May. Mr. Baldwin consented on condition that the Labour Party would forgo one of its allotted Supply days. This reply was well received by the Conference, which then decided to adjourn further discussion of the subject till the Miners' Annual Conference on July 10.

On June 21 the Labour Party, as arranged, gave up one of its Supply days in order to secure a discussion of Mr. Adamson's Bill to amend the Miners' Minimum Wage Act. A couple of days previously, a deputation of Labour members accompanied by some miners' leaders had waited on the Prime Minister with a request that the Government, if it could not see its way to support the Bill, should at least agree to remove its Whips when the division was taken. It was urged that the Government had now a great opportunity of assisting the coal industry, and that if it helped to defeat the Bill the National Agreement made in the industry after the great strike of 1921 would probably be scrapped, and confusion would again ensue. The Prime Minister, however, refused to give such an undertaking, and the rejection of the Bill was therefore assured beforehand.

In moving the second reading, Mr. Adamson said that the object of the Bill was to amend the Coal Mines Minimum Wage Act of 1912, so as to provide a minimum wage which would be in accordance with the increased cost of living to-day as compared with the cost in July, 1914, and to extend the principle to workers who were excluded from the benefit of the original Act. The reason for bringing in such a Bill was to be found in the conditions of the mining industry, which he characterised as appalling. For a considerable part of the last two years the wages of miners had been down at the minimum provided for in the agreement of 1921-20 per cent. over the 1914 wagewhile during the same period the cost of living had been between 70 and 80 per cent. over that of 1914. This meant that a large section of the mining population had been living below the poverty line. Unless conditions were changed quickly, he said, they were courting a far greater disaster than had ever yet befallen either the industry or the nation. He had no doubt that the mine-owners would be able to find the money if they were forced to do so. If the industry was properly organised and the middlemen eliminated, the industry could be put on a basis that would enable it to pay a better wage than had ever been paid before, without increasing the price of coal to the consumer. Dealing with the suggestion that the miners should go back to the eight-hour day, he pointed out that with the present hours they were producing almost as much as in the old working day; for the quarter ended March, 1913, the output had been 71,682,000 tons, while for the quarter ended March, 1923, it had been 71,043,000 tons, although there had been short time in some districts owing to bad trade. He concluded by asserting that with present wages there was no hope of peace in the coal industry, and therefore no prospect of an industrial revival.

In opposing the Bill on behalf of the mine-owners, Mr. Gould, a member for Cardiff, maintained that the Act of 1912 was wisely conceived, but there had never yet been an opportunity of observing its working under normal conditions. There were only two ways of getting the increased wage proposed in the Bill. One was by a subsidy, which the House of Commons would not accept. The other was by passing it on to the consumers, which was not fair, as many of them were getting less wages even than the coal-miners. He could not see that there was any need for the Government to interfere, as the machinery of the Agreement provided for the discussion of any difficulties which arose between owners and men. The Government view, as stated by Sir P. Lloyd-Greame and Mr. Baldwin, was that the Bill would practically do away with the Agreement of 1921. The effect of the Agreement had been an increasing output and greater efficiency in management, and its scrapping would probably result in greater unemployment in the mining industry. Sir P. Lloyd-Greame quoted from a speech of Mr. Frank Hodges, secretary of the Miners' Federation, the words: "It might be said that the districts favourably situated might secure better terms at the termination of the Agreement than now, but the majority of the districts would undoubtedly after a struggle obtain worse terms." It was pointed out by the opponents of the Bill that conditions in the mining industry were not so bad as in many others, and that they seemed to be on the eve of an improvement. On a division being taken the Bill was rejected by 230 votes to 154.

