Secretary's speech of January 22. They found, however, that the military preparations of the Government were hardly in the spirit of these declarations, and explained the discrepancy by assuming that there were opposing influences at work within the Cabinet itself. In support of this theory, Mr. Thomas pointed to speeches which had been made in the previous few days by the Colonial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, breathing an unconciliatory spirit towards the Chinese nationalists. The Prime Minister denied that there was any division in the Ministry on the subject, but neither he nor any subsequent speaker explained away the awkward speeches of his colleagues. He defended the sending of a comparatively large force to Shanghai on the ground that they had to protect the British nationals there against the danger not only of mob violence, but of the incursion of a hostile army. He read to the House a resolution passed by the Cabinet on the preceding day, stating that the only object of the Government in sending troops out to the Far East was to safeguard British lives in China, and particularly in Shanghai; that it would depend on the advice they received from their representatives on the spot whether the troops sent out should be disembarked immediately at Shanghai or kept in readiness at Hong-Kong; and that there could be no question of entering into arrangements with Mr. Chen or anyone else in connexion with the movement of the troops.

At the same time that the Cabinet took this decision, the Foreign Secretary forwarded to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, for the information of members of the League, a statement on the British policy in China designed to show that that policy was completely in accord with the letter and the spirit of the Covenant. The Government, it was further stated, deeply regretted that there did not appear to be any way in which the assistance of the League could be sought at present for settling the difficulties in China, but it would gladly avail itself of any opportunity that might arise of invoking the good offices of the League.

The announcement in the King's Speech of the Government's intention to amend trade union legislation was couched in somewhat milder terms than the Labour Party had been led to expect, but it was none the less received by them with great hostility. Mr. MacDonald asked how the Government reconciled its pious reference to industrial peace with a proposal which could not fail to arouse the most bitter controversy in industrial circles. Without yet knowing in the least what would be the contents of the proposed Bill, he denounced it beforehand as a continuation of the Eight-Hours Act. The Government, he said, had no moral or political authority for introducing such a measure, and he promised them that it would be opposed uncompromisingly, even if ineffectively, by his party.

In the House of Lords, Lord Haldane expressed relief that the King's Speech contained no mention of reform of the House of Lords. Whatever its faults, the House at present acted moderately and did not interfere with popular decisions, and was therefore best left as it was. This, however, was precisely its defect in the eyes of Conservative speakers, who therefore expressed disappointment at this omission from the Government's programme. Lord Salisbury, the leader of the House, stated that the pledge of the Prime Minister to deal with the subject in the lifetime of the present Parliament still held good, and he expressed the hope that there would be a preliminary discussion of the subject in the current session. Earl Beauchamp complained of the omission from the Speech of any reference to the need for public economy which had been so strongly emphasised in the King's Speech of 1924, though expenditure then was considerably less than now. Lord Salisbury could make no promise on the subject, but he agreed that economy should be practised in every Department.

After a prolonged altercation between its conflicting sections, the Labour Party decided to move an amendment to the Address, deploring the despatch of troops to China, and demanding their immediate recall. Mr. Trevelyan, in moving the amendment, on February 10, again stated that Sir A. Chamberlain's offers to the Cantonese Government had the whole-hearted approval of British Labour, but added that in its opinion their effect was nullified by the despatch of troops to Shanghai. He thought that the Chinese authorities themselves could guarantee the safety of all the British in China, and maintained that the presence of British troops in Shanghai would of itself render less secure the 6,000 British in other parts of China. Sir A. Chamberlain, in reply, complained strongly that Mr. Trevelyan's speech had not made his task in China any easier, as he was afraid it would encourage the Chinese authorities to adopt an uncompromising attitude. He defended the despatch of the troops on the ground that this step had been taken in accordance with requests made by the Consul-General in Shanghai, by Mr. O'Malley, and by other responsible Englishmen on the spot who were best qualified to know what was needed. He protested that the measure was purely a defensive one, and to prove that the Government had no ulterior designs on the integrity of China, he promised that only so many troops would be landed at Shanghai as were necessary to protect the settlement, and that they would not be moved outside except in case of grave emergency; further, that if an agreement was signed between Mr. Chen and Mr. O'Malley, only the Indian troops would be landed at Shanghai, and those which had been sent from England would be kept at Hong-Kong.

Although Mr. MacDonald immediately characterised this statement of the Foreign Secretary as being "of great importance,"

it failed to mollify the Labour Party. Appeals were made to them by Conservative members to let the House present a "united front" on the Chinese question, and these were reinforced by a striking speech from one of their own members, Mr. Haden Guest, who told them that it would be a grave disaster to give to the outside world an impression that there was any serious division of opinion in the House, when in fact there was very little difference between the two sides. Nevertheless, Labour members persisted in continuing the debate on purely party lines, and even Mr. MacDonald, in spite of the fact that the motion, as Sir A. Chamberlain had pointed out, was contrary to the tenor of some of his own recent speeches, now managed to support it on the somewhat specious grounds that the National Union of Conservative Associations had distributed leaflets which were not in the same tone and spirit as the speeches made by responsible members of the Government, and that the British in China outside of Shanghai were being exposed to additional danger by the Government's action. A division was taken, and the amendment was defeated by 320 votes to 113, most Liberal members supporting the Government.

