nationalisation of mining royalties, and for establishing a central coal-selling organisation, without waiting for the consent of the other parties. Mr. Lloyd George put forward a similar plea in a speech of great persuasiveness. He said he could not see who was going to bring the conflict to an end if not the Government. He thought that something might be made out of the latest offer of the President of the Miners' Federation. Mr. Smith, as he understood him, while refusing to accept reductions before reconstruction, was yet willing to accept the logical conclusions of reconstruction, whatever they were. He wanted to be assured that the economic conditions of the trade rendered it essential that there should be a reduction before he would accept it, and this could not be ascertained till they had commenced a scheme of reconstruction. Why, then, did not the Prime Minister introduce his Bill for this purpose? Such a Bill could then serve as a basis for computing wages, and he could not imagine that the bulk of the miners would not accept the result.

Mr. Baldwin, in his reply, dealt much more with the past than with the future. He was at great pains to justify the terms of his memorandum of May 14, which was now a piece of ancient history, and deplored the fact that the coal industry could not settle its own disputes without Government interference, like every other industry. Still, he recognised that the position of the coal industry was exceptional, and he was willing to resume negotiations as soon as he was asked; nor would he withhold financial assistance, should it be necessary for a settlement, as he fully expected. He adroitly turned the tables on Mr. Lloyd George by quoting, from a speech which that gentleman had made as Premier during the coal stoppage of 1921 under precisely similar circumstances, a passage pointing out that it was useless for the Government to intervene until the parties were willing to listen to reason. On the suggestion made by the Opposition leaders that the Government should immediately legislate on the lines of the Report, he said not a word.

At this point an event took place which greatly revived the spirits of Labour and correspondingly disturbed the complacency of the Government and its supporters. On May 28 a by-election was held in North Hammersmith. This borough had been of recent years a "pendulum " constituency; it had been wrested by Labour from the Conservatives in 1923, and had reverted to the latter in 1924. It now returned the Labour candidate with a considerable majority over the combined votes of his Conservative and Liberal opponents; the latter followed the example of most other Liberal candidates since the General Election by forfeiting his deposit on account of not receiving an eighth part of the votes cast. The election was fought mainly on the strike issue, and its result was taken to show that the Government had not enhanced its popularity by its handling of the affair, and that

the Labour Party had not been discredited by the conduct of the Trade Union Council.

At the beginning of June the Government, seeing no immediate prospect of a cessation of the coal dispute, thought it advisable to continue the state of emergency which had been proclaimed at the beginning of May, and the regulations conferring upon itself emergency powers. When the King's message announcing the continuance was read in Parliament on June 2, Mr. MacDonald asked the Government to withdraw it on the ground that the orderly behaviour of the public during the general strike had shown such a proclamation to be quite unnecessary. The Home Secretary, in his reply, also bore testimony to the good conduct of the people, including the strikers, and admitted that very few had come into conflict with the law under the emergency regulations; nevertheless, displays of bad temper had occurred, and as the Minister responsible for law and order he could not advise the House to dispense with the regulations. A number of Labour members, mostly from the Clyde, declaimed with great heat against the Proclamation, as being a blow aimed at the working classes, and challenged a division on the motion to thank the King for issuing it; the motion was carried by 249 votes to 100.

A little later Mr. Lansbury moved the omission of the regulation making it an offence to tamper with the members of the army or the police force and to impede the food supply or any essential public service. He maintained that every political party had an equal right to put its views before the members of the Forces, and that in the course of an industrial dispute he and his friends had a right to ask soldiers not to "blackleg." The Home Secretary defended the regulation on the ground that while in general the behaviour of the country had been wonderfully good, there were certain areas in which there had been a good deal of violence and incitement to violence, and in which feeling was still running high. The regulation contained a proviso that a person should not be guilty of an offence by reason of his taking part in a strike or peacefully persuading any other person to take part in a strike. But a clear distinction had to be drawn between peaceful persuasion by individuals and mass intimidation. To urge soldiers not to take part in strike-breaking was certainly an act liable to prosecution. The Home Secretary proceeded to give some interesting details regarding criminal proceedings arising out of the strike. From inquiries he had made of the police he had found that there had been in England and Wales in connexion with the strike 1,760 prosecutions for incitement to sedition and 1,389 for actual violence and disorder. A certain number of the cases had been discharged, and in the rest about half the accused had been fined and half sent to prison. It was worthy of note that Communists were found only among those who incited others, not among those

who actually committed disorder. The mining districts of Northumberland, Durham, and West Yorkshire had provided the bulk of the prosecutions and convictions in England. He had, he said, been asked to issue a general amnesty, but he could not see his way to do so. Of the men who were guilty of incitement, many had been known to him and to the police for months past as carrying on an active propaganda hostile to the leaders of the Labour Party in order to force the party to the Left; while of the others most of those who had been sent to prison had been guilty of actual disorder, of stopping traffic, and using violence to drivers of vehicles; and he would hesitate very much to advise the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in such cases. Looking back on the past month, he maintained that the emergency powers had been used not harshly but with great care, and he promised that they should be used with the same discretion and care in the coming month.

After some further protests, the attempts of the Labour Party to reject this and the other regulations were defeated by large majorities.

