The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Annual Register 1914, by Anonymous

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license


Title: The Annual Register 1914
       A Review of Public Events at Home and Abroad for the Year 1914

Author: Anonymous

Release Date: August 1, 2014 [EBook #46471]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ASCII

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ANNUAL REGISTER 1914 ***




Produced by Richard Tonsing, Juliet Sutherland and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

[Pg i]

THE

ANNUAL REGISTER

1914

[Pg ii]

ALL THE VOLUMES OF THE NEW SERIES OF THE
ANNUAL REGISTER
1863 to 1913
MAY BE HAD

[Pg iii]

[Pg iv]
[Pg v]

CONTENTS.

Calendar 1914

PREFATORY NOTE.

The Editor of the Annual Register thinks it necessary to state that in no case does he claim to offer original reports of speeches in Parliament or elsewhere. For the former he cordially acknowledges his great indebtedness to the summary and full reports, used by special permission of The Times, which have appeared in that journal, and he has also pleasure in expressing his sense of obligation to the Editors of "Ross's Parliamentary Record," The Spectator, and The Guardian, for the valuable assistance which, by their consent, he has derived from their summaries and reports, towards presenting a compact view of the course of Parliamentary proceedings. To the Editors of the two last-named papers he further desires to tender his best thanks for their permission to make use of the summaries of speeches delivered outside Parliament appearing in their columns.

In deference to suggestions which have been made on the subject, a Calendar has been added to facilitate reference to dates.

[Pg xii]

THE MINISTRY, 1914.

• Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury—Herbert Henry Asquith, K.C.
• Lord High Chancellor—Viscount Haldane, K.T.
• Lord President of the Council—Viscount Morley of Blackburn till August 4; thereafter Earl Beauchamp, K.G.
• Lord Privy Seal—Marquess of Crewe, K.G.
• First Lord of the Admiralty—Winston Spencer Churchill.
• Secretaries of State:—
• Home—Reginald McKenna, K.C.
• Foreign—Sir Edward Grey, Bart., K.G.
• Colonies—Lewis Harcourt.
• War—Colonel J. E. B. Seely, D.S.O., till March 30; thereafter Rt. Hon. H. H. Asquith till August 5; thereafter Earl Kitchener of Khartoum, K.P.
• India—Marquess of Crewe, K.G.
• Chancellor of the Exchequer—David Lloyd George.
• Secretary for Scotland—T. McKinnon Wood.
• Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland—Augustine Birrell, K.C.
• Postmaster-General—Herbert Samuel till February 11; thereafter H. Hobhouse.
• President of the Board of Trade—Sydney Buxton till February 11; thereafter John Burns till August 5; thereafter Walter Runciman.
• President of the Local Government Board—John Burns till February 11; thereafter Herbert Samuel.
• President of the Board of Agriculture—Walter Runciman till August 5; thereafter Lord Lucas.
• President of the Board of Education—Joseph A. Pease.
• Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—Charles Edward Henry Hobhouse till February 11; thereafter Charles Frederick Gurney Masterman.
• First Commissioner of Works—Earl Beauchamp, K.C.M.G., till August 5; thereafter Lord Emmott, G.C.M.G.
• Attorney-General—Sir John Allsebrook Simon, K.C.V.O., K.C.

[THE ABOVE FORM THE CABINET.]

• Admiralty:—
• First Lord—(See under Cabinet).
• First Sea Lord—Admiral H.S.H. Prince Louis of Battenberg, G.C.B., till October 29; thereafter Lord Fisher of Kilverstone.
• Civil Lord—George Lambert.
• Parliamentary and Financial Secretary—Thomas James Macnamara.
• War Office:—
• War Secretary—(See under Cabinet).
• Financial Secretary—Harold Baker.
• Parliamentary Under-Secretaries:—
• Home Office—Ellis J. Griffith. Foreign Office—Francis Dyke Acland. War Office—H. J. Tennant. Colonial Office—Lord Emmott till August 5; thereafter Lord Islington. India Office—Hon. E. S. Montagu till August 5; thereafter C. H. Roberts. Board of Trade—J. M. Robertson. Local Government Board—J. Herbert Lewis. Board of Education—C. P. Trevelyan till August 6; thereafter Christopher Addison. Board of Agriculture—Lord Lucas till August 5; thereafter Sir H. Verney, Bt.
• Treasury:—
• Junior Lords—John W. Gulland; W. Wedgwood Benn; W. Jones; H. Webb.
• Financial Secretary—C. F. G. Masterman till February 11; thereafter Hon. E. S. Montagu.
• Parliamentary Secretary—P. H. Illingworth.
• Paymaster-General—Lord Strachie.
• Attorney-General—(See under Cabinet).
• Solicitor-General—Sir Stanley Owen Buckmaster, K.C.

Scotland.

• Lord Advocate—Robert Munro, K.C.
• Solicitor-General—T. B. Morison.

Ireland.

• Lord-Lieutenant—Earl of Aberdeen, K.T.
• Lord Chancellor—Ignatius John O'Brien, K.C.
• Attorney-General—John F. Moriarty, K.C., till his appointment as Lord Justice of Appeal on June 18; thereafter Jonathan Pim, K.C.
• Solicitor-General—Jonathan Pim, K.C., till his appointment as Attorney-General; thereafter James O'Connor, K.C.

[Pg 1]

ANNUAL REGISTER
FOR THE YEAR
1914.

PART I.
ENGLISH HISTORY.

CHAPTER I.
BEFORE THE SESSION.

The year opened amid continuing apprehension for the peace of Ulster, and sharp controversies on subjects so widely different as the discipline of the Church of England and the needs of naval defence. Though conversations were understood to have been resumed between the Liberal and Unionist leaders regarding the possible terms of settlement of the Home Rule question, it was clear that much difficulty would be found in effecting a solution; and the Bishop of Durham advised the clergy of his diocese to make the first Sunday of the year a day of intercession for peace in Ireland—advice which was followed in other parts of the country also. And the dissatisfaction of the Ministerialist rank and file at the shipbuilding expenditure of the Board of Admiralty was expressed by Sir John Brunner, the President of the National Liberal Federation, and powerfully stimulated by an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer published on the first day of the year by the Daily Chronicle.

Mr. Lloyd George declared that, had British armament expenditure remained at the figure regarded by Lord Randolph Churchill in 1887 as "bloated and extravagant," a saving would have been effected equivalent to 4s. in the pound on local rates, or, on Imperial taxes, to the abolition of the duties on tea, sugar, coffee, and cocoa, and all but 2d. in the pound of the income tax. The question might now be reconsidered for three reasons: (1) Anglo-German relations were far more friendly than for years past; (2) Continental nations were devoting their attention more[Pg 2] and more to strengthening their land forces, so that Germany in particular must be thus precluded from any idea of challenging British naval supremacy; (3) a revolt against military supremacy was spreading throughout Christendom, or at any rate Western Europe. Unless Liberalism seized the opportunity, it would be false to its noblest traditions, and those who had its conscience in their charge would be written down for ever as having betrayed their trust. Sir John Brunner, as chairman of the National Liberal Federation, urged that Liberal associations should pass resolutions in favour of reduction of armament expenditure before the Army and Navy Estimates were settled, and he and several Liberal papers urged, as one means of reduction, the exemption of private property from capture at sea.

The Chancellor's statement met with little response in the German Press, and caused some apprehension in France. It was said that the First Lord, who was just then visiting Paris, did his best to allay this feeling; but at home it was regarded as indicating a sharp division in the Cabinet, and a suggestion by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Jan. 6) in a speech to his constituents at East Bristol, that a reduction might be agreed on jointly by Germany and England in the size and speed of new battleships, was spoken of as ranging him on the Chancellor's side. The Navy League appealed to the Mayors or chief magistrates of all towns in Great Britain to call public meetings in support of naval defence, and gave reasons for its contention that the actual and prospective naval forces of Great Britain were inadequate to the needs of the Empire. It also arranged other meetings, especially in the constituencies of Liberals favouring reduction. Mr. F. E. Smith told his constituents (Jan. 8 and 10) that the Chancellor was a "bungling amateur," and promised Unionist support to the Government in this matter against its own followers; but the Solicitor-General at Keighley (Jan. 8) declared that there was no Liberal division; the Government policy was to maintain British naval supremacy, but to build no more ships than were required for purely defensive needs.

The Chancellor, in the interview in question, had also pointed to the success of his land campaign, and had indicated, as other urgent items in the Liberal programme, legislative devolution, the reform of local taxation, and measures for the promotion of education, housing, and temperance. He had also reaffirmed his faith in women's suffrage, declaring that, but for militancy, he believed the Liberal party would then be pledged to carrying it out. But other subjects competed with it for public attention. The Kikuyu controversy (A.R., 1913, p. 439) had raised the question, not only of the practical necessity of co-operation and intercommunion among the Anglican and Protestant Christian missions in Africa, but of the precise attitude of the Church of England in regard both to the Episcopate and the advanced views[Pg 3] of Biblical criticism among her younger members. The controversy went on actively in the columns of The Times and elsewhere; and the cohesion of the Church was thought to be in grave danger. Even High Churchmen acquainted with missionary work argued that the native churches must not be hampered by restrictions which were the outcome of historical conditions in Europe, or Anglican missions weakened in the face of the progress of those carried on by British and American Nonconformists. Presbyterians and Anglican clergy drew attention to the practice of admitting Scotsmen and other non-Anglicans to the Lord's Supper in the Church of England, and to the neglect of the rite of confirmation in the past. Missionaries and colonial administrators pointed out that an African Nonconformist could not be repelled from communion in an Anglican church when, as often happened, his own form of worship was inaccessible to him, without the risk of estranging him from Christianity altogether; and Lord George Hamilton (in The Times, Jan. 6) urged that division among Christian missions in East Africa would mean the triumph of Mohammedanism. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in a letter published on January 1, had mentioned that he had not yet been informed of the precise question which the Bishop of Zanzibar desired to raise; and, after the matter had been actively canvassed, it was allowed to rest pending a further pronouncement by the heads of the Anglican Church.

A subject of more pressing interest was to be found in the various movements among organised labour. The ballots under the Trade Union Act of 1913 as to the establishment of a political fund, which were being taken in the first fortnight of the year, tended to reassure those who feared the growth of a strong Labour party, inasmuch as the vote was generally light (the miners, however, being a notable exception) and substantial minorities were unfavourable to the establishment of such a fund, and therefore presumably wished to keep their unions out of politics. But against this was to be set the marked prevalence of Labour unrest. A national movement was expected for a minimum wage and an eight hours' day for surface workers about mines, which might lead to local strikes, and ultimately to a general stoppage. A lock-out was threatened in the London building trade, where the presence of a single non-unionist was now the signal for an instant refusal to continue to work with him. A conflict was expected in the engineering and shipbuilding trade on the expiry in March of the existing working agreement. The abandonment of the Brooklands agreement threatened the peace of the cotton trade. There were signs of trouble among the gas-workers and transport workers in various places; and the railwaymen were preparing for a struggle towards the end of the year on the questions of recognition of the union, an amended conciliation scheme, and a shorter working day.

[Pg 4]

Meanwhile the Unionist party was prepared for the loss of one of its most imposing figures by Mr. Chamberlain's letters to the Presidents of the Liberal Unionist and Conservative Associations in his constituency of West Birmingham, announcing that he would retire from Parliament at the general election. He had not appeared in the House except to take the oath and his seat, since his disablement by gout and partial paralysis in the summer of 1906 (A.R., 1906, p. 180); and, though his health was not worse than it had been for some time, it had long been realised that he could never again take an active part in political life. Still, the announcement marked the close of an epoch, and of his Parliamentary connexion of more than thirty-seven years with Birmingham, twenty-nine of them as the first member for his actual constituency; and it was received with general regret and with acknowledgment, even by opponents, of his distinguished services to Great Britain and to the Empire. It was arranged that Mr. Austen Chamberlain should stand for his father's seat in West Birmingham. A few days later another Parliamentary veteran of Liberal Unionism, Mr. Jesse Collings, retired likewise after thirty-three years' service in Parliament, of which he had spent twenty-seven as member for Bordesley. He had worked, he said, for over half a century with Mr. Chamberlain, "and it seems fitting, even as a matter of sentiment only, that we should put off our harness together and at the same time."

However, the supreme questions were the attitude and the future of Ulster; and the period of interchange of views and of respite was rapidly drawing to a close. As The Times noticed (Jan. 5), responsible Unionists during the period of "conversations" had observed the "rule of reticence"; and such voices as had been heard were those of more independent politicians. Mr. William O'Brien, speaking at Douglas, near Cork (Jan. 4), regretted that the Nationalists had not accepted Lord Loreburn's proposals or the concessions suggested by the "All for Ireland" party, which in that event, had Sir Edward Carson refused them, might have been the subject of an appeal to the country. He again denounced the idea of the separation of Ulster from the rest of Ireland. A method of averting this and yet satisfying the fears of the Ulster Unionists was suggested by Mr. T. Lough, M.P., himself an Ulsterman and a Liberal, and had the support of Dr. Mahaffy and other eminent Protestant Irishmen. It was, briefly, to give the Protestant and Unionist minority a larger representation in the Irish House of Commons than their numerical strength would entitle them to claim. But the indemnity fund to compensate the Ulster Volunteers for their sacrifices for the cause had exceeded 1,000,000l. by January 9; and it was freely reported that the "conversations" had broken down, and the first important utterances by Unionists confirmed this opinion.

Addressing a Primrose League mass meeting at Manchester, on[Pg 5] January 14, Earl Curzon of Kedleston dealt mainly with the naval question and with Ulster. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, he said, was inconsistent with his speech in August, 1913 (A.R., 1913, p. 194). There was something humiliating in these appeals from British Ministers for a reduction, and British reductions had merely led to a German increase. The "naval holiday" proposal had produced no response, and the policy of independent and isolated reduction would provoke the exultation of Great Britain's enemies and the anger of her friends. Collective man seemed to be as selfish, bloodthirsty and brutal as in the dark ages, and the only guarantee of safety was the knowledge that a nation could not be attacked with impunity. Giving reasons for increased expenditure, he said that by the Navy alone could Great Britain keep her treaties with foreign Powers, maintain the balance of power in Europe, and be of any value to her friends. A Little Navy campaign would rouse Unionist protest throughout the country, not for party purposes, but because it tended to national suicide. As to Home Rule, he intimated that the conversations between the leaders had hitherto had no result; and, after pressing for either a referendum or a general election, he indicated that the Unionists might accept the Bill were it considerably altered and Ulster excluded. In gaining Ulster by force, the Nationalists would lose it for ever. To secure a peaceful Ireland, the Unionists would make sacrifices; but they could not consent to Home Rule within Home Rule, which Ulster would not accept. They desired to save the country from a great disaster and must appeal to the national instincts of the people.

The Lord Chancellor, speaking at Hoxton on January 15, advised his hearers not to be pessimistic about the discussions between the leaders; but at Bristol on the same evening Mr. Bonar Law gave no hope of a successful outcome. The country, he said, was rapidly and inevitably drifting to civil war. The conversations so far had been without result, and he expected that there would be none. It was not for the Unionists to make proposals, and, anxious as they were to avoid a terrible upheaval, they would accept no proposal which did not meet the just claims of Ulster. He had thought from the speeches of Mr. Churchill, Sir E. Grey, and even the Prime Minister at Ladybank, that the Government were prepared to face the facts, but the Nationalist leaders had claimed the right to govern Ulster, which they could not govern by their own strength. The Government knew that if they appealed to the people and were defeated their whole work of the last two years would be lost; and they had also incurred obligations to the Nationalists, and were resolved to carry their policy through. If they were right, the Ulstermen and the Unionists, who meant to assist them, were traitors; if the Unionists were right, the Government were acting as tyrants, and had lost the right to obedience. He argued once more that[Pg 6] Home Rule was not before the electorate at the election of 1910, and pointed out that the American colonies in 1776, though their cause for revolt was trivial as compared with that of Ulster, had revolted on a question of principle while suffering was still distant. He contrasted the apathy in Dublin with the determination in Ulster, daily becoming more immovable, and interpreted Sir Edward Grey's statement at Bradford (A.R., 1913, p. 250) that the Government would put down an outbreak in Ulster as signifying that the Government hoped that Ulster would give occasion to put its existence down by force. That was gambling in human life. The position in Ulster was no longer in doubt. The people in Ulster, and the Unionist party, had no alternative. The Unionist leaders fully recognised their responsibility, past and future; but the path of duty was that of national safety, for, if the Government once realised that the Unionist party was in earnest, they would see that they must appeal to the people.

The impression of hopelessness produced by this speech was seen in the appeal of the Archbishop of York, at Edinburgh, in a sermon on the following Sunday (Jan. 18), from the text "Blessed are the Peacemakers," that efforts at compromise should continue so as to save the country from civil war. But the Nationalists held that compromise was impossible until the Bill had reached its final stage in the Commons; and the rank and file of the Ulstermen desired that the negotiations should fail. Hence, though Mr. William O'Brien sacrificed his seat (Jan. 17) and stood again in order to prove that, in spite of the defeat of his following at the Cork municipal elections, the constituency continued to support the policy of "conference, conciliation, and consent," the mass both of Ulstermen and of Nationalists showed no disposition to make peace. The anxiety was heightened by the proceedings in Belfast (Jan. 17-19). Sir Edward Carson arrived on the 17th, inspected the East Belfast Regiment, and emphasised the determination of the force to resist Home Rule. On the 19th the Ulster Unionist Council met in private; and, addressing them at a luncheon afterwards, he said that Mr. Chamberlain had told him a few weeks before that "he would fight it out," and they would take his advice. "Conversations" as to a settlement had been taking place, but negotiations were useless unless based on the continuance, under the Imperial Parliament, of the rights which their ancestors had won. Further conversations might be necessary, but their preparations should keep pace with their diplomacy. He paid a tribute to the sacrifices made by the Volunteer Force, and concluded by saying that their loyalty to the Throne would last to the end, even if they were shot down cheering the King. An enthusiastic demonstration in the Ulster Hall followed, and was addressed by the Marquess of Londonderry, Mr. Long (who assured Ulster of the support of the English Unionists), and Sir Edward Carson, who again advised "peace, but preparation."

[Pg 7]

Following this advice, the Ulster Unionist Standing Committee prepared for action; and at the annual meeting of the Ulster Women's Unionist Council Sir E. Carson again urged them to stand firm. He recognised the kindness of the English Unionists in preparing to receive the Ulster women and children in the event of civil war, but he believed "the women of Ulster would stand by their men." The women, it must be added, were actively engaged in preparing to take part in nursing, signalling, and telegraphic and postal work; and the meeting passed a resolution declaring its unabated loyalty to the Covenant and its resolve to continue in the pursuance of the cause and the maintenance of civil and religious freedom.

Speaking at Batley next day Mr. Birrell said that there was great prosperity in Ireland, except in Dublin, where, however, things were settling themselves; and he scoffed at the readiness of the Unionist party, while detesting Home Rule, to accept the decision of the odd men at a general election. He welcomed Sir Edward Carson's declaration that he would not close the door on negotiations; but they must leave the matter there for the present, resting satisfied that the Liberal party and its leader were conscious of the sacrifices Liberals had made to get the question into its actual position. From that they did not desire to see it recede in the least degree, except in pursuance of the object they had in view.