On June 22 the House of Commons passed the second reading of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Bill, which had already gone through the Lords. This Bill was to provide means for putting into effect the recommendations of a Royal Commission presided over by Mr. Asquith which had been inquiring how far the Universities could out of their own resources make provision to meet the altered circumstances of the day. While the Commission was sitting the Treasury had been able to give interim assistance to the Universities to the extent of 30,000l. a year, and the Commissioners recommended that a further 70,000l. a year should be given to each University. Mr. Asquith, in supporting the Bill, said he hoped the Report of the Commission would finally dispel the fiction that Oxford and Cambridge were places where the children of the well-to-do were offered a fossilised curriculum in more or less obsolete subjects in the intervals of boating, cricket, and other forms of recreation. The fact was that they were constantly being made more accessible to all classes of people, and if the recommendations of the Commission were carried out these Universities would become in every sense of the word national institutions even to a greater extent than at present. The minimum which ought to be provided to enable them to do their work was really 150,000l., and it was only in view of the financial exigencies of

the country that the Commission had confined their recommendation to 100,000l. He hoped that private benefactors would fill up the gap, and emulate the activity of American millionaires in this sphere.

The Annual Conference of the Labour Party opened on June 26, being held for the first time in ten years in London. The presidential address was delivered by the veteran Fabian leader, Mr. Sidney Webb. He pointed with pride to the progress made by the Labour Party since 1913, when it had only been able to contest one-tenth of the constituencies and to obtain 250,000 votes, whereas at the last election it had contested over 400 Parliamentary divisions and secured 4,250,000 votes. From the rising curve of Labour votes it might be computed that they would obtain a clear majority of votes somewhere about 1926; that was a forecast they had to make good. The party, therefore, had to realise its increasing responsibility, and to speak and work from now onward under the sense of liability, at any moment, to be charged with putting their plans and projects into operation. He denounced violence, saying that it was and must be always accursed, and he reminded his hearers that the founder of British Socialism was not Karl Marx, but Robert Owen, who preached not class war but human brotherhood. That Mr. Webb faithfully interpreted the sentiments of the mass of his party was shown soon afterwards when a renewed request of the Communist Party for affiliation was discussed. More than one speaker declared that it was impossible for a Communist to be loyal both to Moscow and to the Labour Party, and the request was defeated on a card vote by 2,880,000 votes to 366,000. On the second day of the Conference a motion was brought forward that the Party Whips should be sent to Mr. Newbold, the one Communist member of the House, but it was rejected by 2,227,000 votes to 219,000.

While the Conference was declaring its loyalty to the principle of Parliamentary government, a section of the Labour Party in the House of Commons was behaving in a way which was hardly compatible with the acceptance of that standpoint. Intense feeling had been aroused among the poorer classes in Glasgow by the issue of an order in 1922 by the Scottish Board of Health cancelling, on the ground of economy, a grant for maternity and child welfare. On the Vote for this Department being brought up on June 27, a Scottish Labour member, Mr. Sullivan, moved a reduction of 1007. In supporting him Mr. Maxton, a member for Glasgow of advanced Socialist views, characterised as "murderers" those members of Parliament who had gone into the division lobby in support of the policy of the Scottish Board of Health. On a point of order being raised, the Deputy Chairman of Committees, who was in the Chair, asked him to withdraw the expression, but he obstinately refused, and before long the House was in a tumult which recalled the wildest 'Irish nights" of previous Parliaments. Other members from

56

Glasgow associated themselves with Mr. Maxton, and though Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, who was present, expostulated earnestly with them, they paid no more respect to the authority of their party leader than to that of the Chairman of the House. Order was not finally restored till the Speaker had been called in and four members suspended by votes of the House.

At its third day's sitting the Labour Conference discussed the question of disarmament, with special reference to the Prime Minister's announcement regarding the Air Force. A resolution was passed declaring that the proposed increase in the British Air Force in competition with France was the preface to a new era of war, and calling upon the Parliamentary Labour Party to offer every resistance to the measure. A resolution was also passed calling on the Government to call an International Conference to consider proposals for immediate universal disarmament; but a further resolution brought forward by the Independent Labour Party expressing the opinion that it should be the policy of the Labour Party in Parliament to vote against all military and naval estimates was defeated by 2,924,000 votes to 808,000.

