subject on April 2 produced an elaborate scheme for House of Lords Reform from Lord Birkenhead, who was careful to state that he was not yet in a position to speak for the Cabinet as a whole. Other speakers were content to leave the task of drawing up details to the Cabinet Committee which had been promised, and in regard to which the Government was not pressed for further details.

The unemployment situation was on March 26 the subject of a debate in Parliament, which served only to show how slender were the prospects of improvement. Sir J. Simon raised the question out of fear that, by becoming habituated to the continuance of the situation, they might lose interest, and even hope in searching for a remedy; but he had no remedy to suggest. Mr. Snowden was somewhat more practical, and referred the Government to the reports drawn up by the Reconstruction Committee after the Armistice, and the schemes which had been left in a more or less advanced stage by the Labour Government. Much too, he thought, might be accomplished by the elimination of waste in national and public administration. The Minister of Labour devoted himself chiefly to showing that the causes of unemployment were beyond Government control-such as, for instance, the installation of labour-saving appliances during the war-and could not do more than hold out a vague hope that in time the Government would bring forward an electricity scheme which would provide employment and raise the country to the requisite standard of efficiency. Sir A. Mond asserted that the trade position was such as ought to make the Government feel that risks ought to be taken, and he propounded an ingenious scheme of subsidising firms out of unemployment insurance funds in order that they might be able to reduce costs, and so secure orders. He was informed that the Government had given serious consideration to this proposal, but had found its drawbacks to outweigh its advantages.

Sir Alfred Mond's scheme for using a part of the unemployment benefit for the help of struggling industries found little favour with the official representatives of Labour. On May 5 a statement was issued in the name of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, the National Executive of the Labour Party, and the Parliamentary Labour Party, characterising it as "a confession of the failure of the system of private enterprise," and criticising it as superficial and inadequate. Sir A. Mond, in reply, expressed his disappointment that the Labour Party should reject his scheme without even making an attempt to discuss his proposals with him, or giving him an opportunity of answering objections, and contrasted their purely negative attitude with that of the Federation of British Industries, the Grand Council of which had invited him to explain his scheme at a meeting, and cordially received it.

In pursuance of the resolution taken at the Miners' Delegate Conference on February 28, Mr. Walsh moved in Parliament, on March 27, the second reading of the Miners' Minimum Wage Bill. He pointed out that miners all over the country were receiving barely a subsistence wage, which could not be termed a living wage, and called on Parliament to help them, as owing to the prevalence of combinations among the employers they could not attain their object by direct negotiation. From the Unionist benches the rejection of the Bill was moved on the ground that it would interfere with the power of those most directly concerned to settle their own affairs in consultation. The case against the Bill was put most forcibly by Sir R. Horne, who took objection to it for two reasons: because he thought it was wrong in principle that Parliament should fix a particular schedule of wages in any industry, and because the present was a particularly unfortunate time for making such a proposal. He admitted that the wages paid to the miners were distressingly low, but that was due to the depressed state of the coal trade, which was barely meeting its costs. The Secretary of the Mines Department, Lieut.-Colonel Lane Fox, reinforced Sir R. Horne's arguments with figures showing the great increase in coal production in Holland, Belgium, France, and Germany during the past year, and on a division the motion was lost by 208 votes to 143, while the amendment was carried by 197 to 121.

On April 1 Lord Birkenhead introduced in the House of Lords the Government's Bill for carrying out the recommendation of the Lee Commission on the Civil Services in India (vide A.R., 1924, p. 128). He pointed out that the Indianisation of the services was accepted as a principle with a view to producing in the case of Indian Civil Service recruits a cadre one-half European and one-half Indian. He expressed great disquietude at the fact that since 1914 the Indian Civil Service had shown many signs of lack of popularity in England. In his day at Oxford the very flower of the young men there had presented themselves for the examination, but since 1914 there had been a distinct and grave decline in the number of candidates, and the number of those now offering themselves for examination was not sufficient. Lord Olivier and Lord Chelmsford pointed out that what was keeping the undergraduates back was an idea that had spread among them that there was not sufficient security of tenure in the Service, and that it was little comfort to them to know that the insecurity they feared was common to other Services.

On April 2 the Government was urged by a number of speakers in the House of Commons, mostly from the Unionist benches, to foster emigration to the Dominions, and to promote the development of the Crown Colonies. In reply, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, was able to point to some definite steps which the Government had taken in these connexions.

They were arranging with the Government of Australia a scheme of immigration into that country on far bigger lines than had ever been attempted before, and which would involve a joint expenditure of 20,000,000l., spread over a period of years. Further, they had just completed a new agreement in regard to passage rates to Australia and New Zealand which would effect very considerable reductions, enabling, for instance, a family with three children to be brought to Australia for 551.-which might be lowered-and to New Zealand for 221. Figures published in the summer showed that emigration to the Dominions was taking place at a far slower rate than before the war. Thus, in 1924, the number of emigrants to British North America was 47,194 against 164,566 in 1913; to Australia, 30,304 against 64,428; and to New Zealand, 8740 against 11,809. This was in spite of the fact that in 1913 the Government had given no financial assistance towards migration, whereas in 1924-25 439,0517. was laid out under the Empire Settlement Act for this purpose.