Meanwhile the Chancellor's utterance on naval expenditure had encouraged Liberal expressions of the demand for reduction at meetings at Manchester, Newcastle-on-Tyne, and elsewhere, even in the City of London (Jan. 16). This last meeting, at the Cannon Street Hotel, though not large, was influential, but there was a considerable dissentient element, and a protest was made in the name of "a great majority of members of the Stock Exchange." The chairman, Mr. F. W. Hirst, editor of the Economist, condemned the First Lord for not keeping to his own standard of sixteen to ten; and two resolutions were moved, one advocating a searching examination into all departments of expenditure, in order that the Sinking Fund might be maintained without additions to the taxes; the other urging savings in expenditure on armaments, "in view of the improved relations with all other Powers and the reduction in the naval programme of Germany," the next strongest Continental naval Power. Sir John Brunner and three M. P.'s—Mr. D. A. Thomas, Mr. Lough, and Mr. D. M. Mason—addressed the meeting, the first-named advocating the abolition of the right of capture of private property at sea.

One result of the protests was that the Daily Telegraph (Jan. 20), by an ingenious conjecture, declared that there was a grave crisis in the Cabinet, and that both the naval and civil members of the Board of Admiralty had expressed their intention to re[Pg 8]tire if the Cabinet refused the supplies asked for, which they regarded as the bare minimum necessary; the statement, however, was promptly contradicted officially.

A day earlier the Postmaster-General, speaking at Henley-on-Thames, had stated that, besides the measures to be passed under the Parliament Act, the Prime Minister within the year would lay before Parliament proposals for the complete elimination from it of the hereditary principle and the thorough democratising of the Second Chamber.

The Ministry thus sat tight and defied its assailants, and the Opposition felt that their best chance lay in Ulster. Mr. Austen Chamberlain made it the chief theme of his speech at Shirley, Hants, on January 23, when he declared that Ulster, in the last resort, would save herself by her own right arm, and that England would follow her example.

But within the Unionist party itself there was fresh trouble on fiscal reform. The Farmers' Tariff League appealed by advertisement to Unionist agriculturists, manufacturers, and those dependent on fixed incomes, to vote against supporters of the existing Unionist fiscal policy; Mr. Rowland Hunt, at the Horncastle branch of the Farmers' Union (Jan. 14), denounced the postponement of food duties (A. R., 1912, p. 267) as disastrous, and the existing tariff policy as "rotten." A 10 per cent. duty was too low for manufactured goods, and home food producers were left unprotected, although their contribution to rates and taxes was equivalent to a duty of 15 per cent. Mr. Hunt, of course, was an independent and irresponsible Unionist, but he did not stand alone.

More responsible Unionists, too, were constrained by the Government programme to concede that something must be done to redress the alleged social grievances, and to propound an alternative and more moderate policy. Thus Mr. Long, speaking at the Holloway Empire (Jan. 17), after referring briefly to the threatening cloud of civil war, and promising that a Unionist Ministry would ask for power to make the Navy adequate, criticised the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement in that hall (A. R., 1913, p. 247), pointing out that the number of separate freehold estates in St. Pancras was not ten, but 1,550. He went on to suggest that instead of the Chancellor's reform proposals, which would take some years to carry out and entail a horde of officials and much un-English Government interference, there should be (1) facility for continuity of tenure by industrial tenants in London and large towns under reasonable conditions, or else compensation for loss of tenancy; (2) reasonable compensation for tenants' improvements which increased the letting value; (3) protection or relief from unreasonable covenants restricting the development of property. The Unionists would give redress through a tribunal modelled on the Wreck Commissioners' Court,[Pg 9] and a non-controversial Bill embodying these changes might be introduced in the coming session. This would redress the existing grievances in six or eight months, but, as with housing reform (A. R., 1912, p. 57) the Radicals were determined that the Unionist party should not have the credit of carrying a measure of social reform. [Other items of a Unionist "social programme" were understood to be in preparation.]

Meanwhile an important subject of non-contentious legislation for any Ministry that might be in office was afforded by the International Conference on the Safety of Life at Sea, originally suggested by the German Emperor and called by King George, which had met in London on November 12, 1913, and signed a Convention as the result of its deliberations on January 20. Publication was postponed till it had been communicated to the eighteen Governments participating (among them those of Canada, Australia and New Zealand); but the results were summarised in a speech by Lord Mersey, the Chairman of the Conference. Five Committees had dealt respectively with Safety of Navigation, Safety of Construction, Wireless Telegraphy, Lifesaving Appliances, and Certificates. The provisions are too numerous to be given in detail here; it may be said that an international service under the control of the United States was established for dealing with ice and dangerous derelicts within certain limits in the North Atlantic; ice must be reported, speed reduced at night in its neighbourhood or the course altered, boat decks properly lighted, and Morse signal lamps carried. Steps were taken to revise the international regulations dealing with collisions. Strict regulations were laid down as to the subdivision of ships into watertight compartments, and other provisions against sinking, fire, or collision; and also as to the equipment of all merchant vessels of the contracting States, when on international voyages and carrying more than fifty persons, with wireless telegraphy; lifeboats or their equivalents must be provided for all on board, and there were minute regulations both as to these and as to other forms of life-saving apparatus; a specified number of men must be carried competent to handle boats and life-rafts; and provision was made for the detection of fire. Ships of the contracting States complying with the requirements of the Convention would receive certificates which each of the States would acknowledge. The Convention was to come into force on July 1, 1915.

A foretaste of the expected Labour troubles was afforded in London by a strike (Jan. 21), in very cold weather, of the coal porters, after the failure of negotiations with the employers for increased pay; two days later the coal carmen came out also, and the number on strike was about 10,000. Permits were at first given by the strikers, but afterwards stopped, for the carriage of coal to hospitals and infirmaries; but the clerks and travellers of[Pg 10] the employers, and the students at the hospitals, volunteered to take the places of the strikers, and vehicles of all sorts, including motor-cars, were lent to replace the carts. The strike ended (Jan. 28) with concessions by the employers, one firm having previously given way. But the dispute in the London building trade (p. 3) was more serious. The Master Builders' Association complained that, some twenty times in the past nine months, men employed on one or other building job had suddenly refused to work with a non-unionist; and they demanded that each employee individually should sign an undertaking not to strike against the employment of non-unionists, under penalty of a fine of 20s. The men declined to discuss these conditions; and on Saturday, January 24, a number were dismissed, and a general lock-out was threatened. There was some doubt if the proposed fine would be legally enforceable; and, as the men were dismissed, they claimed unemployment benefit under the Insurance Act, but in vain. And the dispute was complicated by the raising of other questions as a condition of the resumption of work. About a thousand of the men submitted; the great majority remained firm. Among other examples of unrest was a prolonged strike of chairmakers at High Wycombe, which led to some rioting; of the taxi-drivers of London; of the municipal employees at Blackburn; and of the elementary school-teachers in Herefordshire. And the Prime Minister (Feb. 3) felt constrained to decline the request made by a deputation of the Miners' Federation to extend the principle of the Minimum Wage Act to surface workers, thus widening the visible rift between Labour and the Government.

The militant suffragists, meanwhile, had not been inactive. A conservatory in the Glasgow Winter Garden had been damaged, and an unoccupied house near Lanark fired, on January 24; and two days later a deputation from the militant organisation submitted to the Bishop of London a statement (based wholly on inference) from Miss Ansell, a prisoner in Holloway Jail, to the effect that a fellow-prisoner, Rachel Peace, was being forcibly fed and brutally treated by the jail authorities. The Bishop, however, after personally investigating the matter and talking to Miss Peace, satisfied himself that the statement was unfounded. The Home Secretary was willing to advise Miss Peace's absolute release if she would undertake to abstain from crime; this she was conscientiously unable to promise, and, though the Bishop had pleaded that she might be released on licence, and she had agreed to abide by its terms, this course was impracticable under the Act. The Bishop's letter stating these facts was published January 31; the militants met it by interrupting the service while he was consecrating a church at Golder's Green next day, and on the day following another militant deputation asked him to visit two other women prisoners in Holloway, and state his ex[Pg 11]periences at a meeting of the Women's Social and Political Union. This last invitation he declined, but he visited the prison, talked to the two women, Miss Marian and Miss Brady, and found that while forcible feeding made one of them sick and gave the other indigestion, no harshness was shown them by the officials, and they complained of no personal unkindness. He told the militants, in conclusion, that their action was not only wrong, but impolitic. The militants were furious at this reply, and the Bishop's house was picketed by their emissaries, who were, however, unable to see him.

But none of these disturbing questions could interrupt the Home Rule controversy for long. Speaking at a Home Rule meeting of some 15,000 persons in Waterford on Sunday, January 25, Mr. John Redmond said that the British people remained absolutely unshaken in their support of Home Rule, and that, putting aside two unlikely contingencies, the Bill would in the current year automatically become law. The Prime Minister would not be intimidated into dropping it; he was the strongest and sanest Englishman of the day in British politics. Alarmist shrieks were filling the air, but business in Belfast and Ulster was booming, and the great body of the people of Great Britain remained unmoved. There could not be a war without two contending parties; and the Ulster "army" was for defence only, and would not be attacked. He saw no prospect of Ulster goodwill being purchased by any concession, but it was almost a blasphemy to say that "the Nationalists could do without them." Long ago he had said that there were no lengths, short of the abandonment of the principle of nationalism, to which he would not go, no safeguards to which he would object, which would satisfy the fears of Ulstermen for their religious interests. Subject to the limits recently laid down by the Premier (A. R. 1913, p. 220) he said the same that day, and was prepared to pay a big price for settlement by consent. The Nationalists of Ulster had shown admirable loyalty and self-restraint, and those of North Cork "magnificent discipline" in refusing a contest which, whatever its result, would greatly injure their cause (p. 6). Ireland's travail was almost ended, and they were about to witness the rebirth of Irish freedom, prosperity, and happiness. Before the meeting Mr. Redmond had been presented with a number of addresses from public bodies, and had said that under Home Rule there would be a need for practical business men; politics would disappear, and their task would be to apply themselves to practical problems, and to lift Ireland from the slough of despond in which it had been for the past thirty years.

Sir Edward Carson replied next day, at Lincoln, that Mr. Redmond seemed to speak as if he held the Government in the hollow of his hand. If his speech were the last word, the country was in a lamentable and critical position. On the other[Pg 12] hand, Mr. Birrell, at North Bristol, ridiculed the Unionist insistence on the danger of civil war as a mere party move; eulogised Mr. Redmond's speech, and said that before civil war began, Mr. Asquith would have stated to the world the opportunity offered to Ulster and refused. All Governments were experimental; Liberals saw that the only Government now possible for Ireland was one which should have the authority of the people and time for legislative work. Should the Tories come in, they would within six months be introducing a measure only colourably different from that on which they were threatening civil war.

Mr. Long, at Nottingham (Jan. 28), denounced the obscurity of this speech, and hinted at a suspicion that the Government were trying to force Ulster to prejudice its case by committing some act of violence; and Mr. Austen Chamberlain also replied to the Chief Secretary for Ireland at Skipton (Jan. 30), denouncing the Government for forcing on, during a time of turmoil abroad and at home, the Welsh Church, Home Rule, and Plural Voting Bills. They had found Ireland at peace, and brought it to the verge of civil war. Their methods had destroyed the moral basis of their authority. No concession worth speaking of would avert the dangers then threatening, unless it provided for the exclusion of Ulster from the sphere of a Union Parliament. The Chief Secretary's paper safeguards were of no value. The Lord-Lieutenant would be distracted between the advice of his Ministers and of the Imperial Government. He could not trust the Nationalists, nor, judging by the provisions in the Bill, could the Government. England was to conquer a province and hold it down at the expense of her friends and for the benefit of her enemies. Against this Ulster appealed to the nation, and the Unionist party would stand by them.

The Nationalist comment was expressed by Mr. Devlin at Moate, Westmeath (Feb. 1). After saying that, without compulsion, which was one of the vital provisions of the pending Land Bill, the land problem would not be solved either in this generation or the next, he declared that the only obstacle in the way of Home Rule was the threat of civil war in Ulster, which had failed to convince or intimidate anybody, not least in Ulster itself. The so-called Volunteer movement and the Provisional Government had been reduced to a miserable fiasco, and the whole thing was a gigantic game of bluff. Among business men in favour of Home Rule he cited Lord Pirrie, Sir Hugh Mack, Mr. Glendinning, and Mr. Thomas Shillington, "out of a host of others."

Another brief interruption in the Home Rule controversy, to the temporary disadvantage of the Government, was now occasioned by the news (Jan. 28) of the deportation, by the South African Government, of ten of the Labour leaders concerned in the strike disturbances (post, For. and Col. Hist., chap. VII., 1). The indignation was heightened by the evasion by that Government[Pg 13] of a legal decision on the validity of the deportation, which was carried out under martial law, and by its reliance on an Act of Indemnity. The Labour Party Congress in Glasgow at once passed a resolution protesting against the suppression of trade union action in South Africa by armed force, expressing sympathy with the deported leaders, and requesting the Labour members in the Imperial Parliament to call for a full inquiry, and demand, if necessary, Lord Gladstone's recall; and next day it passed a further resolution calling upon the Government to instruct Lord Gladstone to withhold assent to the Bill until it had been submitted to the King. Strong speeches were made by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Keir Hardie, and other members, the first-named declaring that if the Imperial authority could not stop this attack on the right of combination, he had rather the South African Union were a foreign Power. On the other hand, Mr. Illingworth, the chief Liberal Whip, pointed out (at Clayton, Jan. 30) that South Africa was governed by a Parliament elected on a very free and wide franchise and quite uncontrolled by the Imperial Government, and that interference with such independent assembly would wreck the Empire; Lord Gladstone had acted on the advice of his responsible Ministers, as the King would in Great Britain; and the Home Government was blameless. At Hull, on the same evening, Mr. F. E. Smith asked for a suspension of judgment, and pointed out the inconsistency of demanding that the King should veto a Bill of Indemnity and repudiating that course on Home Rule. The South African Government, he reminded his hearers, had been created with the help of the Labour party.

The Liberal Press had anticipated the Chief Whip's arguments; but at the North Durham bye-election (Chron., Jan. 30) though the Liberals held the seat, which had always been regarded as safe for them, it was said that the deportations had caused the transfer from the Liberal to the Labour candidate of some 500 votes. In view of this transfer, the Postmaster-General, speaking at Harrogate, on February 2, had explained that Lord Gladstone's assent to the deportation of the Labour leaders was not required by the Constitution of South Africa, and, in fact, had not been asked. He added that the North Durham result did not support Mr. Bonar Law's prophecy of an early general election.

Should such an event occur, however, there were plenty of other questions for the electors besides Home Rule, Some of them, indeed, might prove dangerous for the Government, notably the land question, on which its programme did not go far enough for the single-taxers, a strong body in some districts, especially in Scotland. For this reason special interest was felt in the speech, which had been repeatedly deferred, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Glasgow on February 4. Many opponents got in[Pg 14] with forged tickets; nevertheless he had a fair hearing. After ridiculing the explanations in the Press of the postponement as due to differences in the Cabinet, or difficulties with the Ulster Unionists or the "single-taxers," he said that the underlying principle of land legislation was that the land was created for the benefit of all dwellers on it, and that any rights of ownership inconsistent with this principle should be ruthlessly overridden. That was the principle of the Scottish Land Act, but there were still anomalies; the peasantry was emigrating largely, and could not be spared. While indicating that rural conditions were not so bad in Scotland as in England, he pointed out that the effect of the Scottish Land Act had been to reduce the rents on many well-managed estates, a proof that under the system of competitive rents, part of a farmer's labour was unconsciously confiscated by rent. After indicating afresh the main points in the Ministerial scheme, he passed to the urban problem. Housing was even worse in some Scottish towns than in England. The cost of clearing the slums was prohibitive. Municipalities should be able (1) to acquire land at a fair market price, and (2) in advance of existing needs; (3) there should be an expeditious method of arriving at the price, and (4) the land must contribute to public expenditure on the basis of its real value. He alleged certain instances of the contrary—the Duke of Montrose had received 2,000 years' purchase from the people of Glasgow on the basis of his contribution to the public funds; the Cathcart School Board had paid 3,270l. 17s., or 920 years' purchase, for an acre and a half of the rateable value of 3l. 10s.; and 27,255l., or 2,452 years' purchase of the rateable value, had been paid for ten acres for a torpedo range near Greenock. The Clyde Trustees had had to pay to a Peer 84,000l. for nineteen acres—1,400 years' purchase of the rateable value. A new rating system was wanted, which should rate property on its real value and not discourage improvement; and high authorities had approved the rating of site values, notably Lord Rosebery and Mr. Chamberlain. Of the two proposals—to rate site value only, and not to rate it at all—he regarded the first as impracticable, the second as pusillanimous; there were several alternative methods between these limits, but whichever one was adopted, there must be a national valuation, and it would be ready in 1915. Of his statements on the Highland clearances he withdrew none; of course mountains were unsuitable for agriculture, but the glens were capable of tillage and the hillsides of afforestation. As to the Sutherland clearances he cited Sir Walter Scott, Hugh Miller, and a recent book by Mr. Sage, an Established Church minister, to show the suffering caused, and denounced the Duke of Sutherland (A. R., 1913, p. 262) for trying to get money out of the proposed redress of the wrong done by his ancestors. As to the discrepancy between the offer and the valuation for death[Pg 15] duties, "there had never been such a case since the days of Ananias and Sapphira." In 1748 the Duke of Sutherland had claimed compensation for the abolition of the right to hang his subjects; he asked for 10,000l. and got 1,000l. This was an instance of the patience with which the people had endured great injustice. Outside the Highlands hundreds of thousands of men were working for a wage barely keeping their families above privation, seeing their children die for lack of light, air, and space; in the cities there were quagmires of fermenting human misery; but the chariots of retribution were drawing nigh, and there would be elbow-room for the poor.

This speech incidentally led to a sharp controversy between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Duke of Montrose, who pointed out that the land sold by him to the Corporation was sold at a price awarded on arbitration, and covering many items besides the value of the land, and that he had no interest in the Cathcart School or its site.

Two days earlier, the Earl of Derby, speaking at Liverpool, had elaborately and effectively rebutted attacks made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the management of the Bootle estate, and, in view of a statement by Baron de Forest in a memorandum attached to the Land Report (A. R., 1913, p. 212) that the value of the site of Bootle had risen from 7,000l. in 1724 to three or four millions in 1913, he had offered the estate to Baron de Forest for 1,500,000l. The Baron accepted, on condition that the transfer should include all sums realised since 1724 by sales, fines, or mortgages—a condition which terminated the negotiations, though not the epistolary controversy.

