siderably more than the 200,000,000l. a year that he had originally estimated, and that therefore it might be possible to obtain the 6,000,000l. he required with a smaller tax than 5 per cent. It was entirely foreign to his purpose to bring about a collapse of the racing industry, and he therefore undertook to consider, before the Report stage, whether, subject to securing the revenue, the proposed rate was not more than was necessary, and whether it was not possible to make some differentiation between credit betting and betting on racecourses. In spite of the Chancellor's arguments, a number of Conservatives voted against the clause, reducing the Government's majority to 79.

No greater difficulty was experienced by the Chancellor in securing the passage of the other item in the Budget which at first had raised a storm of controversy-the raid on the Road Fund (June 17). The opposition to the proposal was based mainly on the ground that all the proceeds of the Fund were required for the upkeep of the roads, and that the Government had no right to divert them to any other purpose. Mr. Churchill replied by pointing out that, in fact, more money was being spent on roads in England than in any other country of the same size in the world, that more money was being spent in the current year than had ever been spent before, and that English roads were, on the whole, by far the best in the world. The total expenditure on the roads would be 21 millions, which was 3 millions more than in the preceding year. As for the Government's right to use the Fund for its own purposes, he pointed out that the motoring community itself had recognised that there was no contractual pledge for devoting the money solely to the upkeep of roads. He maintained that in claiming for the Exchequer from the Road Fund a sum equal to a third of the taxation derived from pleasure cars, the Government had taken another useful step in broadening the basis of taxation. Only a handful of Conservatives joined with the Opposition in voting against the measure, which was accordingly approved by a large majority.

The negotiations with Turkey which had been opened in the previous January for a settlement of the Mosul dispute were brought to a successful termination on June 6. On that date a Treaty was signed between representatives of the two countries at Angora which once more established relations of friendship between them. It was stipulated that the "Brussels line," with some slight modifications in Turkey's favour, should be accepted as the boundary between that country and Iraq; that there should be a neutral zone of 75 kilometres on either side of the frontier through which armed bands should be prohibited from passing, and that Turkey should have a right to 10 per cent. on all petrol and mining royalties in Iraq during twenty-five

years.

The dissensions within the Liberal Party became at this time

E

more pronounced than ever they had been before, and rendered its continued existence as a single body highly uncertain. The enemies of Mr. Lloyd George within the party thought that they saw in the line he had taken up during the general strike a good opportunity of ousting him from his position of leadership, if not of driving him out of the party. At their instigation Lord Oxford, on May 20, addressed to him a letter (which a few days later he published in the Press) severely reprimanding him for his conduct during the strike, in particular for having failed to attend a meeting of the Liberal "Shadow Cabinet" on May 10, and for an article which he had contributed to an American paper at the beginning of the strike, predicting a prolonged duration of the struggle. Mr. George, on May 24, replied that he had no desire to provoke a conflict in the party, but at the same time he defended himself with great spirit against Lord Oxford's charges, and gave no hint of any intention to resign.

Lord Oxford accordingly took stronger steps to disembarrass himself of his colleague. On May 28 Mr. Pringle, whose hostility to Mr. George was notorious, after consultation with Lord Oxford, made an intemperately worded speech charging Mr. George with gross disloyalty to the party. While the impression of this speech was still fresh in the public mind, Lord Oxford, on June 1, addressed a letter to Sir G. Collins in which he said that he regarded Mr. George's refusal to attend the meeting of the "Shadow Cabinet" on May 10 as equivalent to a resignation from that body. This gave a number of leading Liberals the cue to write Lord Oxford a letter which explained the true motives of the attack on Mr. George. They pointed out that Mr. George had insisted on retaining separate headquarters and a separate fund, and had discouraged the putting forward of more than 300 candidates at the last election, and that his methods fostered the suspicion that he was aiming at a new Coalition. His action. during the strike had to be viewed in the light of that record. They had done their best in the interests of Liberalism to work with Mr. Lloyd George, but they felt that confidential relations were impossible with one whose instability destroyed confidence. Of the twelve signatories to the letter, eleven were members of the Liberal "Shadow Cabinet," and the three first names on the list were those of Lord Grey, Sir John Simon, and Mr. W. Runciman.

The situation was considered at a fully attended meeting of the Parliamentary Liberal Party on June 3, at which Mr. Lloyd George presided. The opponents of Mr. George found themselves at this meeting in a minority owing to the fact that a number of members constituting the "Right Wing" now rallied to Mr. George's support on the ground that the attack on him was purely personal and was not made in the interests of the party. So far, therefore, from subjecting Mr. George to any censure, the gathering delegated some of its members who had themselves signed the letter

of accusation against Mr. George to convey to Lord Oxford the sense of the meeting," which was distinctly more friendly to Mr. George than to himself. A couple of days later, at the Reform Club in Manchester, Mr. George complained that he was not receiving fair play, and announced his intention of "standing fast -a sentiment which was vociferously applauded.

Lord Oxford was no more inclined than his colleague to recede from the position he had taken up, and on June 8, after having received a report of the proceedings at the meeting of the previous Thursday, he wrote to Sir G. Collins stating that since his former letter nothing had happened to alter his views. This was tantamount to declaring that members of the party would have to choose between him and Mr. Lloyd George. The supporters of the latter were not loth to take up the challenge, and at the party meeting on June 8 reintroduced the resolution, the discussion of which had been adjourned at the previous meeting, deprecating the publicity given to the differences between the Liberal leaders, and praying for the restoration of unity in the party. An amendment to omit the reference to publicity, which contained an implied censure on Lord Oxford for publishing his first letter to Mr. George, was defeated by 20 votes to 12, and the original motion was carried by 20 votes to 10.

