but they were pacified by the Minister's Under-Secretary, who informed them that the Government was really studying the matter and earnestly considering what to do for the best.

The Civil Estimates and Estimates for the Revenue Departments for 1927-28 were issued on February 25, showing a total amount required of 305,374,6781.-a reduction of over 6 millions on the previous year. The reduction was due chiefly to the practical elimination of items for the importation of coal and for the Coal Mining Subvention, and a decrease of 4,000,000l. for unemployment relief. The Beet Sugar Subsidy was increased from 3,200,000l. to 4,500,000l. One million was estimated for Empire marketing, against half a million in the previous year, and about a million and a half instead of a million for oversea settlement. The Middle Eastern Services showed a decrease of a million, but the Ministry of Health asked for an increase of about the same amount. The Ministry of Pensions required two and a half millions less, but old-age pensions over two millions more. The estimate for the Board of Education-44,307,0201.—was slightly more than in the previous year, and for the Ministry of Labour, slightly less.

The Army Estimate for the year amounted to 41,565,000l., a decrease of 935,000l. on that of the previous year. In introducing it in the House of Commons on March 7, the Minister for War explained that the saving was not due to reductions in the personnel of the Army-though some were being made amounting in all to 4000 men-but that it was a balance figure, resulting from a great many smaller increases and decreases in the various votes. It was intended in that year to reorganise the cavalry, with a reduction in its number of 47 officers and 1294 other ranks. This step was being taken on the advice of a committee of military experts, which pointed out that the efficiency of the cavalry could be increased by the mechanisation of the first line transport and the carriage of the machine-guns. There was a responsible body of opinion which held that in principle the day of the horse in war was over, and that the duties of the cavalry could be better performed by means of aeroplanes and swiftmoving vehicles. He himself thought that they did not yet possess the data on which to decide finally what was the best kind of military force to do the work hitherto performed by cavalry. For the present, therefore, the best solution appeared to be the combination of cavalry with mechanical transport. In other directions great attention was being paid to the mechanisation of the Army, and they were estimating to spend that year 238,000l. on new mechanical vehicles, besides setting aside 125,000l. for research and experiments; and in order to gain practical experience of the effect of mechanisation on tactics, an experimental force was being formed composed of completely mechanised units.

In the discussion which followed, the War Office was congratu

lated on having kept its expenditure for the sixth year running within its estimate, and was held up as a model to other departments in this respect. A number of Conservative and Liberal members expressed their great regret that one of the economies of the new Estimates consisted in abolishing the bounty to members of the Territorial force, which already in 1922 had been reduced from 51. to 31. Opinions were divided as to whether this would adversely affect recruiting for the force, but there was general agreement that the force deserved to be treated with more generosity. Labour members who spoke left this subject severely alone, but instead called attention to the international aspect of military preparations, and brought forward a motion calling on the Government, in the forthcoming Disarmament Conference, to initiate proposals to secure international agreement on reductions in land forces. Captain King, the Financial Secretary to the War Office, pointed out to them that Russia, one of the most powerful if not the most powerful, of military nations, was not represented at the conference, and he urged them to address their representations to the Government of that country, with which some of them were so friendly; and the motion was defeated by 223 votes to 108.

The money which was saved on the Army Vote was immediately required by the Government to pay for the sending of troops to Shanghai. When a Supplementary Estimate of 950,000l. for this purpose was introduced on March 8, the Labour Party took the opportunity of once more affirming its conviction that the sending of troops to Shanghai was a mistake. The Government's action was defended with vigour both by Conservative and Liberal members, and the Labour Party was itself put on the defensive against charges of indifference to the fate of Englishmen abroad, and of siding with one party in China. The Government had the satisfaction of hearing from Mr. Clynes that no one authorised to speak on behalf of the Opposition, either in the House or the country, had ever criticised the policy of the Government so far as it rested upon negotiation, and other Labour speakers were not less emphatic in support of the Government's policy of negotiation than in condemnation of its military steps. The arguments of the Government spokesmen failed to convince them, and they carried matters to a division in which they were defeated by 303 votes to 124.

In opening the discussion on the Air Estimates on March 10, the Air Minister, Sir S. Hoare, first drew attention to the fact that they provided for an increase of nearly 10 per cent. in the strength of the Air Force with a sum (15,550,000l.) nearly 3 per cent. less than that voted in 1926. This was chiefly due to the large reduction, amounting to 680,000l., in the expenditure on defence in the Middle East. In justifying the continued expansion of the Air Force, the Minister this year adopted a new line. He made no

mention of the need for protecting England against any foreign force and, indeed, the disparity between the British and French Air forces had already practically disappeared-but dwelt solely on the value of aviation for linking together the Empire and protecting its outlying districts. Of the utility of the aeroplane as a means of inter-Imperial communication he was able to speak with experience, having in the course of the preceding year made a journey by air, in company with his wife, to India and back without the slightest mishap and with strict adherence to scheduled time throughout. He referred to the recommendations made by the Imperial Conference in the preceding year for the development of inter-Imperial services both of aeroplanes and airships, and laid stress on the value of a highly mobile military air force for defending outlying districts with the minimum of expense. He paid a tribute to the British pilots, both civil and military, who, he was more than ever convinced, were the best in the world, and gave instances of the progress which had been made in the last couple of years in the construction of machines.

