Chairman of the party, not, however, without opposition from the advanced section, led by Mr. Maxton. An executive of fifteen, with Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Clynes, and Mr. Spoor as ex officio members, was appointed to be the governing body of the party.

On December 4 a great demonstration was held at the Albert Hall to celebrate the Conservative victory at the polls. Mr. Baldwin made a speech which in certain respects bore a striking resemblance to the one made by Mr. MacDonald in the same place to celebrate a similar event eleven months earlier (v. p. 3). He said that the Conservative Party was no less dissatisfied than the Labour Party with many of the present-day features of the national life. Their victory at the polls was a summons to face those evils, and as far as possible to remove them without shaking the national fabric to its foundations. Unemployment, he thought, could only be remedied by an improvement in trade, but there were two measures of reform which the Government was going to put through to the uttermost of their power. They had to get rid of the shortage of houses and the disgrace of the slums. They might have to force their way through the jungle of interests which were involved in the slums. of the large towns, but they had behind them in their magnificent recruitment of young members sufficient driving force to put anything through. But, unlike the Socialists, they wanted the people to own their own homes, and would devise every fair means they could to extend the class of occupying owner. Referring to Egypt, Mr. Baldwin said that while the Government had taken prompt action to stop the campaign of hatred and outrage in that country, it had no desire to restore the Protectorate or undermine the rights of the Egyptian Government. The grant of independence remained unrevoked, the reservations were still open to negotiation, and the Government would do all in its power to promote a friendly settlement,

On December 6 it was announced that the Government, in general agreement with the Government of India, had accepted the main recommendations of the Lee Commission (v. p. 82) for the improvement of pay and pensions in the superior Civil Services of India, and the grant of free passages, with effect as from the previous April 1. In addition the Government announced its decision to transfer to the Government of India the duty of making appointments to certain Central Services, and to local governments that of making appointments to Services operating only in transferred Departments. Further, the Government decided, in accordance with the recommendations of the Report, to accelerate the rate of Indian recruitment with a view to procuring a proportion of 50 Indian to 50 British members in the Indian Civil Service in about 15 years.

On December 4 Mr. Austen Chamberlain left London to attend the meeting of the League of Nations Council at Rome. On his way he stayed a short time in Paris, and had an interview

with M. Herriot, in which certain matters requiring an immediate solution were settled. Mr. Chamberlain arrived in Rome on December 6, and next day had a long interview with Signor Mussolini. On December 8 Mr. Chamberlain spoke before the Council of the League. He said that his presence there on that day, at a moment of some inconvenience to his colleagues, was caused by the desire of the new British Government to show its respect for the League, its high sense of the value of the work which the League had done, and the hopes which it cherished for its future success. His absence from home for that purpose had been facilitated by the goodwill of the Parties in Opposition, and by their desire that the respect of Great Britain and of the British Empire for the League might be marked by his presence there that day. On December 10 Mr. Chamberlain interviewed the Pope and Cardinal Gasparri, and he returned to England on December 12.

1

Parliament met on December 2 for the swearing-in of members and the re-election of Mr. Whitley as Speaker. The formal opening was performed by the King in person on December 9. The King's Speech, which was of unusual length, followed the lines of the Unionist election programme. In the domain of foreign affairs it further informed Parliament that the Government had begun the examination of the Protocol for the pacific settlement of disputes drawn up at the last Assembly of the League of Nations. The announcement was made that the enlarging of the Naval Base at Singapore would be proceeded with. In regard to home affairs, the first place was given to the mention of a Bill for safeguarding employment in efficient industries where the need for such exceptional action should be established. In regard to housing, emphasis was laid on the view that the encouragement of the private builder and the occupying owner was an essential element in the successful treatment of the problem; and Ministers were stated to be engaged on inquiries into the possibility of combining with existing systems of insurance provisions for improved old age pensions and pensions for widowed mothers.

The Address was moved by Mr. R. G. Ellis, a representative of the younger school of Conservatives of whom there were a large number in the new House. He said that two facts seemed to emerge from the election-that the people were still content to accept the Constitution as it stood, and that the mass of the nation was convinced that the experiment of minority government had not been successful. The Speech from the Throne might be taken as an indication of what they were expected to do during the next two or three years. Some of their opponents said that there existed in the Conservative Party a torpid and constricted element whose negative courses would inevitably smother all the efforts of the younger men. They were wrong;

1 For the text of the Protocol, see under Public Documents in Part II.

I

The

if that element had ever existed, it had now disappeared. spirit which animated Unionist members was one of natural caution begotten of the hard facts of life, open to conviction, and always responsive to the spirit of the age.

Mr. MacDonald, in opening the debate, devoted a considerable part of his speech to criticising the election methods of the Conservative Party in connection with the Zinovieff letter. He expressed satisfaction that after all the fulminations against Bolshevism the Government had decided to maintain the trade agreement, and expressed the desire that normal relations between Russia and Britain should not be interrupted. He hoped that the Government's decision on the Protocol would not be unduly delayed. He accused the Government of trying, by its proposed Bill on the safeguarding of industries, to introduce Preference by underhand means. He hoped the Foreign. Secretary, when he returned, would tell them the substance of his interviews with M. Herriot and Signor Mussolini, and insisted upon the necessity of fair dealing with Egypt. Mr. Lloyd George supported Mr. MacDonald in the main, and added some further criticisms. He blamed the Government for having in its Note to Egypt put in the demand for unlimited water supply. He regretted the absence from the King's Speech of any reference to Inter-Allied debts. With regard to the Protocol, he asked to what extent it would commit Britain to engage in hostilities in any part of Europe. He was sorry that the Government had rushed to a decision about Singapore so quickly. In regard to agriculture he was not at all sure that a Committee representative of all the interests was the best form of inquiry. He had, he said, been delighted with the Prime Minister's speech at the Albert Hall, especially his statement about cleaving his way through the vested interests. He regretted, therefore, that Mr. Baldwin had in the King's Speech given sinister indications of a desire to ramble in the desert of Protection. They had just concluded an admirable Trade Treaty with Germany; were they going to carry a measure which would render it futile?