On June 26 the Prime Minister made his anxiously awaited statement on British Air Power. The Government, he said, had come to the conclusion that, in addition to meeting the essential air power requirements of the Navy, Army, Indian and Overseas commitments, British Air Power must include a Home Defence Air Force of sufficient strength adequately to protect the country against air attack by the strongest Air Force within striking distance. It should be organised in part on a regular and permanent military basis, and in part on a territorial or reserve basis, but so arranged as to ensure that sufficient strength should be immediately available for purposes of defence. It was, therefore, proposed to add thirty-four squadrons to the present strength of the Royal Air Force, so as to bring the total strength up to fifty-two squadrons. The Premier's statement concluded with the remark that the Government, in conformity with its obligation as a member of the League of Nations, would gladly co-operate with other Governments in limiting the strength of air armaments on lines similar to those laid down for the Navy in the Treaty of Washington. In answer to questions the Air Minister stated that an immediate additional expenditure of 500,000l. would be involved, rising within the next three years to 5,500,000l. annually.

On June 27 the question of Palestine was again raised in the House of Lords by Lord Islington, who asked if the Government, in view of recent events in that country, were prepared to reconsider their present policy. He said-referring to the boycott of the elections by the Arabs-that since the last debate on the subject in that House on March 27 it had been made clear that the hostility of the people of Palestine to Zionist policy in that country had definitely developed in power, and unless the

the country that the Commission had confined their recommendation to 100,000l. He hoped that private benefactors would fill up the gap, and emulate the activity of American millionaires in this sphere.

The Annual Conference of the Labour Party opened on June 26, being held for the first time in ten years in London. The presidential address was delivered by the veteran Fabian leader, Mr. Sidney Webb. He pointed with pride to the progress made by the Labour Party since 1913, when it had only been able to contest one-tenth of the constituencies and to obtain 250,000 votes, whereas at the last election it had contested over 400 Parliamentary divisions and secured 4,250,000 votes. From the rising curve of Labour votes it might be computed that they would obtain a clear majority of votes somewhere about 1926; that was a forecast they had to make good. The party, therefore, had to realise its increasing responsibility, and to speak and work from now onward under the sense of liability, at any moment, to be charged with putting their plans and projects into operation. He denounced violence, saying that it was and must be always accursed, and he reminded his hearers that the founder of British Socialism was not Karl Marx, but Robert Owen, who preached not class war but human brotherhood. That Mr. Webb faithfully interpreted the sentiments of the mass of his party was shown soon afterwards when a renewed request of the Communist Party for affiliation was discussed. More than one speaker declared that it was impossible for a Communist to be loyal both to Moscow and to the Labour Party, and the request was defeated on a card vote by 2,880,000 votes to 366,000. On the second day of the Conference a motion was brought forward that the Party Whips should be sent to Mr. Newbold, the one Communist member of the House, but it was rejected by 2,227,000 votes to 219,000.

While the Conference was declaring its loyalty to the principle of Parliamentary government, a section of the Labour Party in the House of Commons was behaving in a way which was hardly compatible with the acceptance of that standpoint. Intense feeling had been aroused among the poorer classes in Glasgow by the issue of an order in 1922 by the Scottish Board of Health cancelling, on the ground of economy, a grant for maternity and child welfare. On the Vote for this Department being brought up on June 27, a Scottish Labour member, Mr. Sullivan, moved a reduction of 100l. In supporting him Mr. Maxton, a member for Glasgow of advanced Socialist views, characterised as "murderers" those members of Parliament who had gone into the division lobby in support of the policy of the Scottish Board of Health. On a point of order being raised, the Deputy Chairman of Committees, who was in the Chair, asked him to withdraw the expression, but he obstinately refused, and before long the House was in a tumult which recalled the wildest "Irish nights" of previous Parliaments. Other members from