The day before the Chancellor of the Exchequer had appeased the single-taxers, the Foreign Secretary had again disquieted the Liberal advocates of naval reduction at a dinner given him by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce (Feb. 3). Beginning with a reference to the Lancashire cotton industry and the promotion of trade by the Consular service, he said that one duty of the Foreign Office was to keep open the world's markets; but further difficulties might be raised by the effort to do so—in Persia, for example—and the Great Powers could not as yet interfere to prevent war without the danger of an outbreak of war among themselves. Happily in the Balkan War the Great Powers had left the settlement in the main to the States concerned, and had preserved peace among themselves. British policy, throughout, had made for peace. But trade was damaged, not only by war, but by the waste involved in armament expenditure. A slackening by one country, however, would rather stimulate the others than cause them to slacken; British naval expenditure was a great factor in that of Europe, but the forces making for increase were beyond control. To reduce the British naval programme would probably produce no response in Europe; at any rate, it[Pg 16] would be staking too much on a gambling chance. England, though she felt the financial strain the least, was calling out against this expenditure, because, as business men, Englishmen were shocked by the waste and apprehensive of its effect on the credit of Europe. She had several times proposed reduction by consent, but had met with no response. The only schoolmaster for other Powers was finance, and he thought at no distant date it might begin to be effectual. He closed with a reference to the great traditions of the Manchester School, and an expression of hope for the solution of the current problems of industrial discontent.

The outlook in Europe had been improved, and the position of Great Britain strengthened, by the reception of the British Note to the Powers on the solution of the Near Eastern problem (A. R., 1913, p. 357; For. Hist., Chap. III.); but the case for reduction of naval expenditure had been weakened by the Canadian Premier's announcement (Jan. 20), that he would not proceed with his naval policy till after a general election. Nevertheless, a strong feeling in favour of economy was exhibited in many quarters, notably by the Chambers of Commerce of Manchester, Bradford, and Burnley, and at public meetings at Manchester and elsewhere. A meeting to advocate reduction at Queen's Hall, London (Feb. 3), was addressed by Sir Herbert Leon (chairman), the Bishop of Hereford, Lord Courtney of Penwith, and Mr. Ponsonby, M. P. The chairman said it was folly to pay such a rate of insurance against an impossible catastrophe; the Bishop of Hereford feared that some Government departments were affected with the poison of Jingo Imperialism; Lord Courtney of Penwith denounced the "armaments gang," and suggested that Great Britain might renounce all notions of alliances, and get rid even of the elusive aspect of ententes; and Mr. Ponsonby ridiculed the futile diplomacy of the First Lord in proposing a naval holiday in a party platform speech. On the other hand, a meeting called at the request of a thousand business men in the City of London (Feb. 9) assured the Government of the support of the commercial community in any measures necessary to secure the supremacy of the British Navy and the adequate protection of the trade routes of the Empire. The Lord Mayor presided, and the non-party character of the meeting was exhibited by the circumstance that Lord Southwark, a former Liberal whip, moved the main resolution, and the Hon. Thomas Mackenzie, Agent-General for New Zealand, supported it.

Speaking at the annual dinner of the Birmingham Jewellers' and Silversmiths' Association (Feb. 7), Mr. Austen Chamberlain expressed his grave misgiving at the outlook for the session. The Parliament Act, he said, paralysed the discussion for the first two years of measures placed under it, and the desire for the reduction of naval expenditure was unshared by any responsible person who[Pg 17] had access to the real history of the past two years. Foreign policy had happily been kept outside party, the Government accepting the policy of its predecessors. The Foreign Secretary should take the House and the people more into his confidence, to ensure that they should be united in a great emergency, and should give a reasoned review of the position in relation to the affairs of the world such as that accorded by the Foreign Ministers of other Great States to Parliaments to which they were less responsible than the British Foreign Secretary was to that of Great Britain.

To return to domestic politics, the friction set up by the Insurance Act seemed to be gradually abating; and the results of the Act were set forth by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a complimentary non-political dinner to Dr. Addison, Liberal M. P. for Hoxton, organised by members of the medical profession, at the Hotel Metropole on February 6. After eulogising Dr. Addison's services in effecting, with Sir George Newnes, the medical treatment of school-children and State provision for medical research, he laid stress on Dr. Addison's aid, coupled with absolute loyalty to his profession, during the struggle with the medical men (A. R., 1913, pp. 2, 49). There were now, including doctors on more than one panel under the same Insurance Committee, over 20,000 general practitioners on the panels out of 22,500 in Great Britain; nearly 4,500,000l. had been distributed among them, and the average for each was 230l., rising in London to 330l. and in Birmingham to 380l. Besides this there was 933,000l. for drugs, and a balance of 310,000l. unallotted as between doctors and chemists. That was for only one-third of the population. Millions of people must before the Act have been without medical attendance. A locum tenens had previously received two guineas a week, now he received eight, nine, or even twelve. Assistants had received 120l. with board and lodging, or 180l. without them, now they got 200l. and 250l. respectively, or even more. That was the settlement which was to ruin the profession. They were at last getting a survey of the health of the nation such as they had never had before.

But the supreme problem was still Home Rule; and the Nationalist position had again been emphasised by Mr. John Redmond at a dinner given him by the National Liberal Club on February 6, the first time the club had officially entertained a leader of the Nationalist party in Parliament. He declared that the Unionist opposition to the Home Rule Bill was essentially directed against the Parliament Act: the Unionists, he believed, would be Home Rulers to-morrow if it suited their party interests, and he referred to Lord Carnarvon's historic interview with Mr. Parnell in 1885, and to the Constitutional Conference of 1910. Even in 1911 a Tory paper had stated that there was much to be said for the principle of Home Rule under the name of federation, devolution, and self-government. The Unionists, however, had[Pg 18] to fall back on Ireland for a policy and a party cry, though the principle of self-government had been bitterly opposed by their predecessors for Canada and for South Africa, and they disliked it for Ireland, having an ingrained belief in the inferiority of the Irish race. But the Irish would no longer submit to be made the pawns and playthings of British parties. Were the Home Rule Bill killed, Ireland would be absolutely ungovernable under the old regime. The issue was whether the will of Parliament, of Ireland, and of the Empire, was to be overborne by a threat of civil war from a minority in one province. As Mr. Balfour had said in 1902, civilised government on such terms was impossible. But the Nationalists were passionately desirous to avoid conflict with any section of their own countrymen; they wanted Ireland to be one nation; and, consistently with an Irish Parliament with an Executive responsible to it, and consistently with the integrity of Ireland, he could conceive of no reasonable length to which he would not be prepared to go to meet even the unreasonable fears of a section of his countrymen for the sake of an agreement. But any concession must be as the price to be paid for consent to an agreement; if no agreement was come to, the Bill must go through as it stood.

Speaking two days later at Longford, Mr. Devlin again promised every possible concession to the fears of the Protestants, short of the abandonment of Home Rule, and expressed his belief in an early Nationalist victory which would bring Ireland peace and goodwill. A compromise was suggested in a pamphlet by Mr. F. S. Oliver ("Pacificus") and an unnamed collaborator—viz. suspension of the Home Rule Bill, which gave Ireland more powers than she would have as a State in a Federation, until a Federal system should be created for the United Kingdom in which she should be treated like England and Scotland. But a more appropriate and impressive contribution to the controversy was made by Sir Horace Plunkett—who had just visited Ulster in the interest of peace—in a lengthy communication to The Times (Feb. 10). Each side, he said, misunderstood the other. The Government and the Liberal party regarded the Parliament Act as designed to overcome the hostility of the House of Lords to Liberal measures; those passed under it were being passed in order to clear the ground for social reform; the Ulster Unionists believed that the Parliament Act was passed solely with a view to Home Rule and under Nationalist dictation; and they would fight rather than submit to what they regarded as an incapable and priest-ridden Nationalist majority. If the Bill passed in the coming session there would be either civil war or sectarian outrages, possibly leading to retaliation. Objecting both to "Home Rule within Home Rule" and to the exclusion of Ulster, as tending to impair the solidarity of Ireland, he suggested that the Ulster Unionists should accept the Bill under three conditions: (1) A de[Pg 19]finite area of Ulster should have a right to secede, after a term of years, the decision to be by plebiscite in it; (2) both Nationalists and Unionists, preferably in conference, should be invited to suggest amendments to be incorporated in the Bill by consent; (3) the Ulster Volunteers should be allowed to become a Territorial Force, partly as an ultimate safeguard for the Ulster Unionists. He laid stress on the other issues which made a settlement of the Home Rule controversy imperative—the growing unrest among the masses, the education on the Continent and in India, and the danger involved by "the reopening of Irish sores" to Anglo-American relations and the consolidation of the Empire.

And so the questions were set for the first period of the session. Home Rule stood in the foreground, with some sort of compromise as to the treatment of Ulster, though the nature of the compromise divided both parties in both islands; then followed increased naval expenditure; and, in the background, Welsh disestablishment, the Plural Voting Bill, reform of the House of Lords, and Social legislation. All these questions might easily widen the rifts which seemed to be beginning in the ranks of the Ministerialists; but there was no indication that the Unionists could produce a practicable programme, or unite in its support. Still, their organisation was understood to be preparing for a general election, to take place in May; but the Ministry were certain not to concede it, partly because they held that the electors did not demand it, partly because the concession of it would nullify the Parliament Act. Nor could they amend the Home Rule Bill except by fresh legislation, or by suggestions accepted by the House of Lords. If otherwise amended, it would lose the benefit of the Parliament Act, by becoming a different Bill from that of 1912 and 1913.

CHAPTER II.
THE SESSION UNTIL EASTER.

In spring-like weather and brilliant sunshine the King, accompanied by the Queen, drove in state to open Parliament on Tuesday, February 10. The crowds on the route were greater than usual, and the occasion was marked by no untoward incident, suffragist or otherwise. The ceremony in the House of Lords was even more numerously attended and more brilliant than in former years, and the King's Speech was listened to with profound attention, rewarded by the significant paragraph, read by His Majesty in measured tones, dealing with Home Rule.

The Speech opened with the usual statement that relations with foreign Powers continued friendly, and went on to express pleasure at the King's coming visit to the French President, and to the opportunity thereby afforded him of testifying to the cordial[Pg 20] relations existing between the two countries. Reference was next made to the recent consultation with the other Powers respecting the settlement of Albania and the Ægean Islands, with the view of giving effect to resolutions adopted by the Powers during the Ambassadors' Conference in London, and to the measures adopted for erecting the new administration in Albania. The Baghdad Railway and Persian Gulf problems were, it was intimated, likely to be solved satisfactorily. Gratification was expressed at the signature of the Convention on the safety of life at sea, and a Bill carrying out its provisions was promised; and regret at the drought, fortunately limited in area, in India. The Estimates were promised, without the usual reference to economy. The Bills to be passed under the Parliament Act were dealt with as follows:—

"My Lords and Gentlemen,—The measures in regard to which there were differences last session between the two Houses will be again submitted to your consideration. I regret that the efforts which have been made to arrive at a solution by agreement of the problems connected with the Government of Ireland have, so far, not succeeded. In a matter in which the hopes and the fears of so many of my subjects are keenly concerned, and which, unless handled now with foresight, judgment, and in the spirit of mutual concession, threatens grave future difficulties, it is my most earnest wish that the goodwill and co-operation of men of all parties and creeds may heal dissension and lay the foundations of a lasting settlement."

Bills were also promised reconstituting the Second Chamber; carrying into effect those recommendations of the Royal Commission on Delay in the King's Bench Division which required the concurrence of Parliament; providing for Imperial naturalisation (prepared in consultation with the Dominion Governments); authorising public works loans to the Governments of the East African Protectorates; dealing with housing, national education, juvenile offenders; and, should time and opportunity permit, providing for other purposes of social reform. The Speech concluded with the usual invocation of the Divine blessing.

In both Houses the Opposition had determined to emphasise the gravity of the situation in Ulster by at once moving an amendment to the Address, humbly representing "that it would be disastrous to proceed further with the Government of Ireland Bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the people." There had been rumours of coming disorder in the Commons; but they were falsified. Mr. Long (U., Strand) moved this amendment, after the Address had been moved by Mr. W. F. Roch (L., Pembroke) and seconded by Mr. Hewart (L., Leicester). Before Mr. Long rose the Speaker, in reply to Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab., Leicester), ruled that the usual general debate might follow the impending discussion.

[Pg 21]

The debate covered much well-worn ground, but it resulted in a marked sense of relief. Mr. Long asked how the Opposition could consider the legislative programme of the Ministry in the face of a threatened civil war; but his speech was distinctly temperate. Incidentally he mentioned that there was grave anxiety in the Army and Navy, but he believed that the Unionists, whenever they had been asked, had advised the members of the Services to do their duty.

The Prime Minister, after reminding the House that when the Bill was introduced he had offered to consider further safeguards, if suggested, for Ulster, pointed out that in the earliest stages of the Parliament Bill it was contemplated that that measure should be applied to the Home Rule Bill (A. R., 1910, p. 87 seq.). The Unionists said that during the general election of 1910 Ministers had indulged in a gigantic system of mystification; he did not think that in all the annals of anthropology there had ever been a case in which a myth had so quickly crystallised into a creed. He himself had made it clear that the first use of the Parliament Act would be to carry the Home Rule Bill. The recent bye-elections showed a somewhat increased majority for Home Rule. The average elector was not seriously excited. A dissolution would admit that, so far as concerned Home Rule—the Parliament Act was an absolute nullity, and, of its three conceivable results, a stalemate would not improve the prospects of a solution, a Unionist majority would be faced with the problem of governing three-fourths or four-fifths of the Irish people against their will, and a Liberal victory would not lead the Ulstermen to drop their resistance. Would the Unionists, in that case, acquiesce in the passing unmutilated of the Government of Ireland Bill? He did not believe any such guarantee could be given. His conclusion was that if the matter was to be settled by a general agreement, it would be much better settled than by "a dissolution here and now." The King's Speech had mentioned the "conversations" between leaders; they were, and must remain, under the goal of confidence, The one satisfactory feature about them was that the Press had been completely at sea as to what was going on; and, though they had not resulted in any definite agreement, he did not despair. The language of the King's Speech ought to find an echo in every quarter of the Chamber. After touching on the proposed exclusion of Ulster, and Sir Horace Plunkett's plan (p. 18), he said that the Government recognised that they could not divest themselves of responsibility of initiative in the way of suggestion, but suggestions must not be taken as an admission that the Home Rule Bill was effective; they would be put forward as the price of peace,—meaning thereby not merely the avoidance of civil strife, but a favourable atmosphere for the start of the new system. There was nothing the Government would not do, consistently with their fundamental principles, to avoid civil war.[Pg 22] He agreed that there ought to be no avoidable delay, and the Governments when the necessary financial business had been disposed of, would submit suggestions to the House.

The debate was continued for some hours by Liberal and Unionist members. Mr. Austen Chamberlain was not very responsive to the Prime Minister's concessions; but Sir Edward Carson next day (Feb. 11) was more conciliatory. In an impressive speech, which later speakers recognised as contributing to the change in the situation, he emphasised the extreme gravity of the statement in the King's Speech, and the inability of the House to meet the situation by amending the Bill. The Prime Minister gave no indication of the steps proposed, and he thought the Government was manœuvring for position. Its proposals could only be made by an amending Bill. The insults offered to the Ulstermen had made a settlement far more difficult. Ulster must go on opposing the Bill to the end whatever happened; but if its exclusion were proposed, it would be his duty to go to Ulster at once and take counsel with the people there. But if the Ulstermen were to be compelled to come into a Dublin Parliament, he would, regardless of personal consequences, go on with them in their resistance to the end. The Government must either coerce Ulster, or try in the long run, by showing that good government could come under the Home Rule Bill, to win her over to the care of the rest of Ireland. He did not believe that Mr. Redmond wanted to triumph any more than he did, and one false step taken in relation to Ulster would render for ever impossible a solution of the Irish question. Hoping that peace would continue to the end, he declared that, if resistance became necessary, he would not refuse to join in it.

Mr. John Redmond (N., Waterford) said he shared to the full the anxiety expressed in the King's Speech for an amicable settlement, The Prime Minister had created a new situation by accepting responsibility for the Government in initiating proposals for such a settlement; while accepting the situation to the full, he thought the responsibility for the initiative might fairly have been left to the Opposition. He ridiculed Sir E. Carson's statement that the only course possible for the Government was an amending Bill—which would at once come under the Parliament Act—and assumed that the Prime Minister meant procedure by suggestions under that Act. In view of the numerous suggestions daily being made, the Prime Minister could hardly make proposals at once. He wished to shut the door in advance on no suggestions, but he examined critically the possible exclusion of Ulster, pointing out that what was meant was presumably the four north-eastern counties, in which, he contended, 37 per cent. of the population were Home Rulers. None of the Ulster members desired the exclusion of Ulster, and Irish Unionist opinion was against it, The Nationalists asked only that the concessions pro[Pg 23]posed should be consistent with the main principles of the Bill, and that, as a quid pro quo, there should be peace and consent. He was anxious to remove every honest fear, however unfounded, and would consider in the broadest and friendliest spirit any proposals the Government might make.

Later the Chief Secretary for Ireland, referring to a statement by Lord Hugh Cecil that the Unionists would treat the United Kingdom as one country, said that there was a new Ireland—not necessarily Home Rule or Nationalist, but "the renaissance of a nation." He had noticed, even in Sir E. Carson's speech, a feeling as of an Irishman speaking to Irishmen. The great difficulty was that the Government, in finding a solution, exposed itself to the taunt that it was yielding to force. He hoped for a national solution.

After other speeches, including one from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who summed up for the Government,—

Mr. Bonar Law (U., Lancs., Bootle), after again admitting the responsibility of the Opposition in countenancing resistance, confined himself to the speech of the Prime Minister. If the threatened calamity happened, the Prime Minister alone would be held responsible. At any rate, no popular mandate was given for the armed coercion of Ulster, and, if Ulster was to be coerced, the order should be given by the people themselves. The Prime Minister's proposals should have been made at once. His speech had changed the situation; he admitted that the Bill could not be imposed on Ulster without provisions for its protection, and that Ulster had a special identity justifying its separate treatment. If his proposals failed of acceptance, there was no alternative but to leave Ulster out. Ulster had claimed not to veto Home Rule for Nationalist Ireland, but to resist the right of Nationalist Ireland to govern her. If any kind of Home Rule was possible, the exclusion of Ulster was the only solution. If the Bill were sincerely meant as part of a general scheme of devolution, of which there was no evidence, let Ulster be left out till it was complete. The Nationalists had committed themselves against the exclusion of Ulster, and, so far as he could judge of Ulster and speak for the Unionists of Great Britain, such efforts as "Home Rule within Home Rule" would do the greatest harm; they would be made to be rejected, merely for the Government to improve its strategical position. Ulster was determined on resistance, on principle. Serious people no longer talked about "bluff." The Prime Minister knew that the passing of the Bill would be the signal for an outbreak of civil strife of which no man could foresee the end. Leave out Ulster, and automatically the danger of civil war ceased; or the Government might avoid it by submitting their proposals to the people. The Parliament Act, however, was used by Ministers to make themselves dictators. It was said that the Opposition were opposing[Pg 24] Home Rule to defeat that Act, but until Parliament met the day before the Government could have submitted its proposals to the people, and if the people were behind them the Act would not have been interfered with. The Government won the last election by the cry that the will of the people must prevail; what they meant by the Parliament Act was that their will was to prevail even against the will of the people. A general election won by the Government would change the situation both for the Unionists and for Ulster, and would give the Government the moral force they lacked. Or let them take a referendum on Home Rule, and if the decision were adverse they could go on with their other measures under the Parliament Act. If the coalition did not then hang together, it would show that the legislature did not represent the opinion of even the majority of its supporters. If they went on now there would be bloodshed in Ulster, and an appeal to the people must follow, and then how would the people regard them? The game was up. They must either make proposals removing the resistance of Ulster, or submit themselves to the judgment of the people.

