urged, in the interests of economy and efficiency, to institute a single Ministry of Defence. The Air Minister, in reply, said that he would convey to the Prime Minister the arguments put forward on behalf of a Ministry of Defence and the fact that they were urged by members in every quarter of the House. He pointed out, however, that before they had a centralised Ministry of Defence, they must have a greater community of feeling between the Services themselves.

In the debate on the Report stage of the Air Estimates on March 8, Unionist members again showed themselves highly critical of various items in the Government's handling of the Air Force. The Air Minister declared himself in sympathy with members who wished to have before them a single Defence Ministry Estimate, and expressed his hope, and that of the Prime Minister, that the question would be raised again at a subsequent stage, when he could deal with it more fully. The question of disarmament, he stated, was being seriously considered by the Air Staff and himself, and they were in communication with Lord Cecil, who would represent the Government on the Disarmament Committee of the League of Nations. It might, he admitted, be the case that an Air Force, however efficient, could never make it impossible for an attacking force to penetrate to these shores, but he was sure that, provided their expansion programme was carried out and they had an Air Force of the size contemplated, they might look forward to making it very risky for a foreign Power to attack this country. The House finally agreed to an Air Force Estimate of 16,000,000l., as against 15,513,000l. in the previous year.

In introducing the Naval Estimates on March 11, the First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Bridgeman, triumphantly rebutted the reproach levelled against that body by Mr. Snowden in a debate in the previous year that it was "the most arrogant of all the great public Departments," and that no reliance could be placed on its pledges. Not only, he said, had the Admiralty fulfilled its undertaking, given in the previous July, to effect savings equivalent to the cost of new construction in 1925, but it had much more than fulfilled a similar promise with regard to 1926. In spite of an expenditure of some 5,000,000l. on new construction, the Estimates showed a reduction of nearly 2,500,000l. This result had been brought about by a number of economies in various fields, the majority of which, he thought, would not have been possible without the fixed building programme. Knowing what replacements to expect in the next five years, the Admiralty had found it much easier to make economical arrangements with regard to the existing fleet, and to take risks which would not otherwise be justified. He had to admit that the economies did, to a certain extent, affect Fleet efficiency and the preparedness of the Fleet, and that they had taken risks which

they certainly would not have taken in times of danger or when the country was more affluent. With regard to Singapore, he informed the House that the position was the same as in 1925; the cost this year would be 225,000l., of which only 95,000l. would fall upon Great Britain, the rest being provided by HongKong. He thanked the Dominions for their contributions to naval defence, but at the same time hinted that an increase would be welcome. He congratulated the Indian Navy on the decision recently taken to reconstruct the Royal Indian Marine as a combatant force, and stated that India would continue to contribute 100,000l. a year to the expenses of the Royal Navy in Indian waters. As a final refutation of the charge of extravagance, he pointed out that the figure of 58,100,000l., which he had given as the Estimate of the year, would, if stated in pre-war value of money, amount only to 34,712,000l., whereas the expenditure for 1914 had been 51,000,000l. There was, therefore, in reality a reduction of 33 per cent., and if the non-effective Services were left out, the reduction would be found to amount to 38.36 per cent.

In the course of the debate which followed, a number of members refused to accept the Minister's statement that the Admiralty was really economising, and maintained that it merely gave the appearance of doing so by postponing payments. A motion calling on the Government to bring about a policy of disarmament through the League of Nations was defeated by 196 votes to 113. Mr. Lansbury moved to reduce the fighting strength of the Navy by 100,000 men, calling attention to the "Peace Letter" which had recently been signed by tens of thousands of people throughout the country, pledging them to take no part in any war. The bulk of the Labour members, in accordance with the declared policy of their Party, either opposed the motion or abstained from voting, and Mr. Lansbury found only 19 supporters. The various Navy Votes were then agreed to.

The Army Estimates for 1926-27, which were introduced by the Minister for War on March 15, amounted to 42,500,000l., a reduction of 2,000,000l. on the current year for not quite the same number of men (159,400). The Minister pointed out that if present-day cost of living and retired pay were taken into account, expenditure on the Army was now really less than before the war. The manoeuvres of the previous autumn, he stated, had been an unqualified success in everything except the weather, and had given the higher command an experience which it urgently required. They had also thrown considerable light on problems of mechanicalisation, a matter in which, as he was advised, this country was already ahead of all others. For the efficiency of the Army, it was necessary that manœuvres should be held at frequent intervals; the results more than repaid the cost. Recruiting,

according to the Minister, had been satisfactory, and at one time they had to restrict enlistments in order not to exceed the authorised establishment. The rejections, however, on physical and medical grounds, were still very high-52,200 out of 89,277, or about 58 per cent., almost exactly the same proportion as in the previous year. The strength of the Territorial Army had also increased, but the new Air Force units attached to the Army had reached only 30 per cent. of their establishment.

While the Service Estimates were under consideration, a disquieting change had taken place in the international situation, for which the British Foreign Secretary, along with the whole Government, was not without responsibility. Some weeks before the date fixed for the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations at Geneva in March, it was reported that France intended. at the meeting to propose Poland for a permanent seat on the Council. After the Locarno Conference it had been generally understood that the next Council meeting was to be solely for the purpose of admitting Germany to a permanent seat on the Council, and this new proposal of France came as a great shock to public opinion in England. To the general surprise and disappointment, Sir A. Chamberlain, on February 23, made a speech at Birmingham which conveyed the impression that he had already arranged with M. Briand to support Poland's claim. Public opposition to the scheme found expression in letters to the Press, in questions in Parliament, and in representations to the Premier from the League of Nations Parliamentary Committee, which included members of all three parties. It was voiced most effectively by Lord Grey in a speech which he made at Newcastle on February 26. Lord Grey urged that the British, French, and German Governments should meet at Geneva without having tied themselves by any declarations beforehand, and pointed out that the important thing was that the discussion on the admission of other nations as permanent members of the Council should begin after Germany had taken her seat, so that she herself could be a party to the discussion.