On June 8, in answer to a question from Lord Parmoor, Lord Cecil informed the House of Lords that at the recent meeting of the Committee of the League of Nations which he had attended, it had been agreed provisionally that the number of non-permanent members of the Council should be increased from six to nine, that they should hold office for three years, and that three should be elected each year. The new proposals would give a Council of 14 with the existing permanent members and Germany. However, all these arrangements had to be reconsidered when the Committee met again on June 28. On the next day, again on the invitation of Lord Parmoor, Viscount Cecil gave an account to the House of the activities of the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament at Geneva. The Commission had met for the first time in the previous month, and had since appointed a number of technical sub-committees to consider questions of detail. Progress was slow; but he thought that the most important result of the meeting at Geneva was that a machine for disarmament had been brought into existence and put into operation. The greatness of the result would depend more than anything else on what the French called the "moral disarmament" of the world. The greatest obstacle to moral disarmament at the present moment was Russia, which would not come even to discuss the question. But in regard to the delegations which actually attended, he had no doubt that they came with instructions to do their best for the success of the movement on which they were engaged, and the Commission had, in fact, done better than he expected. But the final results would depend, not on what they did at Geneva or on the spirit in which the delegates went there, but on the will to disarm of the peoples of the world.

On June 7 the House of Commons went into Committee on the Finance Bill, and the discussion of the detailed proposals of the Budget began in earnest. Mr. Alexander, from the Labour benches, first moved a reduction of the tax on tea from 4d. to ld. He pointed out that the tea companies were returning enormous profits, and as the Government had reduced the income tax on those profits by one-third in the last two or three years, he thought that some concession ought to be made to the consumer of tea. Mr. Churchill expressed himself as equally anxious with the Labour Party to see the tax on tea removed or lowered, but was unable to accept the amendment on account of the state of the national finances, which, for the moment, did not permit any sacrifice of revenue. Mr. Runciman pointed out that the tax now bore more hardly on the working classes because wages were lower than when it was first imposed, but this argument also had no effect, and the amendment was defeated by 241 votes to 105.

Another item to which strong objection was made by the Opposition was the proposal to bring commercial motor vehicles within the scope of the McKenna duties, from which they had hitherto been exempt. The motor-car industry, it was pointed out, did not require this favour, and had not asked for it. Mr. Churchill defended the withdrawal of the exemption on two main grounds-one that it would greatly simplify the work of the Custom House officials, the other that it would bring in a revenue of 300,000l. to 350,000l. Nor did he think that the imposition of the duty would raise the price of the cars to the users, owing to the increasing efficiency of the production at home. Considerable opposition was also offered to the proposal to stabilise Imperial Preference for ten years, though on this matter the Labour Party was divided. Both clauses were carried by large majorities. The Government itself introduced an amendment to the silk tax designed to relieve travellers of the vexations caused by the existing method of collecting the duty. Mr. McNeill stated that the simplification would cost the Treasury about 25,000l., and on this ground Mr. Snowden somewhat whimsically announced that the Labour Party, which was opposed to the silk tax altogether, would support the amendment. The proposal for exempting antiques from import duty also received cordial support from the Labour Party.

The proposal to renew the Safeguarding of Industries Act for another ten years met with vehement opposition from the Free Traders. It was pointed out that no fewer than six thousand articles were included in the provisions of the Act, so that it really instituted a considerable measure of Protection. The Government based itself on the report of a Parliamentary Committee which had examined the working of the Act during the preceding five years, and recommended its continuance. The President of the Board of Trade was able to point to the beneficial effect of

the Act on the home manufacture of magnetos, of fine chemicals, and of optical glass and scientific instruments; and he maintained that the removal of safeguarding would be a set-back to all the industries concerned and the ruin of some. Mr. Snowden reminded him of the statement made by Mr. Baldwin when first introducing the duties, that if at the end of five years the industries had not firmly established themselves it would be better that no further encouragement should be given to them; but so little were the Conservative members impressed by this argument that they gave the Government large majorities, not only for continuing the Act, but also for increasing the duty on optical glass and other articles which still found themselves hard pressed by foreign competition.

The proposal to bring wrapping-paper within the scope of the Act met with a good deal of criticism from Conservative as well as Opposition members, chiefly on the ground that it would adversely affect trades which used imported wrapping-paper, especially the confectionery trade. The Minister, however, maintained that that trade was making handsome profits, and that of the wrapping-paper it used, 80 per cent. was already of British manufacture. He defended the safeguarding of the industry on the ground that this would enable it to increase its output very materially and give increased employment. The Conservative opposition did not prove very formidable, and the proposal was carried by a substantial majority.

The most controversial item in the Budget, as was expected, proved to be the tax on betting. This proposal had called forth strong protest from two sections of the public for diametrically opposite reasons. The clergy were in the main against it on the ground that it would encourage betting, the racing fraternity on the ground that it would discourage betting and so interfere with the rearing of thoroughbreds. Deputations from both sections had waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to place their scruples before him, but he had remained unconvinced. In the debate in the Committee stage on June 10, Mr. Snowden, in the name of the Labour Party, opposed the measure on the moral ground, maintaining that it was not right of the Government to derive revenue from a practice which it did not recognise as legal. Mr. Churchill was able to retort with effect that it was absurd for the Labour Party to protest against raising revenue from betting unless they were prepared to take measures for putting down betting altogether, which, judging by the prominence given to betting news in the Daily Herald, was far from their thoughts. The Chancellor treated with more respect the arguments of the racing public, with whom he agreed that the tax would diminish the total volume of money passed in betting. He was actually budgeting for a diminution of 50,000,000l., but from inquiries he had made he was inclined to think that the turnover was con