The amendment was rejected by 333 to 78. There was a majority for it among the members representing Great Britain of three, but some twenty Liberals and Labour men were absent.

In the House of Lords, after the Address had been moved by Lord Glenconner and seconded by the Earl of Carrick, the Opposition amendment was moved by Viscount Midleton; but the debate added little to that in the Commons, and only a few points can be mentioned here. Lord Morley of Blackburn put the Government case in reply to Lord Midleton; Earl Loreburn, while holding that the exclusion of Ulster would not effect a settlement, thought that certain other additional safeguards might be given it; the Marquess of Lansdowne, while declaring himself not much enamoured of the exclusion of Ulster, said that if its complete exclusion were accompanied by safeguards for the Unionists outside Ulster, he was prepared to consider the proposal; Earl Roberts said briefly that the use of the Army to coerce Ulster was "unthinkable"; and, after three days' debate, the amendment was carried by 243 to 55.

Meanwhile the Commons had passed to the Labour amendment moved (Feb. 12) by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab., Leicester), praying that the Governor-General of South Africa should be instructed that the Indemnity Bill should be reserved under Clause 64 of the South Africa Act, 1909, until after a judicial inquiry into the circumstances of the proclamation of martial law and the scope of the Bill, especially the provision relating to the deportation of the trade union leaders. In moderate language, the mover contended that, on the information available, which had been carefully sifted and contained the whole case of the Union Government, the proclamation of martial law was not justified. Incidentally he[Pg 25] described the Syndicalists as the greatest enemies of organised labour; but he said that the meeting which resolved on the general strike was perfectly peaceful. Convictions might have been obtained under the sedition law, but the South African Government had no evidence, and wanted, by one comprehensive swoop of illegality, to stamp out trade unionism. The deportation clause was really a Bill of Attainder, and undesirable aliens should be defined by legislation; then test cases could be raised by the deported leaders. One did not desire to interfere with the powers of the self-governing Dominions, but the Empire was faced with the problem of Imperial citizenship. If British citizens were not to carry their historical rights with them, the Empire could not retain its present place of honour.

The Colonial Secretary (Mr. Harcourt, Lancs., Rossendale) made it clear at once that he would not pronounce any judgment on the action of the South African Government. British Imperial citizenship did not exist; the phrase was too literal a translation of civis Romanus sum; what did exist was British subject-hood, entitling the possessor to the protection of his Sovereign through the Executive, but giving him no rights of entry or licence in any part of the Empire if he attempted to violate the laws a Dominion was competent to pass. The circumstances and laws of the various Dominions differed widely from those of Great Britain; in South Africa the native and mining population occasioned special dangers; and the Empire might easily be smashed by meddling and muddling with Dominion affairs. He reviewed the disturbances from the Rand strike onwards (A.R., 1913, p. 416 seq.), and said that the Union Government, regarding martial law as essential, advised Lord Gladstone to sign the proclamation establishing it, and he very properly assented, on the assurance that Parliament would be asked to ratify it and pass an Indemnity Bill. His consent to the expulsions was neither sought nor obtained, but he had been informed beforehand that it might be necessary to deport a dozen men, and that they were aware of the strong feeling this would excite, and would not do it without urgent necessity. There were precedents for the inclusion of such a clause as the deportation clause in the Indemnity Bill. Lord Gladstone was in the position of a constitutional sovereign; moreover, had he refused his assent, the Ministry would have resigned, no other could have been found, and he would have remained a solitary and powerless figure, with no resources but the Imperial troops. Nagging criticism of the Dominions' conduct of their internal affairs was the worst cement for the democracies of the Empire. Lord Gladstone retained the full confidence of the British Government. The Indemnity Bill must be left to the South African Parliament. He cited a case in Natal (A.B., 1906, p. 403) as showing the sensitiveness of the Dominions, pointed out that expulsion of undesirable aliens was not unfamiliar in South[Pg 26] Africa, and added that the Empire was held together by a silken cord; twist this into a whiplash, and the crack of the lash would be the knell of the Empire. Sir George Parker (U., Gravesend), who had Canadian and Australian experience, thought the Colonial Secretary had overstated the sensitiveness of the Dominions; but little was added to the debate by the subsequent speakers, and the Labour party was urged from both sides of the House to withdraw the amendment, as a division might be misunderstood in South Africa. On their refusal, it was rejected by 214 to 50.

Another Labour amendment was then moved by Mr. Brace (L., Glamorgan, S.), regretting the absence of reference in the Speech to the increasing number of railway and mining accidents and of any promise of legislation dealing with them. He gave the figures of fatal accidents to miners in the United Kingdom in 1913—461 from explosions of coal gas, 614 from falls of ground, 400 from miscellaneous causes—and declared that the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1911 was not being carried out. He indicated the reforms desired by the Miners' Federation, which included an inspector with a salary of 200l. for every 5,000 workmen, involving an annual cost of 40,000l. Mr. Wardle (Lab., Southport) dealt with the accidents to railwaymen; the fatal accidents had fallen considerably since the Act of 1900, but the non-fatal accidents in 1912 were 27,947. The Home Secretary replied as to mining accidents, pointing out that the number per thousand men had been reduced in forty years by more than one half; the recommendations of the Royal Commission had been more than carried out, and the number of inspectors doubled in four years. He intimated that a further increase would be necessary, and promised a small amending Coal Mines Bill, but could not promise early legislation carrying out Mr. Brace's suggestions. Next day Mr. Thomas (Lab., Derby) showed that the greatly increased railway traffic was being carried out by fewer men, and attributed the increase of accidents to the speeding-up system, and the inability of the Board of Trade to enforce its recommendations. He complained, also, of the action of the Midland in connexion with the Aisgill disaster (A.R., 1913, p. 200). The men's case was endorsed by Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck (U., Nottingham, S.); and the Secretary to the Board of Trade, in the unavoidable absence of the President, while admitting that the number of accidents in 1913 was alarming, and might be due to the decrease of the staff, contested Mr. Wardle's contentions, but admitted that there was a case for inquiry whether the Act of 1900 was sufficient. The debate was continued by a number of members, nearly all advocating the men's case; and, after a conciliatory speech by the Under-Secretary to the Home Office, Mr. Brace, in view of the Ministerial undertakings and of the opportunity he would have of incorporating his proposals in the Bill dealing with mines, asked leave to withdraw his amendment. Lord Ninian Crichton[Pg 27]-Stuart (U., Cardiff) protested against the withdrawal, and the Unionists challenged a division. The Labour party, however, were not disposed to risk injuring the Ministry; most of them voted against their own amendment, some others abstained, and it was rejected by 239 to 73, amid the jeers of the Opposition at the Labour members' lack of independence.

Mr. Leif Jones (L., Notts., Rushcliffe) then moved an amendment regretting that no specific reference was made in the Address to the "long promised and greatly needed" measure of temperance reform for England and Wales. The licence reduction scheme under the Act of 1904 had failed, and drinking and the number of convictions were increasing. Why should there not be an autumn session to carry a new Licensing Bill? The Prime Minister made a sympathetic reply, repeating his declaration of 1911, that it was the intention of the Government to legislate on the subject within the lifetime of the existing Parliament; but it would do more harm than good to introduce a first-class controversial measure which must be dropped.

Two days earlier (Feb. 12) important changes were announced in the Ministry. Lord Gladstone's wish to retire from the Governor-Generalship of South Africa, for purely domestic reasons unconnected with the recent troubles, had been known for some time past; he was to be succeeded by Mr. Sydney Buxton, President of the Board of Trade, who was shortly afterwards created Viscount Buxton, and was succeeded in his office by Mr. John Burns; the Presidency of the Local Government Board vacated by the latter was filled by Mr. Herbert Samuel; Mr. Hobhouse became Postmaster-General; Mr. C. F. G. Masterman succeeded him as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and was succeeded as Financial Secretary to the Treasury by Mr. E. S. Montagu, Under-Secretary for India, a post now taken by Mr. C. S. Roberts (Lincoln). These changes involved bye-elections at Poplar and Bethnal Green, which were sure to be hotly contested. Otherwise they were regarded as somewhat strengthening the Cabinet.

The debate on the Address was resumed in the Commons on Monday, February 16, with an Opposition amendment demanding that, in view of the growing hostility to the Established Church (Wales) Bill, it should not be passed till after submission to the people at a general election, or to the electors of England and Wales by a Referendum. Two days earlier a protest, stated to be signed by 15,321 adult Nonconformists in St. Asaph diocese, had been sent to the Prime Minister against the proposals to deprive the Church in Wales of her unclosed ancient churchyards and of 157,000l. a year of her ancient endowments. Of the signatories, twenty-nine were stated to be ministers or preachers, 158 deacons, and eighteen magistrates, and in many country parishes more than half the Nonconformists had signed. Stress was laid on this petition by Mr. Ormsby Gore (U., Denbigh Dis[Pg 28]trict) in moving the amendment, and also on the silence observed on the Bill in the King's Speech, and by the Ministers; on the demonstrations against it, and on the fact that it had been passed only by Nationalist support. No meetings in its support had been held in England, and those in Wales had been failures. Ministers desired to establish a precedent for further spoliation of the Church. The Home Secretary replied by pointing to the aggregate Liberal majority of 4,221 in the three bye-elections in Wales since the introduction of the Bill, and the prominence of the issue in the Bolton election (A.R., 1913, p. 244). After insisting that the subject was before the electorate in 1910, he remarked that it was strange that Nonconformists should choose a diocese for their area, and that the chief promoter was a well-known Conservative. He asked the House to suspend judgment on the petition. After other speeches, Mr. Balfour (U., City of London) admitted that the vote of the Welsh members was a prima facie argument that the Welsh people supported the Bill, but the doctrine that a Bill should pass the House of Commons for Wales if it were backed by a majority of the Welsh people was subversive of Parliamentary government. Besides this was not only a Welsh question. But his object was to point out the injustice of the Parliament Act in connexion with the Bill. The Prime Minister's argument, that a measure brought in under that Act and not supported by the people would lead to discussion and intimations to their representatives that it was distasteful to them, had had great weight with the people, but the Government had purposely prevented the electors from concentrating their minds on any one measure by bringing in several, and by starting other agitations. He insisted that the Bill was fundamentally a religious question, and that the tendency was to see that the greatest religious interests were not bound up with sectarian differences, and would not be helped by sectarian plunder. Eventually the amendment was defeated by 279 to 217.

The value of the petition having been questioned, a deputation from its signatories waited on the Prime Minister on March 4. All those present, save Mr. Ormsby Gore and the Bishop of St. Asaph, were Nonconformists, many had seldom or never been to London, and some spoke in Welsh. They dealt, however, mainly with generalities, and the Prime Minister ascertained that none of the ministers or deacons who had signed had come. In reply, he regretted that they had not proceeded by petition to Parliament, inferred that, as they dealt only with disendowment, the Nonconformists of the diocese supported disestablishment, from which disendowment was inseparable, and concluded that, having given no detailed objections, they had not advanced their case.

To return to the House of Commons; a Tariff Reform amendment followed, moved by Captain Tryon (U., Brighton),[Pg 29] regretting that the Government refused to modify the fiscal system by (1) adopting Imperial Preference, so far as practicable without imposing fresh duties on imported foodstuffs; (2) a moderate duty not exceeding an average of 10 per cent. ad valorem on foreign manufactured goods, in order to safeguard the stability of British industries and provide revenue for the assistance of agriculture and social reform. The mover laid stress on the increasing financial needs of the country, on such concessions to Protectionism as the encouragement offered to agriculture in East Africa, and the protection virtually accorded to beet-sugar and cocoa, and on the fact that the reduced American tariff was more than twice as high as the tariff proposed. After other speeches, the Solicitor-General described the proposal as "an anæmic fragment" of full-blooded Tariff Reform. The agricultural industry was in open revolt against it (p. 8), and effective Imperial Preference was impossible without taxing raw material and food. The farmer would be burdened by the rise in the prices of the goods he used, and the relief of his income tax from the new revenue would be trifling. The rise in prices had been very general, though least in Free Trade England; but agricultural wages had not risen correspondingly. Mr. Bonar Law (U., Lancs., Bootle) quoted a Consular Report of 1909 to show that wages in Germany had more than kept pace with the rise in prices; maintained that a system similar to that proposed existed in Belgium, and was approached by the new American tariff; and declared that, while the tariff might slightly raise the prices of goods used by the farmer, the revenue resulting would be used to relieve the unfair burdens on agriculture. The plan would bring in at least 10,000,000l. of additional revenue, the average of 10 per cent. being got by putting a higher rate on articles of luxury; and it would give security in the home market and Colonial Preference. Canada, he added, was rapidly becoming industrial. The amendment was rejected by 283 to 200.

The day following (Feb. 17) a lengthy amendment was moved by Mr. Royds (U., Sleaford), of which the substantial import was a complaint that no legislation was foreshadowed to remedy the adverse influence of the Budget of 1909 and of the land agitation on working-class housing, the building trade, and agricultural development. The mover, in a very clear speech, well supported by evidence, showed that under the existing conditions there was an actual shortage of cottages, and there would soon be a house famine in towns. The official land valuation then in progress was worthless, and the break-up of estates was causing a feeling of insecurity among tenant farmers. Among subsequent speakers, Mr. Ellis Davies (L., Carnarvonshire, Eifion) pointed out other factors in the decline in building, such as the rise in interest and cost of materials, and the increase m local rates; and Mr. Lane Fox (U., Yorks., W.R., Barkston Ash) suggested the appointment of a Royal Com[Pg 30]mission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that such a body was apt to present a conflict of large interests, and the small holders and agricultural labourers would not come forward. The Opposition were getting nearer to a practical acceptance of the case made out by the Land Inquiry. Since the Budget of 1909, he showed by figures, agricultural wages had increased, the price of land had risen, and unemployment had lessened, especially in the building trade. There had been a "house famine" since 1884. The number of cottages built by private enterprise had gone down, partly through the rise in interest and prices of material. The first step was to see that the municipalities investigated thoroughly the conditions in their districts, and this would be done by the President of the Local Government Board. Then the aggregate deficiency must be ascertained, and the Government must consider how far public credit must be pledged. The problem was largely one of transit, and this the President of the Board of Trade was investigating. Mr. Pretyman (U., Essex, Chelmsford) traversed the Chancellor's statements, pointing out that many men had left the building trade altogether, and that there was generally no difficulty in acquiring land for housing. He denounced the Chancellor's personal attacks on the Dukes of Sutherland and Montrose. Among subsequent speakers, Mr. Pollock (U., Warwick and Leamington) vigorously attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the President of the Board of Agriculture, who protested against this attack being made when the Chancellor was unable to reply, was much interrupted, both directly and by audible comments, necessitating the Speaker's intervention. He defended the land policy of the Government in connexion with agriculture, laying stress on its actual progress, and on the work of the Development Fund. After a reply from Mr. Long (U.), the amendment was rejected by 301 to 213.

The next amendment, moved (Feb. 18) by Mr. Barnes (Lab., Glasgow, Blackfriars), regretted that there was no mention in the Address of the recent deplorable events in Dublin, and no promise of an impartial and representative Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of the police. Recriminations in this debate had been expected between the Irish and Labour parties, and Unionist support of the amendment compelling the Labour party to vote against it as before, to avoid upsetting the Government, but these expectations were unfulfilled. Mr. Barnes stated that the Labour party demanded an impartial inquiry, and compensation to those whose houses were forcibly entered by the police. The Commission was not of the kind promised by the Chief Secretary, its reference was too narrow, and the workers would not appear before it, and such disturbances as took place were really caused by the police. Mr. Brady (N., Dublin, St. Stephen's Green) explained that the members for Dublin had not intervened in the dispute because they had not been invited to do so; the only inquiry in[Pg 31] which the Irish people would have confidence was one set up by a Home Rule Parliament and Executive. Mr. Booth (L., Pontefract) denounced the conduct of the inquiry, at which he had been present, and, after other speeches, the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that he had been unable to get a judge or some one with the confidence of the police to serve on the Commission, and a representative of the working classes could not have been put on alone. He had, therefore, to fall back on appointing lawyers of high character and position, previously engaged in police inquiries, and he believed the people of Dublin were satisfied with the Commission. He strongly defended the Dublin police. The rioters were hooligans, the enemies of all citizens. The police misbehaviour in Corporation Buildings was confined to seven or eight men at most. The amendment was rejected by 233 to 45.

Sir John Bethell (L., Essex, Romford) then moved an amendment complaining of the unfair distribution of its funds by the Road Board. He said the West of London was felt to be favoured at the expense of the East. The new Financial Secretary of the Treasury said that department had no control over the Road Board, but there was no evidence of unfairness; the money was allotted roughly according to population, Scotland having more than its share owing to the large foreign tourist motor traffic. The Opposition objecting to the withdrawal of the amendment, it was defeated by 268 to 55.

The Address debate was concluded next day (Feb. 19), when Sir J. Spear (U., Devon, Tavistock) moved an amendment desiring a rearrangement of local taxation so as to provide from Imperial funds a larger sum towards the cost of education and the maintenance of main roads. The local authorities, he pointed out, were raising 65,000,000l. a year for national or semi-national services, and receiving only 22,000,000l. from the State. The Chancellor of the Exchequer fully admitted there was a case for the amendment. As to roads, he laid stress on the amount of traffic, chiefly by motor-vans, which came from outside a district and took away trade from the shopkeepers in it. He had expected to have a balance for the relief of local rates in consequence of the Budget of 1909, but the amount had gone on the increased equipment of the Navy, owing to the European situation. Effective steps, however, would be taken in the current year for the relief of local taxation. The burden of it was arresting municipal development. Details could not yet be given, but the more heavily burdened districts would receive larger grants, and greater guarantees would be taken for efficiency. Of later speakers, Mr. Long (U.) doubted whether anything could be done in the crowded current session, and the new President of the Local Government Board intimated that personalty must be made to contribute more to local taxation, and that "socially created" values might be dealt with by special legislation.

[Pg 32]

The amendment was withdrawn and another was moved by Lord E. Cecil (U., Herts., Hitchin), regretting that the Government did not propose steps for preventing the growing debasement of the standard of purity in public life; but the debate was cut short by the closure, which was carried by 285 to 168, and the Address was then agreed to.

Lord Robert Cecil's amendment had been put so late by the Speaker's selection as practically to preclude debate on it, and he had a further opportunity for discussing it; but the subject had been ventilated in the House of Lords by Lord Murray of Elibank's personal statement (Feb. 17), and by the debate on the motion originally put down by Lord Ampthill for a Select Committee to inquire into certain charges and allegations made in the Press against Lord Murray (Feb. 19). Lord Murray read his statement composedly amid signs of acute interest, in the chilling silence characteristic of the Upper House. The facts, he said, were fully known, and he could only confirm the statements made before the Commons Committee (A.R., 1913, pp. 80, 136). It ought to have occurred to him that his action was open to criticism, but his error was one of judgment, not of intention. His purchase for the party funds was an error of judgment, and he had taken over the shares for himself at the price he had paid for them, thereby incurring a heavy loss. His private transactions and those with the party funds were alike free from dishonour. He considered, on reflection, that his course of action had not been wise or correct, and he deeply regretted it; among the deepest of his regrets would be the thought that his action should have caused embarrassment to his party, but a fair judgment would hold that there was nothing in his mistakes to reflect in any degree on the honour and integrity of public life. He had tendered his resignation of his office in February, 1912, before he had ever heard of Marconis, and had only continued in office till the end of the session at the Prime Minister's urgent request.