In the course of the debate the Prime Minister made a statement on the subject of accidents in the Air Force, the frequency of which was a cause of public uneasiness. He had, he said, by agreement with the Air Minister, made a personal investigation into this subject, as a result of which he had come to the conclusion that very few accidents were due to faults in the machines; the great majority were traceable to errors of judgment on the part of the aviators. In this matter there was a great difference between civil and military flying. In the former it was possible to make "safety first" the motto, but the training for the latter involved to some extent the courting of danger which in fact accorded with the adventurous spirit of those who took up this branch-a spirit which he thought was one of the marvels of the time. From his observation he thought that in the interests of economy, the ground staff of flying stations had been cut down too far; this did not affect the number of accidents, but it restricted the number of flights. He was still of opinion, as he always had been, that reports on flying accidents in the force should not be published; the inspector could not speak his mind freely unless he knew that his remarks were confidential.

While the Premier's statement was generally accepted as satisfactory, it was followed by suggestions in certain quarters that indulgence in alcoholic drinks was a frequent cause of accident in the Flying Force. To silence these rumours, Mr. Baldwin stated a few days later (March 23), that as a result of careful inquiries he had satisfied himself that the consumption of alcohol amongst Royal Air Force men in general, and officers in particular, was very small, and that there was no evidence to show that indulgence in strong drink had caused or indeed contributed to any accidents.

A Labour amendment was put forward urging the Government

to propose a limitation of air armaments in the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament sitting at Geneva. The UnderSecretary for Air, Sir P. Sassoon stated that any action of Britain in regard to air service must be conditioned by two factors-the development of aerial transport as a means of Empire communication, and the need of providing protection to vital spots of the Empire from attack from the air. The Government, however, would welcome any practical plans for air disarmament, and Lord Cecil would, at the Geneva Conference, put forward proposals to this end on their behalf. On a vote being taken, the amendment was lost by 225 votes to 112.

The Navy Estimate this year was for 58,100,100l., which was 100,000l. less than last year. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in introducing the Vote (Mar. 14), admitted that the economies of the past two or three years in naval expenditure had been effected chiefly at the expense of the dockyard workers, the dismissal of whom he regretted, but regarded as inevitable if economies were to be achieved. The Admiralty was also fortunate this year in having to spend only 43,500l. on the Singapore base, owing to a munificent contribution from Malaya. Referring to the Note recently issued by President Coolidge, inviting the Powers which participated in the Washington Agreement to a further conference for the limitation of naval armaments, he repudiated the suggestion often made by critics of the Admiralty that they desired to encourage competition in shipbuilding and would be likely to oppose further limitation of armaments. On the contrary, they welcomed such a conference, provided that other nations would consent to consider their special requirements in the same way that they would consider the requirements of others. Their obligation was to maintain a fleet equal in naval strength to that of any other Power, and provide reasonable security for their trade communications; and if the House of Commons should reject that formula, he for one would not take the responsibility of occupying the post he did.

As the question of the naval construction programme had been thrashed out in the previous year, it was not raised on this occasion, and the severest strictures on the First Lord's statement came from some Conservative representatives of dockyard constituencies. Having little to criticise in the Minister's statement, Mr. Ammon, who spoke for the Labour Party, fell foul of Mr. Churchill for having, in the recently published third volume of his book on the War, utilised the knowledge he obtained as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1917 to frame a severe condemnation of Admiral Jellicoe's conduct at the Battle of Jutland. Mr. Churchill found several defenders, who pointed out that Lord Jellicoe had already given his version of the battle in two books.

While the figures of the Estimates were accepted by the Commons without demur, they stirred the Lords to a vigorous if

ineffective protest on behalf of national economy. On March 16 Earl Beauchamp moved that the need for drastic economies in the national expenditure and for reduction in taxation was even more imperative than in 1924, and that the House regretted that the promises of retrenchment held out by the Government had not been kept, and deplored the continued growth of extravagance in armaments and in the other spending departments. The mover's plea for a reduction of armaments found no support with subsequent speakers, and the Earl of Midleton, while endorsing the call for economy, moved as an amendment that the Government should be urged to reduce the staffs of the Public Departments. A number of speakers thought that these offered a promising field for economy, especially the Admiralty and War Office staffs, which were much larger than in pre-war days, while the personnel of the forces had been reduced. The Marquess of Salisbury, on behalf of the Government, welcomed the debate as likely to influence public opinion in favour of economy, and so strengthen the Government's hands in its endeavours to cut down expenditure. He threw the blame for the great increase in departmental staffs on the House of Commons, which, instead of being the guardian of the public purse, was always exerting pressure in the other direction. A committee of investigation had reported that the increase in Civil Service staff since 1914 was fully accounted for by the extra work which had been thrown on the Civil Service. The real remedy could only come from the country. The British were an extravagant people, and did not like to economise, and for that reason the debate might do good. Subsequent speakers pointed out that it was not quite fair for the Government to shelter itself behind the House of Commons, since the Government led the Commons, and Lord Midleton's amendment was carried by 68 votes to 28.

On March 9 the House of Commons gave a second reading to two Bills, the object of which was to adjust certain official titles to changes which had recently taken place in the constitution of the Empire. One dealt with the titles of the King and of Parliament, introducing the alterations necessitated by the creation of the Irish Free State. The change in the King's title was accepted without demur, but some Unionists could not witness without a pang the disappearance from the title of Parliament of the term "United Kingdom." The other Bill, which met with opposition from Labour speakers, nominally constituted a Royal Indian Navy; but the Under-Secretary for India explained that this meant chiefly re-naming the existing Royal Indian Marine, as a recognition of each Dominion's responsibility for its local defence.

On March 11 the House of Commons, on a free vote, gave a second reading to a private Bill introduced by a Conservative member for strengthening the law against blasphemous and seditious teaching in schools. Some of the Conservative speakers