In order to allay the anxiety felt in all quarters of the House of Commons as to the course he intended to pursue at Geneva, Sir A. Chamberlain, on March 1, explained his attitude to a very fully attended meeting of the League of Nations Parliamentary Committee, which included most of the members of the House. Sir E. Hume-Williams, who presided, explained that the resolution unanimously adopted by the Committee a week before against any increase in the permanent membership of the Council at the present time, apart from the admission of Germany, had been passed because the Committee believed that changes of great moment affecting the future of the League were under consideration on which the Government as a whole would have to take a vital decision. At the same time he disclaimed

B

all intention of casting any sort of reflection on the Foreign Secretary.

Sir A. Chamberlain said that the differences which existed regarding this matter were differences not of principle but as to the method by which the end common to all supporters of the League should be attained. He appealed for some latitude for the man who was to conduct the negotiations, and who, by the nature of the case, was bound to be in closer touch with all the Governments concerned than the men outside the Cabinet could be. It was out of question for him, as a member of the League Council, to adopt the attitude of a dictator. If he was to secure the adoption of the course he believed to be best, he must secure it by persuasion. To the suggestion that any State should be brought on to the Council as a counterpoise to Germany he declared himself immovably opposed; but he thought there was sound argument for increasing the permanent membership on other grounds. Observing that nothing had impressed him more since he had gone to the Foreign Office than the immense part personal relations and influences played in the conduct of international affairs, the Foreign Minister contended that if on great questions the British representative were required to define his attitude unequivocally beforehand, delegates of other Governments would be forced into the same position, and paralysis would result. The door should be kept open for conciliatory negotiations, and he asked that he might not be expected to go to Geneva with his hands so tied that he could put nothing into the common stock of thought and action, and contribute nothing to a solution.

There was no discussion on the Foreign Minister's statement, but while many of the Conservative members present declared themselves reassured by it, Labour members expressed the opinion that it rendered inevitable a Parliamentary discussion before the Minister left for Geneva. The Parliamentary Labour Party at its next weekly meeting decided to press for an opportunity to debate the question, and in response to their request, the Prime Minister set aside March 4 for a discussion.

The debate on that day was opened by Sir A. Chamberlain with a long statement showing that the question of reconstituting the Council of the League of Nations was no new one and that he could not prevent it from being raised. While indulging in a number of pious sentiments about preserving the results of Locarno and not dividing the League into camps of opposing forces, on the real question at issue he said nothing until he was suddenly brought face to face with it by a question from Mr. MacDonald, whether he could declare outright that no claim for admission to the Council could be considered in March. His reply was that he was not prepared to say "no" under any circumstances whatever. If the whole Council voted for a par

ticular admission, Britain would not oppose it. He went on to appeal to the House not to tie his hands before he left for Geneva, pointing out that the representatives of other nations also had refused to bind themselves before they started on their journey, and had reserved to themselves liberty of negotiation and discussion.

The Leader of the Opposition immediately brushed aside the Foreign Secretary's sophistries with very little ceremony. He pointed out that what was causing disquiet in the country was not the fact that there had been an uprising on the part of certain countries with claims for seats on the Council, but the encouragement given to those countries by the connivance of the British Government. The Foreign Secretary's plea for a "free hand " was a little disingenuous, as it was currently reported that he had actually pledged himself to Spain, Poland, or Brazil. His policy was not in accordance with the Locarno spirit, which demanded that Germany should be admitted to the Council before any other claim was considered. The composition of the Council might require revision; but this was not the moment to begin.

Mr. Lloyd George followed with a strong personal appeal to Sir A. Chamberlain to subordinate his own personal opinion to the undoubted will, not only of the House, but of the whole country. Never before, he said, in his recollection had the public so taken the conduct of affairs out of the hands of the Foreign Office. Seeing that France and Italy, and Japan also, though less emphatically, had declared their intention of voting for Poland's inclusion in the Council, it was idle for the Foreign Secretary to talk of seeing what could be done by discussion and consultation. In order to safeguard Britain's good faith, it was incumbent on him to vote against any other addition to the members of the Council than that of Germany. If he did not do so, Locarno would have been in vain. But if he went to Geneva expressing the undoubted opinion of his countrymen on this subject, he would show that British opinion meant to have a square deal with Germany, and that this country was going to pursue her traditional policy of fair play in Europe.

From the Unionist side the Marquis of Hartington, as one who had been present at the original passing of the Covenant of the League, added his opinion that the British representative ought to make it absolutely clear that he was not prepared to go outside the purpose for which the meeting was convened, which was the election of Germany and of Germany only. The Foreign Secretary found an unexpected but somewhat embarrassing supporter in Sir A. Mond, who startled the House by accusing it of having been captured by pro-German propaganda. The Prime Minister made a defence of his colleague which was not calculated to reassure those who wondered what had become of the " Locarno spirit." He associated the Government entirely with the views