of the Foreign Secretary. Sir A. Chamberlain and Lord Cecil would go to Geneva first and foremost in order to see that Germany obtained a seat on the League Council. But apart from that, they would have to consider the wishes and the public opinion of other countries. The Foreign Secretary had tried to prevent any other question being raised at the forthcoming meeting, but it had not been in his power to do so. He submitted that they would not have helped matters had they said two or three months previously that they, for their part, would not consider any other subject than the admission of Germany, and thought that a definite statement of that nature would have prejudiced the object they had in view, namely, the free and unconditional entrance of Germany into the Council of the League. The Government, in sending Sir A. Chamberlain and Lord Cecil, was sure that they would deserve the confidence of the country no less than of the Government.

Mr. Baldwin's specious appeal failed to convince the Opposition. Mr. J. H. Thomas asked why no word had been said about the Dominion point of view, in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister of Australia had said a few days before that as far as Australian policy was concerned he was not going to trust it to British statesmen. The Labour Party regretted the necessity of a division, because they felt that foreign politics, and especially the question of the League, should be kept out of the party arena. But the reply and the general attitude of the Government were such as to render it imperative for the Labour Party at least to free itself from all responsibility. A division was accordingly challenged on the issue that at the forthcoming meeting of the League the entry of Germany should be the only matter for consideration. The motion was lost by 224 votes to 124, the smallness of the majority showing that many Unionist members still harboured misgivings.

The general presentiment that Sir Austen Chamberlain's going to Geneva with a free hand boded no good either for his own country or for the League of Nations was amply verified by the event. The credit which England might have won by making a firm stand against the demands of France and Italy was secured by Sweden, and Sir Austen's complaisance towards those two Powers merely contributed to defeat the primary object of his attendance at the meeting, the acceptance of Germany into the Council. His diplomacy was the subject of bitter comment in the Press of all parties, and as after Locarno he had been the most belauded, so now he became for a time the best-abused man in Great Britain. Sir Austen himself described the failure of the conference as a "tragedy," and made what amends he could for his share in it by arranging with France and Germany that the Locarno understanding should remain in force, in spite of Germany's still being outside of the League.

Sir A. Chamberlain, on his return to London, contrary to custom, abstained from making any statement in Parliament on his work at Geneva, but the Opposition was not to be baulked of its say, and on March 23 Mr. Lloyd George opened a debate on the subject in a speech in which the delinquencies of the Foreign Secretary were painted in strong colours. The precise complaint against him was that the negotiations had failed because they were preceded by a secret agreement to which he was a party. Mr. George quoted the words of the American Senator Borah: "The situation, as he saw it, was dominated by the fact that those who had charge of the programme at Locarno entered into a secret agreement, and that they were practically intriguing against those for whom they were professing friendship." He condemned the cavalier way in which Sir Austen had treated M. Unden, the Swedish delegate, who, in the opinion of the vast majority in this country, had represented the public opinion of England as well as of his own country. He drew a gloomy picture of the position to which the League had been reduced, and begged the Government to concentrate on saving it and making it a council-chamber of the covenant of peace among nations.

Mr. Chamberlain's reply was remarkable chiefly for the bland way in which he ignored the precise matter of complaint against him. The Germans, he admitted, had been misled, but no one was in the least to blame for misleading them. In applying for admission to the League the Germans had not troubled to rule out conditions which they thought could not possibly be contemplated. The other Powers, in accepting Germany's application, had assumed that nothing was in her mind save the conditions she actually mentioned. Both sides were within their rights, and there was a misunderstanding. Further, it would have been a piece of arrogance on his part to tell other nations that they had no right to have their claim discussed, and they certainly would not have listened to him. So far from showing penitence for his work at Geneva, he claimed positive credit for it, on the ground. that it had prevented any breach being made in the work of reconciliation commenced at Locarno. He concluded his speech with a remarkable piece of self-laudation for his services in the cause of international peace and in maintaining the prestige of Great Britain during the fifteen months that he had been Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

As in the previous debate on the League, so now it fell to Mr. MacDonald to bring the Foreign Minister back to reality. He was reluctant, he said, to disturb the laurels which that gentleman had placed on his own head, but if he imagined that the name and influence of Great Britain were higher than at any period since the war, he was evidently unacquainted with the Press and public opinion of other nations. The self-complacency of the honourable gentleman really drew a little too liberally on their generosity.

Mr. MacDonald showed with great clearness how Sir A. Chamberlain had mishandled the situation by giving encouragement, however indirectly, to claims which conflicted with the spirit, if not the letter, of the Locarno arrangement. He did not believe that his conduct was the result of an intrigue; it was just a blunder. The effect, however, had been to lower the prestige of the League of Nations in the eyes of the world, and he appealed to the House to see that the September negotiations were not vitiated by an agreement made behind closed doors.

The most remarkable feature of the debate which followed was the way in which Unionist members, ignoring both their own views previously expressed and the facts of the situation, rallied to the support of the Foreign Secretary, taking him at his own valuation, and showering on him compliments for saving the Locarno agreement and even strengthening the League of Nations. The Prime Minister, who closed the debate, adopted the same tone, and tossed aside the criticisms of the Opposition with a certain flippancy which did not well accord with the seriousness of the subject. He closed by expressing to the House the confidence which he and the Government felt in the Foreign Secretary, and called on the Unionist Party to show that they shared the view of the Government. The appeal was not lost on them, and the motion of censure was defeated by 325 votes to 136. The Foreign Secretary was restored to the good graces of his party, and nothing more was heard of the suggestion which had been freely mooted a few days before, that he should be transferred to another post.