In the growing anxiety caused by the situation in Shanghai, it was a relief to the British public to learn, on February 20, that Mr. Chen had at length signed an agreement defining the British position in Hankow. On the next day Sir A. Chamberlain read to the House of Commons a number of telegrams which he had received from Mr. O'Malley, and from which it appeared that the former British concession in Hankow would be constituted into a Chinese municipal area in which British residents would have equal rights with all others, with full security for life and property guaranteed by the Chinese authorities. Mr. Chen had tried to lay it down in the course of the negotiations that changes in the status of concessions or international settlements in China should be negotiated by Foreign Powers only with the Nationalist Government, but to this Mr. O'Malley had demurred, stating that the British Government reserved to itself the right to negotiate with any Chinese officials in areas where they were exercising de facto authority. Mr. Chen had also stated that he had only been induced to sign the agreement, after at first refusing, by the modification in the original British plan for the concentration of troops at Shanghai announced on February 10, but he still protested against even such landing of troops at Shanghai as had actually taken place, as being without legal justification. Mr. O'Malley, however, had been instructed to inform him that the British Government reserved to itself the right to dispose troops in any way it thought necessary. The Foreign Minister's statement was received with great satisfaction by the House, which fully endorsed his renewed assurance of the Government's confidence in Mr. O'Malley and Sir Miles Lampson.

On February 14 Mr. Clynes moved the second amendment to the Address, regretting the reference to proposals for amending and defining the law with regard to industrial disputes as indicating the intention of the Government to continue the partisan policy pursued by them in recent industrial disputes. It also called on the House to declare that legislation to restrict the service of the trade unions would not be in the national interest. Mr. Clynes, and the Labour speakers who followed him, took it for granted that the Government was "out to smash the trade unions," but the only definite evidence adduced by any of them in support of this view was a reference to a leading article in The Times of January 17, which stated that loud calls on the Conservative side urging the Government to take drastic action gave colour to the fears of the Labour Party in this matter. Some of the Conservative "back bench" speakers in the debate showed this disposition clearly enough, but the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General were careful to keep such an idea out of sight, and gave it to be understood that their views on the proposed legislation were still somewhat fluid, and that they would do their best to make it as little obnoxious as possible to the Opposition.

The best reply to the amendment, and the outstanding speech of the debate, was made by Sir John Simon, who again, as at the time of the general strike, found himself aligned with the Government in the interests of law and order. On purely legal grounds he pointed out that the laws relating to trade unions needed clarifying, as they did not give clear guidance to lawyers, and left room for difference of opinion on matters of practical importance. With regard to the political issue involved, he said for the Government what it had not ventured to say for itself, that legislation was necessary to save the country from the menace of another general strike. He admitted that the leaders of the Labour Party had definitely set their faces against such a policy, but he pointed out that men of great influence in the trade union movement— among them the President for the current year of the Trade Union Congress-had declared that the general strike of 1926 was merely a trial of strength, and that the same weapon would be used again with more effect when opportunity offered. It was, therefore, he thought, advisable to place beyond doubt the illegality of a general strike. On this occasion Sir John Simon failed to carry with him the majority of his Liberal colleagues, and several of those who had supported the Government at the time of the general strike voted for the Labour amendment, which was defeated by 313 votes to 135.

A third amendment, moved by the Liberal Party, criticised the omission from the Address of any proposals for relieving the burden of local rates, and advocated the Liberal remedy of placing a greater burden on monopoly values in urban districts

which had been created by the communities. The Minister of Health criticised this proposal on the ground that it introduced a fundamental change in the principle on which the system of rating was based, substituting for ability to pay and benefit from the expenditure incurred the benefit derived by the individual not from his own efforts but from the growth of the community. He doubted if such a change would bring about the desired result, and, in any case, it was a bigger one than the Government was prepared to make. The amendment received only a moderate amount of Labour support, and was defeated by 244 votes to 88.

Immediately after disposing of the Address, the House of Commons was presented with supplementary Estimates to the amount of over 2,000,000l., bringing the total for the year up to nearly 10,800,000l. The largest of the new Estimates and the first to be considered was a vote of 450,000l. to complete the subsidy on British-grown beet sugar and molasses, bringing the total for the year up to 3,200,000l., of which about 1,000,000%. was returned as Excise. It was pointed out that the need for the addition arose from the fact that the yield of beet per acre was higher than had been forecasted; but opinions differed as to whether this could be taken as a sign that the industry would eventually be able to stand on its own feet or not. Complaints were also made that the production of British sugar had an adverse effect on the British sugar-refining industry, but against this could be set the undoubted fact that it saved some of the land from going out of cultivation. The vote was agreed to without a division.

A request for 7,000l. as a grant-in-aid for the mission of the Duke and Duchess of York to Australia and New Zealand, on which they had just set out, was not allowed to pass unchallenged by a section of the Labour Party, headed by Mr. Kirkwood, who spoke slightingly of the mission as a "joy ride" for which the Royal party should pay their own expenses. They received a dignified rebuke from one of their colleagues, Dr. Shiels, of Edinburgh, who pointed out that members of the Labour movement all over Australia were looking forward to their Royal Highnesses' visit, because they regarded the Royal Family as the symbol of Empire. As long, therefore, as the Labour Party accepted the Royal Family as the symbol of Empire they ought not to indulge in pettifogging criticisms as to the conditions under which they did this work, which, so far from being a "joy ride," involved considerable personal inconvenience to the Duke and Duchess. The vote was eventually allowed to pass without a division.

Further supplementary Estimates included 420,600l. for the Ministry of Pensions, 322,2951. for the Scottish Board of Health, and 220,000l. for the Ministry of Health. The extra vote for pensions was due to the fact that the Ministry had over-estimated by about 1 per cent. the mortality of pensioners. Of the Scottish vote, 115,000l. was required for building an additional thousand