The further consideration of Lord Ampthill's motion was postponed till February 19, when it was moved by the Marquess of Lansdowne, who said that Lord Murray's statement contained nothing to deter the Opposition leaders from carrying put their intention of moving for a Committee. His apology was the best of the Ministerial apologies; at any rate he did not compare himself to St. Sebastian (A.R., 1913, p. 154), but certain questions regarding his action as Chief Whip required further investigation. The Marquess of Crewe did not object, though he thought the Committee was demanded neither by the dignity of the House nor by the needs of the public service. The Committee was not appointed till March 9; it reported on April 30 (post, Chap. III.).

The Home Rule agitation, meanwhile, had not been stilled by the Royal Speech and the Prime Minister's promise. But compromise was in the air. The Westminster Gazette (Feb. 16) sug[Pg 33]gested the appointment of a Statutory Commission of both parties to devise a permanent reconstruction of the government of the British Isles, following on a provisional settlement in Ulster, and a fresh form of compromise was suggested by the publication (Feb. 18) of an open letter to Mr. Asquith from Mr. Frederic Harrison, the veteran constitutional lawyer and Comtist, urging the adoption of a scheme which he had suggested privately to the Prime Minister in 1913, and which might be established, subject to reconsideration after a general election. Under it Ulster would have a separate Committee elected by its constituencies, with complete financial, legislative and administrative powers, and subject only to the Imperial Parliament and the King in Council. As a general election would not afford a clear issue, Mr. Harrison advised that the Home Rule Bill should be submitted to a referendum at once. On the other hand, an influential meeting of City men (Feb. 18) passed a resolution, moved by Lord Rothschild and seconded by Lord Goschen, declaring the Bill impossible to carry into effect. Mr. Balfour and Sir Edward Carson addressed it, the former saying that since 1905 Ireland's old wounds had been "torn open" in the name of good government, and saying that nothing but "a clean cut" would avoid civil war; the latter mentioning that the position was detrimental to the relation of Ulster firms with the great English discount houses, "but we are bearing it cheerfully, and would bear a great deal more." He and his friends, he added, had just authorised an expenditure of 60,000l. to 80,000l.; and he called on the City to stand by them.

The bye-elections, though throwing little light on the feeling of the electorate as to Home Rule, dealt an awkward blow to the Government (see post, Chron., Feb. 18, 19, 20). In South Bucks, indeed, the Unionist majority fell off slightly as compared with the last contest in January, 1910, but the Liberals had expected to do much better, and their disappointment was ascribed to the abstention of chairmakers on strike at High Wycombe (p. 10), and to the recent settlement in the constituency of some 1,800 well-to-do residents, a class generally Unionist. But in Bethnal Green, Mr. Masterman, who was standing for re-election on his appointment, (p. 27) was defeated, owing to the intervention of a Labour candidate, by a majority of 24; and in Poplar, where there was also a Labour candidate, the Liberal majority was decreased by 1,551 as compared with December, 1910. True, the Unionist at Bethnal Green was returned by a minority of the constituency, and this contest had been largely fought on the Insurance Act, which bore hardly on casual labour—indeed, complaint was made in the Commons (Feb. 16), though apparently not with justice, that a scheme dealing with casual labour at the London docks was launched in the middle of the election contest, and Mr. Bonar Law intimated to the Unionist candidate that a Unionist Government would be pre[Pg 34]pared to appoint a Committee to consider whether the Act might not be put on a voluntary basis. But, as at Reading in 1913, the results showed that the Labour extremists were quite ready to defeat the Government, although they might not disapprove of its general policy.

These results were not such as to hasten the disclosure of the Ministerial plans; and the Opposition were unsuccessful in pressing for it (Feb. 25), by a resolution moved by Mr. Falle (U., Portsmouth), when a Liberal amendment moved by Captain Pirie (L., Aberdeen, N.), awaiting the proposals with confidence and hope, was carried by 311 to 238. Nor were they much more successful next day with a resolution moved by Mr. G. C. Hamilton (U., Cheshire, Altrincham), for the appointment of an impartial Committee to study the working of the Insurance Act and the possibility of substituting a voluntary system. Under this, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, there would be a premium on the employment of uninsured persons; the Unionist policy, he said, was "Back to the workhouse." The motion was defeated by 283 to 199.

Several other debates in both Houses must be passed over; but one deserves special notice. In the House of Lords (Feb. 23) the Earl of Selborne had moved a resolution to the effect that a contribution to party funds should not be a consideration in inducing a Minister to recommend a person for an honour to the King. Both sides accepted it, and it was carried with slight modification; but the practice was generally regarded as a consequence of the party system, which needed money to educate the democracy. Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Ribblesdale told amusing stories of applications for honours; the mover suggested that recommendations should be supervised by the Privy Council, Viscount Milner said that the grounds for conferring the honour should be stated; Lord Charnwood moved an amendment in favour of inquiry by a Royal Commission; but the leaders on both sides deprecated this course, the Marquess of Lansdowne arguing that checks on abuses might be left to the Sovereign and his advisers to devise.

Outside Parliament, other questions were being pressed on the attention of the Government. A deputation from the Trade Union Congress had waited on the Prime Minister a fortnight earlier (Feb. 11), with resolutions advocating railway nationalisation and electoral reforms—including adult suffrage irrespective of sex—and protesting against compulsory military service and undue increase of armaments. His reply did not much advance matters; and protests were raised against his refusals to receive woman suffragist deputations from 342 Labour organisations represented at a great meeting at the Albert Hall (Feb. 14), from a deputation of Scottish municipal authorities two days later—though ten of its members were received by his secretary—and a[Pg 35] third deputation a week afterwards. This latter refusal led to a protest meeting in Parliament Square, and the arrest of Messrs. Nevinson, Laurence Housman, Harben, and two ladies, who refused to be bound over and received one day's imprisonment. A militant young lady assaulted Lord Weardale, mistaking him for the Premier, at Euston; and the sentence on another (Miss Phyllis Brady, Feb. 24), of eighteen months' imprisonment for firing Lady White's house at Ascot, was followed by the burning of Whitekirk Church, East Lothian. The claims of compulsory military service were pressed on the Premier by a deputation from the National Service League, comprising Earl Roberts, Sir Evelyn Wood, and various eminent civilians, partly on the ground that "in the considered words of the First Sea Lord, the Navy alone cannot now protect this country against invasion." The Prime Minister, however, replied that the First Sea Lord had authorised him to repudiate these words and had stated that his language had been misconstrued; and he intimated that the view supposed to be implied had been negatived by the investigation of a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Physical training for youths from fourteen to eighteen, as advocated by the League, would be good, but it would not reach the wastrels, who were useless for military service.

These matters, however, were eclipsed in immediate interest by the arrival (Feb. 24) of the Umgeni at Gravesend with the deported Labour leaders from South Africa. They had refused at Las Palmas to say anything till they had discussed the position with the chiefs of British Trade Unionism; and great preparations had been made for their welcome and support. Labour leaders and journalists were awaiting them at Gravesend; but they unexpectedly refused to land anywhere except in South Africa, and for many hours all arguments were vain. The conversations were at first conducted over the ship's side with the British leaders in a launch; but eventually Messrs. Bowerman and Henderson were allowed to go aboard, and persuaded them to come ashore after delivering a signed protest against their deportation to the captain of the Umgeni. Two days later they were entertained at dinner at the House of Commons; next, at a great meeting at the London Opera House (Feb. 29), at which some of them spoke, it was announced that counsel's opinion would be taken as to the legal position of the South African Government and the steamship company, and, if possible, proceedings would follow, and resolutions were passed pledging British labour to help. And on Sunday, March 1, a demonstration in Hyde Park in their support was attended by one of the largest crowds ever seen in London. One or other of the deportees spoke at each of the nine platforms, and a resolution was carried urging the Government to refuse its assent to the Indemnity Bill till the wrongs of these and other workers in the[Pg 36] dispute were righted. Later, it was announced that they would go back to South Africa, and would be assisted by Mr. Tom Mann and other English trade unionists in perfecting their organisation.

Meanwhile another seat had been lost to Ministers by the wholly unexpected return of the Unionist candidate in Leith Burghs (Chron., Feb. 26), though only through the presence of a Labour candidate. In view of the strike of 1913 the Liberal-Labour split was not unnatural, and there was actually a slight decrease in the Unionist poll as compared with 1910. But no Unionist had been returned for the constituency since 1832, and the Unionists were exultant, though, taking the poll as a whole, the majority for the Government programme was over 3,000.

In the following week (March 2) the Prime Minister's statement of his Home Rule proposals was fixed for March 9; a Unionist private member's motion pressing for it was consequently dropped. The need of an early disclosure was emphasised by the publication (March 3) of a British Covenant, with eminent signatories, including Earl Roberts, the Duke of Portland, Viscounts Halifax and Milner, Lords Aldenham, Balfour of Burleigh, and Lovat, Professors Dicey and Goudy, the Dean of Canterbury, and Mr. Rudyard Kipling. It stated the signatories' conviction that the claim of the Government to carry the Home Rule Bill without submitting it to the judgment of the nation was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and declared that, if it were so passed, they would hold themselves justified in taking or supporting any action that might be effective to prevent it from being put into operation, and more particularly to prevent the armed forces of the Crown from being used to deprive the people of Ulster of their rights as citizens of the United Kingdom.

The week preceding the Prime Minister's momentous announcement was occupied largely by skirmishes in other fields. The Supplementary Navy Estimates, of 2,500,000l., which had caused some disquiet among the advanced Liberals and the Labour party, were taken on March 2. Postponing his general defence of Admiralty policy to the debate on the Naval Estimates for 1914-15 the First Lord of the Admiralty limited himself to defending the main items of the Estimate, (1) 500,000l. increased expenditure on the oil reserve; (2) 260,000l. on the new aircraft programme; (3) increase in dockyard wages and prices of victuals and clothing, nearly 200,000l.; (4) about 450,000l. due to the earlier beginning, announced on June 5, 1913, of three battleships in the 1913-14 programme, owing to the delay in the Canadian Naval Aid Bill; (5) 1,000,000l. owing to the more rapid building by contractors of ships already authorised. (1) The standard of oil reserve was carefully fixed, and kept as secret as even the standard of reserve of ammunition; but the oil stored was enough for over three years' peace consumption of the Fleet in commission and one year of war. All the oil burnt in the[Pg 37] current year, and five-sixths of that burnt in 1914-15, would be used in ships built before he became First Lord. The Admiralty had acted throughout on the highest expert authority. (2) The air service, in which Great Britain had been late in starting, and which eventually would considerably reduce other classes of naval weapons, was to be increased in consequence of a careful investigation in July, 1913. Four airships, one a Zeppelin, had been contracted for with Messrs. Vickers, an Astra-Torres airship had been ordered in France, and three semi-rigid Forlamini airships—a very promising design—from Messrs. Armstrong. An additional airship shed had been built in Chatham, and one in Norfolk. This was modest as compared with France and Germany, but in view of British superiority in seaplanes it was sufficient. Of the 260,000l., 200,000l. would be the year's portion of a total expenditure on airships of 475,000l. and the rest would be for seaplanes. (3) The increase in wages was necessary to keep pace with that in other shipyards, and the increase of prices in victualling and clothing was automatic. (4) and (5) The acceleration of the ships replacing those from Canada would be set-off by lessened expenditure in 1915 and 1916; the over-earning by the contractors had been foreseen by him in introducing the Navy Estimates for 1913. There were many factors of uncertainty in shipbuilding, and delay of one part reacted on others. It was absurd to charge the Admiralty with miscalculation in the matter. To have asked for more in the original estimates would have given a false idea of expansion. He absolutely denied the story that he had given orders to accelerate construction in August, 1913; he had neither the will to do so nor the power. To retard construction was impracticable and undesirable. The House should demand good reasons for the building of every ship asked for; having done so, it must accept liability for the cost.

Mr. Lee (U., Hants, Fareham) denounced the system of returning unspent balances to the Treasury as tending artificially to swell the Naval Estimates, and tempting an astute Minister like the First Lord to under-estimate, The situation with regard to oil fuel was disquieting, and he expressed anxiety also about the shipbuilding programme. On the other hand Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (L., Leicester) declared that the Estimates were not really supplementary, but began a new programme, and he regarded the British and other Governments as the victims of a careful plan of the international armament firms, A reduction, moved by Mr. D. M. Mason (L., Coventry), was rejected, after further debate, by 237 votes to 34.

The debate was continued next day, when there was a stormy scene over a reduction proposed by Lord R. Cecil (U.) in order to call attention to the housing of the Admiralty labourers at Rosyth. The Chairman was charged with unduly favouring the Government, and an attempt at a snap division was defeated by[Pg 38] Mr. Leif Jones, who spoke amid continual disorder. Eventually the reduction was defeated by 272 to 132, and later the First Lord, in a general reply, denied that there had been any acceleration of the shipbuilding programme, and said that there was no prospect of "breaking the armaments ring" by getting armour from competing firms abroad. He would do so if he could (a statement which roused protests) or would start a State factory, but this latter would involve a heavy capital charge. The Vote was agreed to.

Another basis for an attack on Ministers was still found in the Insurance Act. Mr. Bonar Law declared that it was insolvent (March 2); and three days later in Supply it was assailed by Mr. Worthington Evans (U.) and other members, who contended that some of the societies would be unable to pay the minimum benefits, that the drug fund was overspent, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was concealing the facts and using the powers of the Commissioners to influence bye-elections. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a spirited defence, adding that the State was not bound to make up the deficiencies of badly managed societies. Married women's sickness was a difficulty, and in certain trades, e.g. mining, even slight illness stopped work and produced a sickness claim. After a vigorous reply by Mr. Bonar Law, and other criticisms and counter-criticisms, the Government was supported by 242 to 174. A more interesting debate had been set up by a Labour resolution, moved by Mr. A. Henderson (March 3), asking for an extension of the Act to certain other trades and an inquiry into the provision disqualifying for unemployment benefit workmen unemployed through a Labour dispute. The new President of the Board of Trade promised an extension during the current year, and, while regarding the provision in question as vital, held that means might be taken to settle more definitely when disqualification began. The resolution was adopted.

The confidence of the Government in its programme was shown by the cordial acceptance (March 4) of a motion proposed by Mr. E. Jones (L., Merthyr Tydvil)for a Select Committee on the redistribution of seats, with an amendment moved by Major Morrison-Bell (U., Devon, Honiton) inserting "immediate" before redistribution. The President of the Local Government Board pointed out that Home Rule would remove the great obstacle—the provision of the Act of Union that Ireland should have 100 members "for ever,"—and proportional representation, as was asked by a Unionist member, would be included. It would probably take the form of giving additional members to the larger constituencies, and electing them on a transferable vote. Mr. Long (U.) gave a somewhat qualified assent, and the motion was agreed to.

This skirmishing was followed (March 9) by a new stage in[Pg 39] Home Rule problem. Amid intense interest, the Prime Minister announced the projected concessions to Ulster in moving the second reading of the Home Rule Bill. Repeating that the Government adhered firmly to this measure, he said that they were specially anxious that the new regime should start with the best chance of success. Whether Home Rule as embodied in the Bill were carried or rejected, the outlook was very grave. A settlement must involve the acceptance of a Legislature and Executive at Dublin, and of some form of special treatment for the Ulster minority. Dismissing as impracticable Lord Loreburn's suggestion of a round table conference without any preliminary basis of agreement, he referred to the conditions he had laid down at Ladybank (A.R., 1913, p. 219) and to the unsuccessful conversations, which would remain absolutely confidential, between himself, Mr. Bonar Law, and Sir Edward Carson. These at any rate brought out the difficulties, and he and his colleagues had devised three ways of attempting a solution. (1) "Home Rule within Home Rule," exemption of a part, provisionally undefined, of Ulster from the administration of a Dublin Executive, with a veto, for that part, subject to an appeal, however, to the Imperial Parliament, on the application to it of legislation pressed by the Legislature in Dublin. But this none of those concerned would accept. (2) Sir Horace Plunkett's plan, which the "conversations" had anticipated,—an option for the Ulster counties to separate themselves from Home Rule Ireland after a time. (3) Exclusion of Ulster, to which there were grave objections in any form. A middle course, the Government held, might be found in provisional exclusion; and they proposed that any county in Ulster, including the county boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry, might vote themselves out on the requisition of, say, one-tenth of the Parliamentary electors, for a term of six years from the first meeting of the Irish Legislature in Dublin. This, he showed at length, would give time to test the working of the Irish Parliament, and within the six years there would be two general elections in Great Britain, in 1915 and 1920. The counties excluded would come into the Home Rule scheme automatically at the end of six years, unless the Imperial Parliament determined otherwise. Their representation in that Parliament, and as far as possible their administration, would continue unchanged meanwhile. Financial and administrative adjustments would be necessary, and would be set forth in a White Paper to be published the next day, but he hoped to work out the details with something like general co-operation. The proposals were put forward as the price of peace. He appealed for their dispassionate consideration, referring to the traditions of "give and take" in the British nation which had made it the pioneer of popular government.

Mr. Bonar Law (U.) said that if, as he feared, these proposals[Pg 40] represented the last word of the Government, the position seemed to him very grave. The Government might conciliate Ulster by submitting the Bill to the judgment of the electors. He must leave Sir Edward Carson to speak for Ulster; but the Ulstermen were asked to destroy their fortress, and to come in when they were weak. Remove the Ulster question, and the general election would be fought on entirely different lines; even if the Unionists won the first election and changed the law, the next might reverse their decision. He feared that the concessions were being made unwillingly and too late; that the offer was being made to be refused. Let the Government put their proposals in a Bill and submit it to the people by a referendum.

Mr. Redmond (N., Waterford) regarded the proposals as the extreme limit of concession. If they were accepted, they would elicit the real opinion of Ulster, which would surprise many people both there and in Great Britain; and, long before the period of exclusion had expired, the fears of Ulster would have been disarmed by the moderate and tolerant government exhibited in Dublin. The Nationalists could only acquiesce in the proposals if they were frankly accepted by their Ulster opponents. Otherwise it was the duty of the majority in the House to proceed forthwith with the Bill, to pass it without delay, and to face firmly and with all their resources any movement to overawe Parliament or subvert the law by the menace of force.

Mr. W. O'Brien (I.N., Cork City) said that the Ministry seemed to have picked out the one concession intolerable to any Nationalist. He protested against "chopping an ancient nation into a thing of shreds and patches," and urged the Government to try to get a better settlement through a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.