At the beginning of April Great Britain made an agreement with Germany for modifying the existing procedure under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act of 1921. By the new arrangement the 26 per cent. levy on German imports, instead of being collected by the Customs from the British importers as originally laid down, was to be paid by German exporters to the German Government, which was to hand over the sum thus collected to the British Government. In moving a resolution for confirming this arrangement in the House of Commons on April 2, Mr. Churchill said that the Reparation Act was the only effective means yet devised for securing to Great Britain her share in the German reparation payments, over 25,000,000l. having been produced by its agency for the British Treasury. They had promised the German Government to give the new system a fair trial, but if it should prove unsatisfactory they retained the ultimate power of resuming all their rights under the Reparation Act. Mr. W. Graham said that the Labour Party supported the new arrangement, as it wiped out all the individualistic mechanism. which the Act contained, and which had finally rendered it so unworkable as to force the Labour Government to reduce the duty to a nominal 5 per cent.

On April 7 the Labour Party in Parliament made profession of its Socialistic faith by bringing forward a motion declaring that the destitute and impoverished condition of the working classes was inherent in the present economic and industrial system, and that the only solution of the problem was to be found in progressive advances towards the social ownership and democratic control of staple industries and the banking system. The Unionists retorted with an amendment declaring that any attempt to undermine the present economic system constituted a grave menace to society, and that no real solution of the problem of

unemployment and wages was possible unless recovery from the trade depression was assisted by the encouragement of enterprise and by the co-operation of all sections in an endeavour to secure a more satisfactory competitive footing in world markets. The debate revealed a certain desire on both sides for a better understanding. The mover of the amendment, Lieut.-Colonel SpenderClay, thought that the Conservative Party would welcome a meeting with Labour on questions where difficulties arose, while Mr. Wheatley said he would like to see more international conferences for considering how to bring the purchasing power of Europe into relation with the productive capacity of Europe. The resolution was eventually negatived by 281 votes against 124.

Parliament rose for the Easter recess on April 10, without having placed any measures of first-class importance on the Statute book. Disappointment was expressed in many quarters that the Government had not yet brought forward the Factories Bill which its predecessor had prepared, and which codified and brought up to date the whole of existing factory legislation; and Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the Minister of Health, judged it advisable to publish a letter in the Press soon after the rising of Parliament explaining that the delay was due to the great complexity of the measure, and promising that it would be introduced during the summer.

The Thirty-third Conference of the Independent Labour Party, which opened at Gloucester on April 12, discussed, among other things, a resolution of congratulation to the late Labour Government. While 398 delegates voted for the resolution, 139 voted against, and the debate showed that there was a considerable volume of dissatisfaction in the Party with much that the late Government had both done and left undone. Later in the day, Mr. MacDonald appealed to his critics to make proper allowances for the difficulties against which a Socialist Government had to contend, whether in Parliament or at international conferences. They often, he said, had to take the best they could get, not the best possible. Nevertheless, he declined to lay it down as a principle that he would never take office again with a minority backing in the House of Commons; if the situation arose again, the decision would have to be taken in relation to the whole circumstances existing at the moment.

The action of the National Council in leaving to the Parliamentary Committee of the Labour Party the question of the Zinovieff letter was strongly criticised on the ground that the inquiry was being shelved, and by 286 votes to 261 the report of the Council was "referred back." Subsequently Mr. J. Maxton, M.P., explained that the inquiry had been referred by the Parliamentary Party to Mr. Wallhead, Mr. Thomas, and himself, and that they had no intention of letting the matter drop till the truth was found out. Until, however, the matter had been

probed to the bottom there was no point in making any statement about it.

During the vacation the Secretary for Air and the Secretary for the Colonies, Sir S. Hoare and Mr. L. S. Amery, paid a visit to Iraq and Palestine. During his stay in the latter country, the Colonial Secretary received deputations from Arabs and Jews, and reaffirmed the decision of the British Government to adhere to the principles of the Balfour Declaration, and to encourage Jewish settlement in Palestine, while safeguarding the rights of the Arabs.

CHAPTER II.

MR. CHURCHILL'S BUDGET.

THE Easter recess closed on April 28, and the House of Commons met on that day to hear Mr. Churchill introduce his first Budget. Interest in the statement itself was not unmingled with a more personal curiosity to see how the versatile Chancellor of the Exchequer would acquit himself in his latest rôle. Mr. Churchill's speech on the occasion did not belie his reputation for rhetorical and argumentative skill, and showed at least that the technicalities of finance had no terrors for him. He did not fail to display some originality in the framing of his Budget, but his proposals were on the whole less venturesome than his opponents had feared, and less striking perhaps than his admirers had hoped. They embodied the pledges which Mr. Baldwin had at various times given to the country or to his party, and were based on Conservative rather than Liberal ideas of fiscal policy.

Mr. Churchill began by pointing out that the realised surplus on the year of 3,659,000l. corresponded with remarkable accuracy to Mr. Snowden's Budget forecast of 4,025,000l., a result which, he considered, testified to the "careful and scrupulous finance of his predecessor. He also acknowledged the services rendered by the previous Government to the maintenance of the principles of sound finance in respect of debt repayment, and announced that he would provide 5,000,000l. to raise the Sinking Fund to its statutory limit of 50,000,000l., as laid down by Mr. Baldwin when Chancellor of the Exchequer two years previously. Dwelling a moment on the efforts which Britain had made to wipe out her war liabilities, Mr. Churchill drew attention to the fact that during the year the normal deadweight charge on the National Debt had been reduced from 7,680,000,000l. to 7,646,000,0007., so that the total reduction in debt interest since 1920 amounted to 70,000,000l. a year. Further, they had been paying off war pensions liability on a gigantic scale, the capital value of that liability having been reduced from over 1,000,000,000l. sterling