Mr. Baldwin in replying said that the question of InterAllied debts had been omitted from the King's Speech because it would have required too much space, but he hoped that it would be discussed in the course of the debate, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make a statement. In the matter of Singapore they had not yet come to a decision on the length of time over which the works would be spread nor as to the respective contributions of Britain and the Dominions interested. In regard to Protection he said that he stood by a pledge given by him in a recent speech, that he would not introduce Protection into this Parliament, nor use the Safeguarding Act as a wedge for introducing it. Dealing with election speeches on the Russian question, Mr. Baldwin was denying that his side had used undue violence, and claiming that in angling for votes

he had always used a "clean bait," when a Labour member held up a Unionist leaflet displaying a skull and cross bones, and asked if he called that a clean bait. Mr. Baldwin replied that a similar thing had been done in the last Parliament-he was afraid from his own benches-but he deprecated such matters being brought into the House of Commons, and pleaded for more reticence in the future. Proceeding, Mr. Baldwin said, in answer to some questions of Mr. MacDonald, that the Government was carefully bearing in mind the Washington Convention on Labour Legislation, and was giving close attention to the mining situation at home; it was also watching very closely the effect of the Dawes Report on certain industries in Britain.

When the debate was continued the next day, Sir J. Simon raised in more detail the question of Inter-Allied debts which had been touched upon by Mr. Lloyd George. He referred to the remark made by Mr. Bonar Law in 1922, that for Britain to pay her debt to America without receiving anything from outside sources would impose on her an intolerable burden, and asked what was the view of the present Government on the matter. They were entitled to ask for a statement without delay because of the negotiations now going on in New York for the discharge of France's liability to America. Mr. Churchill in reply intimated that he would probably broach the subject at the Conference of Allied Finance Ministers to be held in Paris in January on the working of the Dawes scheme. He said that there were two main factors which would determine British policy in this matter-the Anglo-American debt settlement of February, 1923, and the Balfour Note of July, 1922. The debt settlement, whatever might have been thought about its wisdom at the time, was irrevocable, and it had certainly placed Britain in an extraordinarily strong position for future negotiations. The Balfour Note had stated that if they could not obtain the obliteration of the debts they themselves owed, then they should ask just as much from Europe as the United States might require from them. Not much reliance was to be placed on German reparation payments; and they therefore considered it essential that any payments made by Britain's debtors in Europe to their creditors in the United States should be accompanied by proportionate payments to Great Britain. Mr. Snowden and Mr. Runciman expressed their approval of Mr. Churchill's statement of policy, and hoped that he would not fail to bring up the matter of Inter-Allied debts at the approaching Conferences.

In the course of the debate on the Address in the House of Lords, Lord Curzon took occasion to reaffirm his belief in the authenticity of the Zinovieff letter. He said that the Government Committee which went into the matter had had before it every document bearing on the case. The chain of evidence was complete from the issue of the letter at Petrograd down to its

arrival in this country; and the finding of the Committee was unanimous. In the course of his speech he inquired somewhat sarcastically what was the position of the Liberals in the House of Lords-whether they opposed the Government or the Opposition. Earl Beauchamp, who a few months before had replaced Earl Grey as Liberal leader in the Upper House, replied that the Liberals were out to oppose the Government where they thought they were wrong; and he expected they would get much more opposition from the Liberal benches than from the Labour peers.

On the next day (December 10) in the House of Lords Lord Parmoor gave some information on the League of Nations Protocol in the framing of which he had himself played a considerable part. He said that the intention of the Protocol was to make aggressive war, as far as might be, impossible. Fortynine nations had agreed to it, and up to the present sixteen, including France, had signed it. He held that there was nothing in the Protocol which went outside of the terms of the Covenant of the League, and thought that certain of its provisions would greatly attract American opinion; and in the name of his colleagues he strongly impressed on the Government the supreme importance of approving the document. Marquess Curzon, in reply, said that the Government had already commenced their examination of the representations received from the Admiralty and other Departments. The examination would be close and prolonged, and he doubted if the investigations could be completed by next March, when, according to the papers, the Protocol was to be discussed by the League of Nations Council.

On the third day of the debate in the Commons Mr. Baldwin, in answer to a question, stated that the Government did not propose to hold any inquiry into the Campbell case, as after the verdict of the election it saw no useful purpose in opening the matter. One point, however, he considered needed particular mention. The late Government had given instructions that no political prosecutions should be directed by the AttorneyGeneral without the sanction of the Cabinet. Such an instruction, in the opinion of the Cabinet, was unconstitutional, subversive of the administration of justice, and derogatory to the office of Attorney-General. The Government had therefore directed the instruction to be excised. This statement roused strong Labour protests, and Mr. Thomas asked whether an opportunity would be given next session of discussing the matter. Mr. Baldwin said that he would consider it, and meanwhile Mr. MacDonald gave notice of a motion on the subject.

On the next day, in dealing with the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, a Labour member, Mr. Scurr, moved that the Aliens Restrictions Act of 1919 should be allowed to lapse. He was supported by another Labour member, Mr. Davies, who protested against the alarmist attitude which the Home Secretary had taken up in regard to the treatment of aliens. Sir W.