Sir E. Carson (U., Dublin University) who, being ill, spoke under great difficulties, declined to accept Mr. Redmond's promises, and declared that nothing had happened since the introduction of the Bill to abate the loathing with which it was regarded by every Irish Unionist. They would never agree, whatever benefits were offered to Ulster, to the sacrifice of the people of the South and West. Something was gained towards a peaceable solution by the admission of the principle of exclusion; but Ulster wanted the question settled at once and for ever, "We don't want sentence of death with a stay of execution for six years." The whole Ulster organisation would have to be kept up, and all the old questions would remain, while the attention of the British electorate would be diverted to other matters. Would the Government agree that Ulster should stay out until Parliament otherwise ordered? If not, they did not really mean exclusion as a safeguard. The period of six years was fantastic; a whole new system of government would have to be set up for it; but, if the time limit were removed, he would feel it his duty to go to Ulster[Pg 41] and call a Convention. Did the country mean to allow the Forces of the Crown to be used to coerce men who asked only that they might remain with it?

Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab.) said that the Labour party would accept the proposed compromise as the price of peace in spite of the great difficulties it entailed in factory inspection and other matters; and Mr. T. Healy said that he preferred to have no Bill rather than the Government proposal, which he regarded as Finis Hiberniæ. Exclusion would be permanent, the severance complete, there would be reprisals and boycotting, and the American Congress would be urged to put a tariff on Belfast goods. Mr. A. Ward (U., Herts, Watford), as a back-bench Unionist, welcomed the proposals as a great concession and urged their consideration in good faith.

The debate was adjourned sine die to give time to finish the necessary financial business; and public interest centred on the reception of the Bill outside. The White Paper (issued March 10) added little to Mr. Asquith's outline of his proposals; and the Irish Unionists both in Ulster and Dublin, as well as in Parliament, were very unfavourable. The Dublin Nationalists also were against the time limit, which, it may be remarked, was believed to have been extended at the last moment to six years, having previously been fixed at three. In the City, however, and among independent observers, opinion was decidedly hopeful. That Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan would decline exclusion was certain, and that Fermanagh and Tyrone would do so was highly probable; but the areas of Protestant and Catholic population by no means coincided with those of the counties, nor did the religious division, especially among the Protestants, with that between Unionism and Home Rule.

While these proposals were under consideration in the country the House dealt with the Army Estimates, published March 5. Their total amount was 28,845,000l.; a net increase as compared with 1913-14 of 625,000l., which was almost accounted for by (1) the new schemes of pay for regimental officers and of promotion from the ranks (140,000l.), and (2) the development of the Air Service (480,000l.). As the Secretary of State's memorandum pointed out, when allowance was made for the automatic growth of pension charges and for the 1,000,000l. provided for aviation, the effective cost of the Army was actually less than in 1907-8, when there was a reduction of 2,000,000l. in the Estimates, and only 250,000l. more than in 1909-10, when it was at its lowest since the South African War. Since 1905-6 the expenditure from loans had come to an end, but the general level of prices had risen by some 20 per cent. The total regular establishment, the memorandum continued, showed an increase of 800 men, half due to the growth of the Military Wing of the Flying Corps, half to additions to the Garrison Artillery for home defence.[Pg 42] After giving details as to cavalry and horses, and promising a new war organisation of this arm, the memorandum mentioned that there would be a shortage (of some 8,000 men at that time) in the Infantry owing to the abnormal number passing into the Reserve. As employment and emigration were also brisk and the Navy was competing for men, the gaps had not been readily filled, but better results were being obtained by modern methods of recruiting. The question was bound up with that of employment for ex-soldiers, into which a Commission was inquiring, with Sir Matthew Nathan as its chairman. The health of the Army, including that in India and the Colonies, was shown by figures to be very satisfactory. The new rates of pay for regimental officers took effect from January 1. An inquiry would be held into the conditions of the supply of cadets, which was disappointing. As to aviation, the personnel of the 5th and 6th squadrons would be complete by the end of March, and that of the 7th and 8th, as well as its equipment in aeroplanes, in the coming year. The lighter-than-air service being concentrated under the Admiralty, the Army airships had been handed over to the Navy on January 1. Satisfactory accounts were given of the progress in matériel of the air service. The strength of the Territorial Force on January 1, 1914, was 9,366 officers and 239,819 of other ranks, showing a decrease of 14,220, due to the retirement of time-expired men, whose number was large owing to the abnormal recruiting of 1909. The recruiting of 1913, however, showed a satisfactory advance, and more men had attended camp. Attendance was to be encouraged by an increased bounty. The National Reserve had increased by January 1, 1914, to 217,000. Particulars were also given as to the supply of horses, improvement of weapons and building works.

The table on the opposite page shows the net estimate of the several votes and the difference between the amounts for 1914-15 and those for 1913-14.

The Army Estimates were introduced by the War Minister on March 10. The cost of living and the air service, he said, would increase the cost of all armies per man; the number of men was less, the cost was more. The Regular Army showed a deficiency of 8,000, the Reserve a surplus of 13,000, so that on the whole number on mobilisation the surplus would be 5,000. At home there were 121,000 Regulars, abroad 117,000 (white troops recruited in the United Kingdom); and there was an Army Reserve of 146,000. On the declaration of war an Expeditionary Force of 162,000 could be mobilised very soon. To deal with a sudden emergency from oversea 50,000 men could be assembled in a few hours. Coming to the officers and men, he remarked that it was the first year of the new scheme of officers' pay, which would involve considerable promotion from the ranks—as there had been in the Peninsular War, and, according to Lord Wolseley, the[Pg 43] principle was accepted in the British Army. By 1915 a scheme of education for such officers would have been devised. Recruiting gave some anxiety, but by advertising the advantages of the Army an increased number had been attained. But the Cardwell system, while good for the State, was bad for the men after their discharge, and of 24,000 men, of good character, who left the Army in 1913 employment had been found for only 16,000. A Committee, with Sir Matthew Nathan as Chairman, was studying the problem. In the Special Reserve, in spite of a reduction of the establishment owing to the extension of mechanical transport, there was a shortage of 13,000, which would continue; but the force was valuable as a half-way house for the Army. The Territorial Force was short of its establishment by 56,000, but 1913 had been its best year for recruiting. This, however, might be due to the rejoining of time-expired men, and further efforts were needed. The National Reserve numbered 217,000, of whom 13,000 had undertaken to serve in any part of the world in the event of a national emergency, and 45,000 within the British Isles, these latter being a set-off to the Territorial shortage of 56,000. Of horses the number needed on going[Pg 44] to war was 102,000, the number available 375,000; the surplus extended to every class of horse, and was largest in the heavier type. Aviation was very costly, but might be made safer by the provision of money. One of the leading combatants in the Balkan War had said to him: "Had we had a single aeroplane, the whole history of Europe would have been altered." That army had, indeed, aeroplanes and men, but had not the organisation to ensure that an aeroplane and a man should be where they were needed. Great Britain, he showed, was not behindhand, and he appealed to farmers to provide landing-places. He also gave encouraging information as to the field-gun and the new rifle.

There was little time for criticisms that evening, and the most important were those of Mr. A. Lee (U., Hants, Fareham). He was dissatisfied with the arrangements for promotion from the ranks, and with the means of defence in the absence of the Expeditionary Force. The Report of the Defence Committee, too, should have been debated before the Army Estimates. Next day Mr. Baird (U., Warwickshire, Rugby) moved a resolution regretting the serious shortage in the Military Forces of the Crown, and inviting the Government to state forthwith its concrete proposals to deal with the situation. He insisted on the youth of a large proportion of the troops, and Sir B. Pole-Carew (U., Cornwall, Bodmin) added that naval experts now held that the Navy was unable to defend the British Isles. [His attack on the First Sea Lord's disclaimer (p. 35) led to a scene.] The War Minister, in his reply, declared that the British Army was much better trained and was much more formidable as a fighting machine than any Continental Army, and the Expeditionary Force was absolutely ready to go on an expedition. Great Britain was more ready for war than ever before. Eventually the motion was negatived, and next day in Committee the Under-Secretary for War gave an encouraging account of the arrangements contemplated for raising the numbers of the Special Reserve. A reduction was moved by Mr. Worthington Evans (U., Colchester), to call attention to the hardships suffered by men marrying "off the strength," in which case their wives and families received no allowances. The War Secretary announced that recommendations recently made after an inquiry conducted by Mrs. Tennant would be adopted, entailing an annual addition to the Estimates of some 60,000l. The reduction was negatived by 249 to 212.

The question of the ability of the Navy to protect the British Isles from invasion had been raised by the Earl of Portsmouth in the Upper House on March 10. He called attention to the First Sea Lord's Statement (A.R., 1913, p. 94) that the Fleet alone was not sufficient, and to the Prime Minister's explanation that the statement had been misconstrued (p. 35). What, he asked, did the First Sea Lord now mean? Lord Wimborne replied, on[Pg 45] behalf of the Government, that the First Sea Lord had never used the word "invasion." Before his speech he had consulted the First Lord, and both he and the Prime Minister represented the views of the Admiralty and were in harmony with those of Mr. Balfour (A.R., 1905, p. 157 seq.). Neither arm was separately responsible for protection against invasion. The Army had to provide that no invasion could be undertaken with less than a considerable body of men; the Navy had to intercept such an enemy; these functions both arms, now as always, were competent to perform. After other speeches, the Lord Chancellor closed the debate, saying that the interpretation put on the First Sea Lord's speech had represented him as deserting the basic principles of naval strategy. What he had said fully accorded with the accepted principles of home defence.

Meanwhile a well-meant attempt at strengthening home defence had been made by Lord Willoughby de Broke's Territorial Forces Amendment Bill, of which the second reading was moved in the House of Lords on March 13. It proposed to form a new Imperial Force (supported by a 3d. income tax), composed of British subjects or domiciled aliens, whose service would be compulsory between the ages of sixteen and forty-five. It was confined to public school and university men, members of the higher professions, and men whose income from all sources was 400l. a year. Boys at school were to serve in cadet corps; between the ages of twenty-one and thirty there were to be annual periods of training; and at thirty the members would be liable to serve in great national emergencies. He believed the example set would induce extensive working-class enlistment in the Territorials. The impracticability of the Bill was exposed by Lord Newton (who moved an amendment in favour of universal service), and by the Lord Chancellor, who pointed out that a measure of taxation originating in the Upper House was not worth discussing, and that German experience showed that a large home army and a large overseas army were incompatible. Still, the Bill obtained considerable support on that and the two following days, less for its own sake than as a basis of discussion. Several speakers advocated compulsory cadet training; the Earl of Cromer pleaded for a non-party settlement, instancing Germany and France; and Earl Roberts and the Marquess of Lansdowne, while objecting to the class distinctions of the Bill, were eminently dissatisfied with the existing conditions of defence. In replying for the Government, Viscount Morley of Blackburn intimated that Mr. Asquith's Defence Committee of 1913-14 had come to the same conclusions as that of 1908 and Mr. Balfour's in 1905. The Bill was rejected by 53 to 34.

The debates on the Army Estimates had been interrupted by an attack on the Chancellor of the Exchequer (March 10) in the shape of a resolution moved by Sir John Randles (U., Manchester,[Pg 46] N.W.), and seconded by Mr. Cassell (U., St. Pancras, W.), regretting his "repeated inaccuracies," and his "gross and unfounded personal attacks." The cases cited can only be briefly indicated. They were (1) the attack on the Duke of Montrose (p. 14); (2) the Duke of Sutherland's offer (A.R., 1913, p. 262), the executors' valuation having only been a rough estimate, less the amount of the mortgages; (3) the inaccurate attacks on ancestors of the Duke; (4) the Gorringe case (A.R., 1909, p. 181), where the "fine" was paid partly for the grant of a fresh and very valuable lease of other premises; (5) the statements (A.R., 1913, p; 248) as to St. Pancras, where there were 1,550 freeholders (instead of "about ten"), many of the largest being trustees. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a spirited defence. Mr. Gorringe was paying for the value he had created, and his company were paying rates on it. In the Cathcart case, the Opposition had reduced the number of years' purchase from 920 to 750. In the Loch Arklet case, Glasgow had had to pay for 383 acres, not 19,000l. but 21,000l., more than thirty years' purchase of the whole 11,000 acres. In the Sutherland case, he read a poignant description of the clearances, written, as he told a Unionist inquirer, by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain; and claimed that the mortgages would not reduce the valuation to anywhere near 200,000l. Though his illustrations were questioned his case had never been challenged, and Mr. Long (p. 8) had accepted it. After a vigorous reply from Mr. F. E. Smith (U.), who incidentally mentioned that Mr. Lloyd George had suppressed the passage in his speech telling of the destruction of mangolds by pheasants (A.R., 1913, p. 212), the motion was rejected by 304 to 140, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was enthusiastically cheered by his supporters.

In the following week, in an interval of the new phase of the Ulster crisis, the House began to deal with the Navy Estimates, issued March 12. They were the largest on record, amounting, according to the First Lord's introductory memorandum, to 51,550,000l., an increase on the total (including Supplementary) Estimates of 1913-14 of 2,740,700l. Of this increase 450,000l. represented increased pay and victualling for the larger personnel; 30,000l. automatic increase of the non-effective votes, 40,000l. was for fuel and fuel service, owing to the increased horse-power of the Fleet, and the continued building up of the oil fuel reserves; 300,000l. for development of air service; 750,000l. for increased earnings by contractors on Vote 8; 800,000l. for guns, torpedoes, and ammunition, of which 300,000l. was due to the acceleration of the three 1913-14 battleships. The new programme was composed of four battleships, four light cruisers, twelve destroyers, and a number of submarines and subsidiary craft. On April 1, 1914, there would be under construction thirteen battleships, one battle cruiser, sixteen light cruisers, thirty torpedo-boat destroyers, twenty-four submarines,[Pg 47] and various oil-fuel and Fleet service vessels. Particulars were given inter alia of the New Zealand Division—where two light cruisers would be kept, and manned from the New Zealand Naval Force—and of the progress of the naval air service. A chain of seaplane bases was being established round the coast; five were already complete. Good progress had been made with the design of the seaplane, and certain standard types for war service were rapidly being developed. The practical utility of aircraft for war was increasingly evident, and experiments in connexion with bomb dropping, wireless telegraphy, and gunnery had been continuous. Action had been taken as to aircraft armament, and guns for action against aircraft were being mounted aboard ship.

The following is the abstract of the net Estimates for the different Votes, with the increases and decreases indicated in each case:—

Prefixed to the First Lord's memorandum was the following statement of twelve years' actual and two years' estimated naval expenditure:—

The First Lord's speech in introducing the Navy Estimates (March 17) came at an acute stage of the Ulster question and was in great part an elaborate defence, addressed to his own party, of the increase during his term of office, and he compared the figures elaborately with those of 1911-12, his predecessor's last year. The increased cost of maintenance—6,250,000l.—was accounted for, he said, mainly by increased pay, wages, and victuals (2,140,000l.), oil reserve (1,500,000l.), and air service (900,000l.). Apart from these two last items, the whole increase was either automatic or proportioned to the increased size and strength of the Fleet, which again was proportionate to that of other Powers. Great Britain was aiming at completing eight battleship squadrons to Germany's five, with the proper proportion of cruisers and flotillas. Again, against sixteen Dreadnoughts in full commission in 1911-12, there were now thirty-three, many of them much larger and more costly, including nine battle cruisers against Germany's five. As to new construction, about 2,500,000l. of the 17,566,000l. appropriated in 1911-12 went over into the succeeding years; but for this, the vote of 1914-15 would be less; but he expected great progress to be made, and more money earned by the contractors, in the new year. In 1915-16 the Estimates would probably be substantially lower. Oil fuel, as he showed from a statement of the Chairman of the Royal Commission on fuel and engines, increased the radius of action, saved labour and stowage, rendered it possible to get fresh supplies at sea, and so to escape submarine attacks when going to oiling stations; and the oil tanks were a capital charge. Oil would be[Pg 49] used as the sole fuel for small craft and light cruisers of the Arethusa type, and for capital ships of exceptional speed. The air service had increased enormously during his term of office—the number of aeroplanes had increased from 9 to 103, the personnel by the end of the year might be 180 officers and 1,500 men. The seaplane had a great future, especially in scouting and watching the coast. For the security of the east coast from raids the Admiralty relied largely on patrol flotillas of aircraft grouped and held in strong force at strategic points, and able to be directed to any point of attempted landing. Fifteen airships were built, building, or ordered, of which ten had a speed exceeding forty-five miles an hour. Three officers only had been killed, and 131,000 miles flown. As to personnel, there were 146,000 men against less than 134,000 in 1911, and he asked for 5,000 more. The whole fleet could be fully manned on mobilisation, but the increase in personnel was required to train the men for the fleet of 1916-17. In 1920 Germany would have 108,000, and was reaching that figure by increments of 6,000 annually. After noticing the questions of pay and insurance, and mentioning that instead of grand manœuvres there would be a general mobilisation of the Third Fleet, he dealt inter alia with the supply of officers, and the new rank of Lieut.-Commander (lieutenants of eight years' standing) and then came to matériel. The programme was wholly normal. One of the four battleships would burn oil only. He extolled the 15-inch gun, in which Great Britain was ahead of all other Powers. Naval battles were now like "two eggshells striking each other with hammers"; hence the "awful importance" of good gunnery. After touching on the submarine service—the number to be built being secret—and its dangers, the destroyer flotillas, and the armed merchantmen—seventy by the end of 1914-15, armed with two guns solely for self-defence—he said that the Cabinet had again considered the capture of private property at sea and refused to change the practice, but had decided on the abolition of prize-money. Coming to the question of standards of naval superiority, he interpreted the 60 per cent. standard of superiority (A.R., 1912, p. 45) in Dreadnoughts for the six years following 1912-13 as follows:—

For the provision to cover the period of delay of the Canadian ships, however, there was a special reason—viz., that, in July, 1912, the Cabinet had decided that a British battle squadron should be maintained in the Mediterranean, that Great Britain might be the guardian of her own interests there, and by the end of 1915 a battle squadron of eight battleships, based on Malta, would replace the four battle cruisers now stationed there. The force there would then consist of eight battleships, four large armed cruisers, four light cruisers of the "Town" type and six[Pg 50]teen destroyers of the Beagle type. Hence the acceleration of three ships of the 1913-14 programme and two of the 1914-15 programme; these latter would be ready in the third quarter of 1916. Turning to the Pacific, the situation there was regulated by the British naval strength in European waters, which protected New Zealand and Australia from European Powers, and from any present danger from Japan, and Japan from European attack by sea. The Anglo-Japanese alliance, renewed up to 1921 and likely to continue, was the true protection of Australia and New Zealand, and depended entirely on the maintenance of British naval supremacy. He extolled the policy of New Zealand in giving a splendid ship to strengthen the British Navy at a decisive point; and, though the natural desire of the Dominions to have their ships in their own waters was hard to reconcile with naval strategy, the combination of the two was aimed at by the design of the Imperial squadron, a fleet of large ships supported in each Dominion by local repairing establishments, light cruisers, and small craft, and bringing sufficient aid wherever needed in war. Finally, the First Lord dealt with the supreme importance of a strong Navy to Great Britain, pointing out that while other Powers built navies in order to play a part in the world's affairs, Great Britain's Navy was to her a question of life or death. By sober conduct and skilful diplomacy she could disarm or divide the elements of potential danger; but her diplomacy depended largely on her naval strength, and, in the face of the unprecedented armament increase of Continental Powers, the Government could not feel that they were doing their duty to their country unless its naval strength were solidly, amply, and unswervingly maintained.