On March 8 the Premier maintained the precedent of several foregoing years by asking the House for a considerable share of the private members' time left up to Easter. He read out a formidable list of the items which the Government desired to get through before Easter, and pointed out that he was asking for considerably less than had been taken by the present Leader of the Opposition when he was in office. Mr. MacDonald said that his party would divide against the motion, in order to impress on the Government that this could not be an annual affair, and he expressed the hope that before next year some arrangement would have been made between parties which would obviate the necessity of moving a similar resolution in 1927. Mr. Baldwin, in reply, remarked that there were only two ways of avoiding the congestion of business in the Easter Session-either by meeting for the new session early in the winter, or by bringing the financial year into accordance with the calendar year. He would, he said, be glad to take counsel with the leaders of other parties on the subject, as it was always his desire to make the progress of business as easy as possible for private members. The motion was carried by 220 votes to 97.

As the result of an exchange of views carried on between Mr.

Churchill and M. Doumer, the French Minister of Finance, it was arranged that the latter, if he succeeded in obtaining the passage of his Finance Bill through the Chamber, should come to London in the first week in March to resume negotiations concerning the French debt to Britain. The arrangement fell through because M. Doumer had been defeated and resigned before the date fixed. [See under France.] On March 11, Mr. Churchill informed Mr. Snowden, in answer to a question, that he had taken steps to resume the negotiations with M. Doumer's successor, M. Raoul Péret. He further stated that the Government regarded the agreement made with M. Caillaux in August, 1925, as binding on both parties. On March 24 Mr. Snowden raised the whole question of Britain's war debt policy, which he characterised as being generous to others at the expense of the British taxpayer. Mr. Churchill affirmed that it was the incessant and insistent demands of the United States which had forced England to abandon a policy of cancellation in general for one of cancelling out in their own particular case. They still adhered to the Balfour Note in principle, but they had to take account both of their debtors' capacity to pay and of their own bargaining power, which was only proportionate to the value which those debtors set on their own world credit. Russia, he thought, was beginning to realise the need of world credit, and he promised her not less favourable treatment than other debtors, should she offer to pay. The Italian settlement followed the expert reckoning that Italy's capacity was one-third that of France. As for France, M. Péret had promised to regard the provisional Caillaux agreement, for an annual payment of 12,500,000l. as the basis of renewed negotiations, but three points were still outstanding-what elasticity of payment should be allowed if the exchanges were affected, what lesser instalments should be paid during the partial moratorium up to 1930, and whether the payments should depend on France's receipts from Germany wholly, partially, or not at all. Mr. Churchill concluded by drawing attention to the fact that the United States was at present receiving as much as Germany was paying, and that when all settlements were made, she would be receiving directly, or through Britain, 60 per cent. of German reparations.

On March 15 the Boilermakers' Society, following the example set by the National Union of Railwaymen a few months earlier, decided not to join the projected Industrial Alliance. In all the other unions concerned, however, majorities were obtained for joining the Alliance. By the end of March the following seven unions had undertaken to affiliate and to amend their rules so as to permit the Alliance to call a strike over their heads, and to make a financial levy in aid of any strike movement: the Miners' Federation, the Transport and General Workers, the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the Workers' Union, the Iron and Steel Trades

Confederation, the Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, and the Electrical Trades Union. The aggregate membership of these unions was about 1,600,000, but in all of them only a minority. voted on the proposal to join the Alliance.

The formation of the Alliance caused little stir in the Labour world. For purposes of united action the mass of trade unionists continued to look to the General Council of the Trade Union Congress, which had combined their forces in the previous July. It was to a sub-committee of this body that the Miners' Federation turned for a promise of help in the struggle which was seen to be impending, and with which it kept in close touch during the sittings of the Royal Commission and afterwards. In the industrial struggles which took place later in the year the Alliance was never heard of, while the Trade Union Council played a part similar to that of the previous year.

During March, the Labour Party, through the medium of private members' Bills, attempted, without success, to secure legislation on matters in which it was closely interested. On March 5 it reintroduced in the House of Commons the proposal which it had made twelve months previously, to set up a National Employment and Development Board, which would include all Ministers who were in charge of Departments, with the Minister of Labour at their head. Two weeks later it revived another of its old proposals in the shape of a Bill for controlling profits in building materials (March 19). Labour speakers accused dealers of unduly forcing up the price of these materials. The charge was denied by Unionist members, and both sides adduced masses of figures in support of their contentions. The Minister urged that the proposals were untimely at a moment when the housebuilding situation was for the first time satisfactory, when production of materials was vastly increased, and when the bargain of 1924 was being kept. He thought that publicity such as that afforded by the Building Materials Committee was the best check on profiteering. Mr. Wheatley contended that the threat of the powers which the Bill conferred was necessary to bring the profiteers to reason, but it was eventually thrown out by 196 votes to 98.

Another proposal brought forward by the Labour Party, though it failed to be carried, had at least the effect of forcing the Government's hand. After announcing its intention, in its early days of office, of bringing in a Bill for Factory Law reform, the Government had so far unaccountably failed to insert the matter in its legislative programme. In order to remedy the omission Miss Ellen Wilkinson, on March 26, moved as a private member's Bill the measure prepared by Mr. Henderson when Home Secretary in the Labour Government. In moving the rejection of the Bill, Captain Macmillan, from the Unionist side, merely pleaded for delay, and called for the printing of a Factories