The situation to which these proceedings reduced the Liberal Party was little less than farcical. Mr. Lloyd George remained Sessional Chairman of the party, while one of his principal opponents, Sir G. Collins, was Chief Whip. He retained his position chiefly through the support of Right-Wing" Liberals, who as often as not voted in the Conservative lobby, and in view of this fact there was, as the Liberal Central Office put it, an ironic humour in Mr. George's pose as the injured Radical who was being excommunicated from the party on account of his Radicalism."

66

Mr. George's position within the party was confirmed by a meeting of the Liberal Candidates' Association on June 11. After hearing from Mr. George a denial of charges which had been brought against him of making overtures to the Labour Party, the meeting accorded him a hearty vote of thanks, and appointed a deputation, headed by Mr. Pringle, to wait upon Lord Oxford and convey to him the strong desire of the Association for restoring complete unity within the party under his leadership. Before Lord Oxford could reply, Mr. George secured another triumph. At the Conference of the National Liberal Federation on June 17, a vote of confidence in Lord Oxford was, indeed, passed almost unanimously, but only after assurances had been given by the mover and seconder that no reflection was meant on Mr. Lloyd George. A little later the Conference gave an instructive objectlesson in the matter of Liberal unity. Mr. George attended to give an address on the Liberal Land Policy, and on his entry half

the occupants of the platform rose and greeted him with cheers, while half remained sullenly seated; and his speech also had a mixed reception.

Lord Oxford, at this time, was seized with an illness which prevented him from taking any part in public affairs for some months. During this period Mr. Lloyd George remained without question the most conspicuous figure in the Liberal camp, and on every occasion of importance spoke as the representative of the party, since, in the absence of any lead from Lord Oxford, his opponents were forced to hold their peace. Matters thus reverted practically to the position which had preceded the reunion of the party in 1923, with the difference that Mr. George was now on the extreme Left instead of the Right of the party.

A new move in the coal dispute was taken by the owners early in June by the despatching of a letter to Mr. Smith, the miners' president, suggesting a fresh Conference between miners and owners. Mr. Smith happened at the time to be in Brussels, whither he had gone to confer with the Miners' International on the subject of placing an embargo on the export of coal to England, and the letter was taken to him by Mr. Cook. Certain members of the Miners' Executive, including Mr. Cook, saw in the fact of the letter being addressed to the President of the Federation instead of the Secretary, a subtle attempt to drive a wedge between the responsible leaders, and on that account were inclined to refuse the invitation. Their objections, however, were overruled, and on June 8 an informal Conference took place in London between four representatives of the Mining Association and four of the Miners' Federation. In a discussion lasting three and a half hours each side reaffirmed the points it had already laid down, if anything with even more emphasis than on previous occasions, and in the end matters were left exactly where they had been.

Immediately after this abortive conference, the Miners' Federation issued a manifesto (June 10), showing where the miners stood after six weeks without earnings. The manifesto accused the Government of being behind the mine-owners in the attempt to force down wages and lengthen hours, and proceeded to lay down four conditions as a basis of settlement-maintenance of wages as before the lock-out, maintenance of hours and other conditions, maintenance of a national basis for wages agreement, and the immediate reorganisation of the industry; and it warned the Government that there would be no hope or guarantee of any future peace in the industry if the miners were beaten into submission. Their point of view was made a little clearer by a manifesto issued the next day in which the Government was requested to take the first step by submitting precise and detailed schemes of reorganisation for discussion and criticism-a demand which was voiced by a considerable body of outside opinion also.

As if to anticipate the miners' complaints, the Premier had

already, on June 10, stated in the House of Commons that the Government was actively continuing the preparation of legislative and administrative measures indicated in the Coal Commission's Report. But a matter which engaged its more immediate attention at this juncture was the strong demand made by a number of its followers that it should prevent Russian relief funds from reaching the miners. On June 10 the Home Secretary told the House that he had received information of the despatch from Russia during the preceding weeks of considerable sums of money, amounting to some hundreds of thousands of pounds, first for the purpose of the general strike, and afterwards for the purposes of the Miners' Federation, and stated that the whole position was being considered by the Government. A day later the Government had made up its mind to act, and it instructed its representative in Moscow to present to the Russian Government a Note protesting strongly against its action six weeks previously in allowing money to be sent out of Russia for the purpose of assisting an illegal movement in England. As soon as the despatch of the Note was announced, and before its precise terms were known, the Secretary of the Trade Union Congress wrote a letter to the Prime Minister denying categorically that moneys of any kind had been received by the General Council from the U.S.S.R., and also stating that the Council had refused to accept money subscribed by the Russian trade unions, on the ground that such an action might be misrepresented. The Chairman of the National Labour Party, Mr. R. Williams, also made a statement insisting that the grant from the Russian trade unions was made on purely humanitarian grounds. The Soviet Government itself, on June 15, handed a reply to the British Mission pointing out that in the Soviet Union there was not a total prohibition of the export of currency, and that the Government could not forbid the Russian trade unions from sending money to support trade unions of another country. At the same time complaint was made of the statement of some members of the British Government that the money remitted from Russia to the Trade Union Council had been sent by the Soviet Government, whereas in reality it had come from the Central Council of the All-Russian Union of Trade Unions.

The matter was brought up in both Houses of Parliament on June 17. Through the mouth of Lord Balfour in the Lords and the Home Secretary in the Commons, the Government maintained roundly that the money sent from Russia in aid of the general strike came in fact from the Russian Government, whoever might be the nominal donors, since all Russian institutions were centrally controlled. The total sum so sent amounted, according to the Home Secretary's information, to over 380,0007. Having shown itself so far in agreement with the extremists in the Conservative Party, the Government somewhat inconsequently