Mr. Lee (U., Hants, Fareham) maintained that on the 60 per cent. standard of superiority Great Britain was five ships short (28 against the Germans 21, when there should be 33) and that three ships to replace the Canadian ships should be begun at once; we must keep faith with the Dominions.

The debate, however, was suspended to allow Mr. Butcher (U., York) a resolution declaring that the House was not satisfied that the provision for defence against invasion was adequate, and demanding the publication forthwith of the conclusions of the Defence Committee. After several speeches, the First Lord, after dealing with special points raised, replied that of the new factors in the problem, submarines told against the invader; aircraft and wireless telegraphy in favour of the strongest fleet; on the other hand, the changes in the strategic front told against Great Britain. The Invasion Committee had dealt with all these matters, and the naval manœuvres had yielded important lessons, but he deprecated the popular interpretation of them (A.R., 1913, p. 179). If the Expeditionary Force was at home no invading force could be large enough, if it had left, the Fleet would have been fully mobilised.[Pg 51] He vindicated Prince Louis of Battenberg's action and promised a day later in the session for a debate on the Report of the Imperial Defence Committee; and, incidentally, he made an attack on Sir R. Pole-Carew (U., Bodmin) which caused a scene. The motion was rejected by 290 to 190.

Next day the debate was continued by a vigorous and comprehensive attack on Admiralty policy from Lord Charles Beresford (U., Portsmouth). The number of ships, he said, was inadequate, the men were overworked and underpaid, the deficiency of officers was dangerous, and the Admiralty was trusting to oil, which they could not guard, nor could Great Britain produce it. More significant, however, was an attack on the "armaments ring" by Mr. Snowden (Lab., Blackburn) which was applauded (even, contrary to rule, from the Strangers' Gallery). The shareholders in armament companies, he pointed out, included Bishops, the President of the Free Church Council, the Colonial Secretary, and the Postmaster-General; with British co-operation, battleships were being constructed by members of the "ring" for Italy, and Whitehead torpedoes for Austria. The debate was again suspended for a resolution moved by Mr. Aubrey Herbert (U., Somerset, S.), declaring that the protection of the route to India and other services of the Empire demanded the provision of an adequate naval force in the Mediterranean. This discussion extended also to Near Eastern problems. The Foreign Secretary, in the course of a long reply, held that the understandings between the Powers of the Triple Entente had made for peace. As Great Britain could not maintain in the Mediterranean a fleet superior to the combined fleets of all the other nations represented there, her policy should be to keep there a fleet equal to any combination she was likely to have to meet. Foreign policy depended on naval strength rather than conversely, for policy must be so shaped that the country would not have to face a combination that the Navy could not meet. In the Near East British policy was to use diplomatic influence to preserve the integrity of Turkey. There was nothing to offend Mohammedan feeling in the proposed Turco-Greek settlement, and it should be considered as a whole. After a speech from Mr. Lee (U.) on the naval position in the Mediterranean, the motion was withdrawn.

The debate next week (March 23) on the Navy Estimates was almost crowded out by the Ulster and Army crises, but the Votes for wages, victualling and clothing, and works and buildings, were agreed to on March 23, after debate and two divisions. An additional day for the discussion of naval policy was promised after Easter.

But meanwhile the Home Rule controversy had passed into a phase of unprecedented gravity. The "British Covenant" had been supplemented by a "Women's Covenant," and both documents had been numerously and influentially signed, about 3 or 4 per cent.[Pg 52] of the signatories, it was said, being Liberals. On the other hand, the First Lord of the Admiralty had spoken at Bradford (March 14), apparently as the messenger of the Cabinet. The Chief Liberal Whip, who presided, declared that the Government's position was impregnable, and that there would be no general election till the three Bills under the Parliament Act had become law. Mr. Churchill, on his part, referred to his own past admissions of Ulster's claim to special treatment; the Prime Minister had made a fair and reasonable offer, with the assent of the Nationalist leaders, and it seemed to him final. It represented the hardest sacrifice ever asked of Irish Nationalism. But the Unionists were not satisfied. The sole return offered was that there would be no civil war. The Ulstermen still showed the old spirit of ascendency. They seemed to think a settlement could only be achieved by threats; but, in the event of violence, the larger issue would be dominant, whether Parliamentary government was to be broken down before the menace of armed force. That had been fought out at Marston Moor. Apparently some sections of the propertied classes desired to subvert Parliamentary government. Against such a mood, when manifested in action, there was no lawful measure from which the Government should or would shrink. He had had to send soldiers out during the railway strike (A.R., 1911, p. 209), and there was no Unionist condemnation then. They knew how the Unionists would treat the Nationalists, and how they applauded martial law in South Africa. The Government met the menace with patience, but with firmness. They were responsible for the peace of the British Empire; who would dare to break it up? There must be one law for all; Great Britain was not to be reduced to the condition of Mexico. If Ulster sought peace and fair play, she knew where to find it; if she were to be made a tool in Parliamentary calculations, if the British civil and Parliamentary systems were to be brought to the challenge of force, he could only say, "Let us go forward together and put these grave matters to the proof."

The finality of the Prime Minister's offer was further emphasised on that day and the next in speeches by Mr. Dillon and Mr. Devlin; the adverse feeling of the Independent Nationalists by an "All-for-Ireland" Conference (March 14) at Cork; and on March 16 the Prime Minister made a further statement in the Commons, in the form of a collective reply to twenty-six questions, of which notice had been given. Prefacing this reply by a general survey of the situation, he said that the Government had put forward its proposals for the separate treatment of Ulster not as the best way of dealing with Home Rule, but as a basis of settlement; if they were accepted in principle, the Bill would have to be supplemented by a number of adjustments, financial and administrative, which were being worked out, but to discuss them would interfere with a discussion on the main issue. He[Pg 53] then began curtly to dispose of the questions; the Unionists objected, as the form of his reply precluded supplementary questions; and he presently intimated that the details would not be formulated unless the general principle were adopted and treated as a basis of agreement. Mr. Bonar Law and Sir Edward Carson pressed for the details, and, in view of the Prime Minister's replies, a Vote of Censure was determined on. Incidentally, the Prime Minister endorsed the First Lord's speech at Bradford, and the latter was loudly cheered by the Liberals.

The Vote of Censure was moved by Mr. Bonar Law on March 19. It regretted the refusal of the Government to formulate their suggestions before the debate on the second reading of the Home Rule Bill. This moderation in its language was said to represent a reaction from the impatience manifested three days earlier. Mr. Bonar Law's tone, too, was more pacific. He laid stress on the danger of the situation and on his desire to avoid civil war; he and his colleagues had not closed and would not close the door hastily on any proposal put forward by the Government in the hope of securing peace. If the principle to which they were asked to agree was that Ulster was not to be driven out of the Imperial Parliament into a Nationalist Parliament, they accepted it as a basis of discussion; if Ulster was to be brought in automatically against its will, they would help Ulster to resist. He made a formal offer; if the new suggestions were put into the Home Rule Bill and accepted by the country on a Referendum, he had Lord Lansdowne's authority to say that, as far as his influence in the House of Lords went, he would not oppose the will of the people. That, he maintained, was a reasonable offer. Were Ulster brought in as a new Poland, what hope was there for a united Ireland? As to the Army, in a case merely of disorder, it would and ought to obey; if it were a question of civil war, "soldiers are citizens like the rest of us." If blood were shed in Ulster, there would be the same outburst of feeling in Great Britain as there was in the United States when the first shot was fired at Fort Sumter.

The Prime Minister, after protesting against Mr. Bonar Law's view as to the duty of the Army in the case of civil war, restated the aim of his proposal. Ulster was to be excluded for a term of years, to give the electorate of the United Kingdom an opportunity of expressing its opinion, and to enable it to be seen from the working of the Irish Legislature whether the objections of Ulster were well founded. Suppose the proposals accepted on a referendum of the United Kingdom, did the Unionist leaders hold that this would carry with it authority to coerce Ulster? (Mr. Bonar Law indicated assent.) Then, was not the Government's proposal more favourable? Would there be plural voting on the Referendum? (Mr. Bonar Law indicated that there need not.) And would Ulster accept the decision? (Sir Edward Carson[Pg 54] offered to answer if it were a "firm offer.") On a Referendum it would be impossible to isolate the issue. He believed the proposals were fair, and the Government were quite satisfied with the Home Rule Bill as it stood. Even partial and temporary exclusion was an evil, but it was only because it offered the only avenue to a pacific settlement that the Government had felt compelled to take it.

Sir Edward Carson (U.) said that, in view of the First Lord's and Mr. Devlin's speeches, he felt that if this were the Prime Minister's last word he ought to be in Belfast. This Government of cowards, who had postponed dealing with the Ulster movement and would not remove the time-limit because of Mr. Redmond, were now going to entrench themselves behind the King's troops. They had been discussing at the War Office for the last two days how many they would require and whether they would mobilise. They wanted an outbreak as a pretext for putting the Ulstermen down. Gamble in anything else, but not in human life. After a bitter attack on Mr. Churchill, he suggested to the Prime Minister that the parts of Ulster in question should be excluded till Parliament further ordered, or till the question was reconsidered with a view to federation. Ulster, alone in Ireland, had always been on the best of terms with the Army; but under the direction of the Government the Army would become assassins.

After a scene, provoked by Mr. Devlin (N., Belfast, W.), by denouncing Sir Edward Carson's desertion of the Liberal party, after Home Rule had been defeated in 1886, as that of "a man on the make," Sir E. Carson, who was very unwell, left—for Belfast, however, and amid a great Opposition demonstration—and Mr. Devlin, continuing, declared that the civil war in Ulster was a "masquerade" and a sham, organised by the Unionist party, which had no policy. He ridiculed some of the "critical incidents" which, according to The Times, had nearly brought about an earthquake, and pointed out that the eleven bye-elections since August, 1913, had shown 69,661 votes for Home Rule and 50,885 against it. He thought the exclusion proposals were needless, and at most only four counties would adopt them, possibly not one. He emphasised the Nationalist sacrifice, and believed that six years hence the Protestants would be contributing to the future power and glory of Ireland.

Among subsequent speakers Mr. Cave (U., Kingston, Surrey) suggested devolution to Irish provincial assemblies, Mr. Pirie (L., Aberdeen, N.) moved an amendment, declaring that a settlement might be found in the exclusion of the Ulster counties until legislative provision for a general system of devolution for the whole of the United Kingdom was ready to come into operation, such provision to take place within six years. Mr. A. Ward (U., Herts, Watford) urged the Unionists to consider their posi[Pg 55]tion and press for the continuance of negotiations between the leaders. Mr. A. Chamberlain, summing up for the Opposition, complained of the provocative speech of Mr. Devlin, and dwelt on the dangers of the Government's proposal; he regretted that Mr. Cave's suggestions, anticipated by some Unionists in the autumn, had been ignored, and that the Prime Minister would not accept the Referendum. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, winding up for Ministers, said that it was a considerable advance to have got to discussing the compatibility of the exclusion of Ulster and Home Rule. He had thought Ulstermen would be inclined to accept this proposal on consideration. He laid stress on the patience of the Ulster Nationalists under provocation, and thought Mr. Cave's and Mr. Ward's speeches held out hopes of settlement.

The Vote of Censure was rejected by 345 to 252. The amendment was consequently not put.

Sir Edward Carson had left the House to go to Ulster; so had eight Ulster Unionist members. The belief that this portended a new stage in the crisis was heightened by military movements in Ulster, by reports that warrants were out for the arrest of "from 30 to 130" leaders of the Ulster Volunteer Force, and from rumours as to trouble with the officers at the Curragh. The Chief Secretary for Ireland (March 20) and the Attorney-General (March 21) endeavoured to reassure public opinion. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer's utterances at Huddersfield (March 21) had an opposite effect. In one speech he dealt with the land programme and made an eloquent plea for social reform; but earlier in the day he violently attacked the House of Lords and the Orangemen of Ulster, declaring that the former were threatening the doctrine of popular government, and had produced the doctrine of "optional obedience," and that the latter were threatening rebellion that they might not cease to be the dominant caste. He attacked the exclusion of Ulster, and objected that a Referendum would only produce a poll of 40 or 50 per cent. of the electorate, and a majority on that small poll would destroy reform. Let the Home Rule controversy be settled, in order to open the way to deliverance from social wretchedness.

This speech and Sir Edward Carson's departure damped whatever hopes of settlement had been based on certain passages in the Vote of Censure debate. Meanwhile rumours had reached London that officers in Ireland had resigned to avoid serving against Ulster; and many Unionists believed that British troops were to be ordered to shoot down the Ulster Volunteers at once. The chief sources for the history are the Prime Minister's statements to the Press and in the Commons (March 22, 23); the White Paper (March 25); the Morning Post account (March 26), based on information from the officers concerned; the First Lord of the[Pg 56] Admiralty's speech (March 30), and Colonel Seely's speech (April 9); the Ulster version issued in April, and the consequent debates in the Unionist motion for an inquiry (post, Chap. III.). In December, 1913, the War Minister had warned the Generals commanding in chief, that while soldiers were justified in contemplating disobedience to outrageous orders, e.g. massacring a demonstration of Orangemen who were not dangerous, they might have to assist in supporting the Civil Power, and that they could not pick and choose between lawful and reasonable orders. Any officer resigning was to be asked for reasons, and, if he indicated that he desired to choose between orders, the War Minister would at once submit to the King that his name should be removed. On March 14 it was determined to protect certain military stores in Ireland from possible raids by Ulster Volunteers. General Sir Arthur Paget, commanding in Ireland, was ordered to take the necessary steps. Cavalry and horse artillery were to support the infantry, and, as the Great Northern Railway of Ireland was expected to refuse to convey the troops, preparations were made to send them by sea, and one company was actually sent by sea to Carrickfergus; but the railway authorities accepted the troops. As was afterwards revealed, naval support was provided for the operations (p. 60). On March 20 Sir A. Paget arrived in Dublin and conferred, first, with General Gough, commanding the Third Cavalry Brigade, who apparently refused to serve against Ulster, preferring to be dismissed the service; next, with the other generals, and, according to the Morning Post (April 7), his instructions were as follows: The Third Cavalry Brigade was to move forward to seize the bridges across the Boyne and to wait there till relieved by the infantry; a fleet was to anchor in Belfast Lough and co-operate with the Army, 25,000 troops were to be employed, and a division of infantry got from England. The force was made large apparently in order to deter the Volunteers from attacking it, but the Unionists insisted that it was provocative. It appears to have been intimated also to the officers that the Ulster Unionist leaders were to be arrested, and possibly—though as to this there is a conflict of evidence—that the orders were in accordance with the wishes of the King. It seemed that Sir A. Paget might unintentionally have misinterpreted the intentions of the Government. However, he telegraphed to the War Office that evening that the Brigadier and fifty-seven officers, Third Cavalry Brigade (out of a total of seventy), preferred to accept dismissal if ordered North; and General Gough sent him a Minute, saying that, while these officers were prepared to maintain order and preserve property, they had rather be dismissed than initiate active military operations against Ulster. (These officers comprised all those of the Sixteenth Lancers, nearly all those of the Fourth Hussars and Fifth Lancers, and six out of thirteen of the Third Brigade Royal Horse Artillery.) Next day,[Pg 57] March 21, Sir A. Paget attempted to remove their fears. He assured them that the measure contemplated was merely a measure of precaution, but he spoke of "massacres," of "battles," of a possible disarmament of regiments which refused to move, which would be the "Indian Mutiny over again," and finally said that "there were worse things than a Court Martial," which was interpreted to refer to the possibility of a capital sentence for disobeying orders. For these explanations the authority is the Morning Post account, based apparently on statements from the officers concerned. The situation was not bettered by them, or by the wild rumours which were published in London (March 21 and 22) of mutinies of infantry regiments in Ireland. On Sunday, March 22, therefore, the Prime Minister authorised The Times to state: (1) That the recent movements of troops in Ireland were purely precautionary and intended only to safeguard the depots of arms, while the naval movements merely consisted in sending troops to Carrickfergus by two small cruisers without the necessity of marching them through Belfast; (2) that no warrants were issued for the arrest of the Ulster leaders, and no such step was contemplated; (3) it was untrue that the Government contemplated instituting a general inquiry into the intentions of officers if asked to take up arms against Ulster; it was hoped that this contingency might never arise.

It was under these circumstances that both Houses met on Monday, March 23. In the Commons the War Minister stated that on the evening of March 20 General Sir A. Paget had notified the War Office that some officers might be unable to carry out his instructions; the Army Council telegraphed asking him to state the circumstances, and ordering the senior officers concerned to report themselves at the War Office. An inquiry held by the Army Council showed that the incident was due to a misunderstanding of questions put them by Sir A. Paget, and, with his approval, they had been ordered to rejoin their units. The movements of troops ordered on the night of March 19 from information received were: One company of infantry was instructed to move to Enniskillen, Omagh, Armagh, and Carrickfergus respectively; one battalion of infantry was ordered, half to Dundalk and half to Newry, and one from Victoria Barracks, inside Belfast, to Holywood Barracks, just outside. The reason was the necessity for protecting Government arms, ammunition, stores, and other property. All these movements had been completed in accordance with instructions from the General commanding in Ireland, and all orders had been punctually and implicitly obeyed.

To make a discussion possible, the Prime Minister moved the adjournment, at Mr. Bonar Law's request. The latter said that a new danger had arisen—that the Army should be destroyed before their eyes. The resignations were not confined to the Cavalry Brigade; an officer in an infantry regiment at the Curragh[Pg 58] had written stating that on Thursday, March 20, the following proposal had been put before the officers: "Any officer whose home is in Ulster can be given leave; officers who object to fighting against Ulster can say so and will be at once dismissed from service;" and they were given half an hour to decide. Nine or ten objected to go on any conditions. He read a letter from an officer who had heard Sir A. Paget's address at the Curragh, stating that he had said that "active operations" were to be taken against Ulster, and that he expected the country "to be in a blaze" by March 21. Officers domiciled in Ulster were to be "allowed to disappear," and would subsequently be reinstated, but must give their word not to fight for Ulster; others who would not fight against Ulster would be dismissed. This meant more than merely protective operations, and in his belief certain Ministers, probably without the Prime Minister's knowledge, had made the movement either to provoke or to intimidate the people of Ulster. Neither officers nor men should be compelled to take part in civil war against their will. (Labour members interjected inquiries whether the Army was also entitled to refuse to act in suppressing the railway strike.)

The Prime Minister replied. It was the duty of the Army to protect military property and stores, and to aid the civil power in the maintenance of order. Any officer or private who refused to assist in doing these duties was guilty of a breach of duty and was liable to be dismissed. In December, 1913, instructions were issued to General Sir A. Paget, and the rule as to excusing officers domiciled in an area of disturbance would apply anywhere as far as practicable. Long before the First Lord's speech the danger of a seizure of the guns and stores had been pointed out, and the operation was purely protective, and was over. The Cavalry Brigade had not been ordered to move. Sir A. Paget had had no instructions beyond those of December, except to make these particular movements. Brigadier-General Gough and his officers had misinterpreted his speech, and he denied using anything like the language given. General Gough and the officers concerned, had returned to their posts and expressed their willingness to carry out the duties required. (These explanations were greatly interrupted by the Opposition.) Finally, if officers and soldiers were to discriminate between the validity of different laws, the fabric of society would crumble. Suppose acute labour troubles and a stoppage of food, transport, and fuel, were the troops to follow their sympathies?

