somewhat greater measure of security than it had enjoyed for the past half century." Its chief

recommendations were that, while the importation of wheat should be left free, importers should be required to import 25 per cent. of offals to 75 per cent. of wheat; that duties should be imposed on imported barley and hops; that imports of potatoes should be permitted only under licence of the Board of Trade; that railway rates should be reduced; and that Agricultural Wages Boards-the abolition of which by the late Government was deeply resented by the men-should be reestablished in a new form, by dividing the country into some six areas, each governed by an independent Wages Board, the duty of which should be to lay down a minimum wage for its area and see that the standard of pay was not fixed by the inefficient farmer.

On April 11 the Government issued a statement to the effect that it was not prepared to accept the Tribunal's recommendation in regard to hops, as the hop-growers' case might be met by an increase in the consumption of beer. With regard to railway rates, the Government was of opinion that these could be drastically reduced, and advised the industry to avail itself of the machinery of the Railway Rates Tribunal. The Government further announced its decision to devote the Road Fund surplus, amounting probably to over 1,250,000l. to the relief of rates for the upkeep of rural roads, a step which, it was hoped, would go far towards helping the recovery of agriculture, and to settle the Norfolk dispute. At the same time the Cabinet set up a special sub-committee, with Sir Robert Sanders, the Minister for Agriculture, as a member, to go carefully into the recommendations of the Tribunal which had not yet been dealt

with.

During the Easter recess considerable interest had been aroused by the visit to London of M. Loucheur, the prominent French industrialist and politician. Although this visit was professedly private, political importance was attached to it in view of M. Loucheur's position in French politics, and the fact that he interviewed the Prime Minister and other leading British statesmen. In answer to questions in Parliament, the Prime Minister on April 9 stated that the visit had been entirely unofficial, and that only general conversations had taken place. It transpired, however, on M. Loucheur's return to Paris, that he had come to London with the express consent of M. Poincaré, and hopes were for a time entertained that this betokened a willingness on the part of the French Premier to come more into line with the British point of view. These hopes, however, were dashed to the ground by a speech of M. Poincaré at Dunkirk on April 15, in which he showed himself as uncompromising as ever in regard to Germany. In this speech he asserted that M. Loucheur had found evidence of a change of public opinion in England in favour of France a statement which was emphatically repudiated by representative organs of the British Press, though Lord Rothermere's organs continued to support France with might and main.