Mr. Balfour (U.) ridiculed the Prime Minister's explanation, and contended that the Government had intended to coerce Ulster, and had shrunk from doing so. Ulster might be wrong, but her conviction was rooted, and Ministers had aroused forces which could only be pacified by a broad and statesmanlike treatment which they had given no indications of being able to adopt.

[Pg 59]

Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab.) said that the Syndicalists who had failed to poison the Labour party with their doctrines had apparently succeeded with the Tories; and Mr. John Ward (Lab., Stoke-on-Trent) declared that the officers had thrown over their allegiance to the King. The motion for adjournment was withdrawn; and a debate in the House of Lords added no further information.

The course of the debate and of events pleased only the Labour party, who foresaw that, since the option given to officers must logically be extended to men, the Army could not now be used in labour troubles. The Unionists believed that the Government had meant to coerce Ulster and had climbed down. Many Liberals held that it had gone too far in concession to the officers, and a Liberal member was said to have described the situation as "our Zabern." The Manchester Guardian said that the Prime Minister had gone very far towards recognising the right of officers to lay down the conditions of service, and cited Hearson v. Churchill (a naval case, 1892) and Clode's "Military Forces of the Crown," to show that officers had no right to resign without leave. In the country the Labour members' deductions made a great impression; on the other hand, an Ulster Defence Fund, started in the City by Mr. H. H. Gibbs, soon reached 100,000l.

The Labour view of the position was emphasised (March 23) in a debate in the Commons, started by Mr. Amery (U., Birmingham, S.), on the Report of the Army Vote. Mr. J. Ward (Lab.) read a Syndicalist manifesto "to the men of the British Army" published that day, urging them to remember that officers had exercised an option as to obeying orders, and asking them to resolve that they would never fire a shot against their own class. He added that when this once began it was not officers alone who would have consciences; the question was whether the people, through their representatives in Parliament, were to make the law without interference from King or Army. Later, Mr. J. H. Thomas. (Lab., Derby) remarked that the Railway Servants' Union had refused to assist one of their own members who had distributed pamphlets asking soldiers not to shoot down their fellow-workmen. He himself agreed with the action of the Prime Minister in August, 1911, in using troops to secure the food supplies of the nation in the railway strike; and he warned the House that his union had given notice to the railway companies in the name of 400,000 railwaymen which would expire on November 1. He would do his best to effect an amicable settlement, but, if the Opposition doctrine held good, his duty would be to tell the railwaymen to organise their forces and to spend the union's half-million of capital in providing arms and ammunition.

These speeches greatly pleased the Liberals, and Mr. Ward[Pg 60] was enthusiastically cheered ("for saying what we all think") when he was introduced by a member into the smoking-room of the National Liberal Club. It was stated, also, that they roused much sympathy in the Army among the rank and file. The Liberals were further startled by the White Paper published next day (March 25). Following the correspondence already quoted, it contained a letter in which General Gough asked the Adjutant-General to make clear whether, if the Home Rule Bill became law, the officers "could be called upon to enforce it in Ulster under the expression of maintaining law and order;" and a minute was written in reply, and signed by the War Minister, General Sir John French, and General Sir J. S. Ewart, which ran as follows:—

General Gough, it was rumoured, had at once shown this document and talked freely to reporters, and had received an ovation on his return to the Curragh.

The whole White Paper, and especially the letter above quoted, filled the Liberals with anger and dismay. The Westminster Gazette described it as "incredible," and declared editorially that it would prefer the defeat of the Government to an abject surrender to the Army.

On March 25 the position was further elucidated on the second reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. Before this, however, there was another sensation and a scene. Questioned by Lord Charles Beresford as to the movements of the Third Battle Squadron, alleged to be meant to intimidate Ulster, the First Lord of the Admiralty said that a fortnight earlier the Cabinet had decided to station a battle squadron at Lamlash (Arran) as a convenient place to exercise from, and near Ireland if there should be serious disorder. On March 22, the precautionary movements of troops having been carried out without opposition, it was decided to delay the movement till after the Easter period of leave. The field-guns were asked for by the Admiral to exercise[Pg 61] the men ashore at Lamlash if the weather was bad (a statement scoffed at by the Opposition). The insinuation made by a Unionist member that the precautionary movements were provocative he repudiated as "hellish." Subsequently Colonel Seely, the War Minister, stated in detail the facts relating to the correspondence published and to the statement quoted above. Having seen General Gough, he went to the Cabinet meeting and said he would ask the Adjutant-General to draft a document for him. He then had to go to the King, and (he said parenthetically) the suggestion made outside Parliament that His Majesty had taken any initiative in the matter was "absolutely without foundation." When he returned, the Cabinet had separated, having discussed the draft prepared by the Adjutant-General (Sir J. S. Ewart). He added the two concluding paragraphs to conform to the statement he had made. On receiving this document General Gough asked Sir John French if it meant that he would not be called on to order his brigade to assist in coercing Ulster to submit to Home Rule, and Sir John French wrote across it "I should read it so." Sir John French and Sir J. S. Ewart did not know that it was a Cabinet document, and no blame rested on them or on Sir A. Paget; but blame rested on himself for altering it, and, having been absent from the Cabinet meeting, he did not apprehend that his colleagues had seriously considered the document and regarded it in the form in which it had left their hands as a matter of vital concern. Having unintentionally misled his colleagues, he had tendered his resignation. It appeared, however, that this had not been accepted; and Mr. Balfour, after scouting the Ministerial explanation of the naval and military movements and defending Ulster's right to resist, asked how the Government explained the two "peccant paragraphs" which were binding on Colonel Seely and the Army Council, and which "the whole Army would take as its charter." They made it impossible to coerce Ulster.

The Prime Minister, after declaring that the King had throughout observed every rule comporting with the dignity of a constitutional Sovereign, pointed out that in fact the Government had offered the Ulster counties exclusion till after two consultations of the electorate against an offer by the Opposition of one such consultation at once. Was it really believed that there was a plot to provoke Ulster? The movements were purely protective, and were ordered on March 14. Sir Edward Carson and his friends might equip a force said to number 100,000, but, if the Government consulted their general, it was an intrigue and an outrage. General Paget acted like any prudent general in the circumstances. The officers were uneasy, as to the possible initiation of active operations against Ulster, and sent in their resignations. When they came to the War Office, every one realised that there had been a misconception. On the 23rd, after[Pg 62] the interviews, the Cabinet received the draft of the proposed letter from the Army Council to General Gough. They did not know of his previous letter nor did the War Secretary. They authorised the three first paragraphs of the letter from the Army Council, which gave no assurance of any sort and stated plainly the duties of the officers. As soon as he received the copy of the whole letter, he sent for the War Secretary, who explained how the two last paragraphs had been added, and said that it was too late to alter them, for General Gough had had the letter. Mr. Asquith pointed out to the House that General Gough's letter shifted the question to a remote and hypothetical contingency It was not right to ask an officer what he would do in such a contingency, still less could it be right for an officer to ask a Government to give him any assurance. Such a claim, once admitted, would put the Government and the House at the mercy of the Military and the Navy. (This was received with prolonged Liberal and Labour cheers and waving of handkerchiefs and papers.) Were that issue once raised, he had little doubt as to the verdict of the country. The War Secretary, under great stress, had committed an error of judgment, but to accept his resignation would be ungenerous and unjust.

Mr. Bonar Law declared that the Government had decided on a great military and naval demonstration to impress the people of Ulster, and Sir A. Paget's statement was inconsistent with their explanation. He read a letter from an infantry officer, stating that Sir Charles Fergusson had told his officers that "steps had been taken so that any aggression must come from the Ulsterites." He insisted that the position amounted to civil war, and, with reference to the Labour attacks on the Ulster people and the Army, he declared that the Ulster Volunteers were thoroughly democratic, and the feeling among the rank and file of the Army was as strong as among the officers. If he were an officer he would resign, and (he hoped) would face a court martial rather than be sent against Ulster. The Government's duty was to find some means of saving the nation from an impossible position.

Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab.) declared that Mr. Bonar Law's statement was an encouragement to mutiny. The sentence quoted from Sir Charles Fergusson meant that the offensive must not be taken against Ulster. The officers were acting as party politicians, and had communicated with the Press. Had the position revealed in the White Paper been that of the Government, the Government could not have lived for twenty-four hours.

Later, the Foreign Minister said that the Government repudiated the two paragraphs because they appeared as an answer to General Gough's letter making conditions, and General Gough had returned unconditionally. His question was not one that an officer should put. No question must be raised by the Army as to the orders given them.

[Pg 63]

After a stormy scene, caused by a remark of Mr. Holt (L., Northumberland, Hexham), Mr. Austen Chamberlain (U.), in a long speech, said that the Government's account was incompatible with the permission to officers domiciled in Ulster to disappear, and with the movements of the Fleet, of which the Prime Minister apparently did not know when he communicated with the Press on March 22. He also stated that the draft had been prepared by Colonel Seely in conjunction with Lord Morley of Blackburn, that it contained the guarantee embodied in the paragraphs in question, and that Lord Morley was present at the Cabinet meeting at which the draft was amended. The Cabinet would not throw over a colleague for doing what it had assented to in fact. The First Lord replied that Lord Morley's only connexion with the full document was that the War Minister had shown it to him after the meeting of the Cabinet when he asked what he was to say in the House of Lords on behalf of the Government. He said also that two great issues had emerged, Parliament versus the Army, and the Army versus the People, and that the Opposition had laid down the principle that it was always right for the soldier to shoot down a Radical and a Labour man. The debate ended in uproar, but the second reading was passed and the Government sustained by 314 to 222.

In the House of Lords, meanwhile, Lord Morley of Blackburn described the idea of a plot as "a sinister hallucination," and mentioned incidentally that the peccant paragraphs had been drafted with his aid. The Marquess of Lansdowne thought the Government had contemplated a coup d'état by paralysing the loyalists.

Next day the crisis was dealt with in Parliament only by angry questioning in the Commons; but it was announced in the Press that Sir John French and Sir J. S. Ewart had tendered their resignations and persisted in them. A statement was promised, but not made, on the adjournment of the Commons; and on Friday, March 27, it was officially promised at 5 P.M., as the Cabinet was still sitting; a suggestion by Mr. Bonar Law that the House should adjourn was rendered nugatory by the ruling of the Speaker that only a Minister could move the adjournment on a Friday, and after a somewhat stormy conversation, the House passed to other business. Just before 5 P.M. the Prime Minister entered; and in reply to Sir R. Pole-Carew (U.) he stated that the officers in question had tendered their resignations, as they had initialled the memorandum to General Gough; but the Cabinet, as there was no difference of policy, had asked them not to persist in their request, as their resignations would be a serious misfortune to the Army and the State. To avoid future misconceptions, a new Army order had been issued, as follows. It was headed "Discipline."

[Pg 64]

He repeated that no operations had been contemplated imposing any duty on the Army not covered by the terms of this Order, and the Government adhered to all the declarations they had made.

Mr. Bonar Law insisted, first, that the trouble in the Army had arisen because of the inquisition to which the officers had been subjected, which was condemned in the Order; next, that the disclosures of the movements of troops and battleships were totally inconsistent with the Prime Minister's statement in The Times of March 23. Captain Morrison-Bell (U., Honiton, Devon) denounced the Order as a gross insult to the Army; there never would be any doubt as to the obedience to orders. Had the officers not been asked their views the question would never have arisen.

Sir John French and Sir Spencer Ewart persisted in their resignations; and on Monday, March 30, there was a new and dramatic development. Near the end of question-time in the Commons, Colonel Seely entered, but did not take his place on the Ministerial Bench. A moment later, in reply to a question from the Opposition leader, the Prime Minister regretfully confirmed the news as to the resignations. The two officers retired, not because of any difference with the Government as to the conditions of service in the Army, but because having initialled the memorandum given to General Gough they felt bound to do so. The Secretary of State for War, to his infinite regret, had informed him that he thought it right to take the same course. He himself had, therefore, after much consideration and with no little reluctance, felt it his duty to become Secretary of State for War. (After a momentary pause of astonishment the mass of the Liberals above the gangway, with some other Liberals and Nationalists, rose and cheered wildly.) He must, therefore, offer himself for re-election. Colonel Seely followed, explaining that his resignation was the consequence of that of his two military colleagues. He added that great issues were raised; the whole Army system might have to be recast; but apart from these issues, the Army had served the country loyally and well. He would continue to support the Prime Minister, and would have the knowledge that he had tried to serve faithfully with his colleagues, and to see that fair play was given to the Army in a difficult time.

Mr. Bonar Law protested that the second reading of the Home[Pg 65] Rule Bill must be postponed, and the Prime Minister intimated that he had vacated his seat by the advice of the Law Officers, in spite of the adverse precedent set by Mr. Gladstone in 1873. He then left the House amid a great display of Liberal and Nationalist enthusiasm.

The motion for the third reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which at once followed, provided another opportunity for reviewing the crisis. Mr. F. E. Smith (U.) endeavoured to establish the existence of the alleged plot, and asked how Lord Morley could remain in the Government if Colonel Seely had left it. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in a long speech defending the Government, said that the letter from the Army Council did not arrive in time to be read to the Cabinet, but that the Prime Minister, who knew the mind of the Cabinet, cut it down to the first three paragraphs. Lord Morley copied the two appended paragraphs merely for his coming statement in the House of Lords. Reviewing the controversy, Mr. Churchill argued that after the Prime Minister's offer of March 9 the question was not of the coercion of Ulster, but of Ulster's barring the way to the rest of Ireland. In January the War Secretary had asked for naval protection for Carrickfergus Castle, but he refused it till after the offer of March 9 had been made. The military advisers of the Government had counselled withdrawing the stores and troops to Dublin; the Cabinet decided to reinforce the depots so that they could only be captured by a serious military attack. Sir A. Paget thought that the movement would be provocative, the Chief Secretary that it would not, though interference with the drill of the Volunteers or arrest of their leaders might be so. Sir A. Paget received no orders for any movement of troops beyond these precautionary movements, but he had full discretionary power in case of resistance. The Secretary of War gave him oral instructions, but he was not asked to put, nor did he put, a hypothetical question, and he was determined to take every conceivable precaution to prevent a collision. A deliberate and unprovoked attack by the Ulster forces on British troops would have made all the contingent measures absolutely necessary, but he and the Government had not expected it, and were right. Suppose a Nationalist Army taking the same course as the Ulster Volunteers, would not the Government be compelled to take similar steps? As to the political issues, he withdrew the word that he spoke at Bradford. What of the provocation from the other side? He charged the Opposition leaders in both Houses with attempting to seduce the Army, quoting a number of speeches, a letter from Earl Roberts, and a circular sent out on House of Commons notepaper by Mr. Hunt (U., Shropshire, Ludlow). They had been trying to force an election by creating a rebellion and paralysing the use of the Army to deal with it, and their followers were boasting that the Army had killed the Home Rule Bill.

[Pg 66]

Among subsequent speakers, Mr. Brace (Lab., Glamorgan, S.) said that if the King had interfered the Labour party must have made his action an issue at the next elections. If the two paragraphs had been maintained, that party would have overthrown the Government. Mr. Bonar Law contested the charge made against the Opposition leaders by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and, reading out Lord Morley's explanation, declared that every member of the Cabinet was in the same position as the War Minister. Eventually the third reading was carried by 329 to 251.

In the House of Lords, also, the resignations and Lord Morley's position were discussed, but without much fresh enlightenment. Lord Morley stated that when the War Minister showed him the two paragraphs, he did not perceive, nor did he yet perceive, that they differed in spirit or substance from the preceding paragraphs. Further explanations were promised for next day, and, incidentally, Earl Roberts appealed to Peers and people to end the mischievous and dangerous assertions that the Army was being made the tool of a party. No man alive, he said, could seduce the Army in that way. Next day, in reply to a vehement attack on the Government by Earl Curzon of Kedleston, Lord Morley explained that Colonel Seely had resigned the second time in order that it might not appear that any Minister had made a bargain, and he himself had had no share in sending the letter as a reply to General Gough's request, of which he was unaware. Sir Edward Grey and the Prime Minister had taken the same view of the paragraphs, when taken with the rest of the letter, as himself. Notable speeches were made by Lord Methuen—to the effect that the Army would do its duty in any case—and by Earl Loreburn, who appealed to all parties to facilitate a settlement. The Marquess of Lansdowne thought the new Army order would not make matters clearer, and the Marquess of Crewe mentioned that the Royal Irish Constabulary, and Afridis in Indian frontier wars, were never asked to serve against men of their own country or race respectively.

Amid all these shocks it was a comparatively trifling matter that the Arms proclamation was invalidated for a time by the result of Hunter v. Coleman, an action brought by a firm of Belfast gunsmiths at the Belfast Assizes against the Collector of Customs of the port for detaining arms consigned to the plaintiffs at Hamburg on December 18, 1913. The sympathies of the jury were obviously with the plaintiffs, and the Attorney-General described the trial as a "political farce."

The crisis cut short the Royal visit to Lancashire and Cheshire, which had been arranged for March 24-28. Their Majesties, who were the guests of the Earl of Derby at Knowsley, decided to give up the Aintree race meeting and return to London on March 26; but on March 26 they opened a new infirmary at Chester, visited Messrs. Lever's famous model town of Port Sun[Pg 67]light, and Messrs. Cammell, Laird and Co.'s great engineering works at Birkenhead, opened—by pressing a button—a new park in that town, and subsequently, by similar means, laid the foundation stone of Wallasey Town Hall. Everywhere they were received with the utmost enthusiasm.

The Ulster crisis, which had abridged this visit, took much of the interest out of the resumed debate on the Home Rule Bill (March 31, April 1, 2, 6). Many people continued to believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Admiralty had tried to provoke Ulster into a rising in order to crush her, with Colonel Seely as their tool. But the debate, nevertheless, showed signs of conciliation. Mr. Long (U.) said that the Opposition would consider an offer of an appeal to the people conditional on such an amendment of the Parliament Act as would not sacrifice its advantages to the Government. The Foreign Secretary, who spoke second, was most conciliatory. Various suggestions, he said, had been made and had found no success; but on none of them was the door absolutely shut by the Government. They were not prepared to go beyond the six years' exclusion, but unless a federal solution were reached Parliament and the country would go under through the failure of Parliament to conduct its business, and it might be the subject within the six years of private conversations between the leaders. The Government could not accept a referendum or agree to any settlement that did not mean passing the Home Rule Bill. An election without the plural vote before the Bill came into operation might be considered. Force must be used if there were outbreaks in Ulster, or if the Provisional Government defied the Imperial Government. But it could not be used to coerce Ulster to accept Home Rule till after an election. The new Army order might be taken as giving a fair start after the misunderstanding, but otherwise the next election must be on issues so grave as to change the Constitution.

It was thought that this speech had opened a fresh prospect of settlement, and this was confirmed by the opening of next day's debate. Mr. Dillon (N.) welcomed the tendency to conciliation, but declared that for the Unionists exclusion was simply a political weapon, while the Nationalist acceptance of the Government's proposal was inspired solely by a desire for peace. A referendum would not produce a poll of 50 per cent. in Great Britain. Federalism he disliked as implying a written constitution, but it was not barred by the Bill. If there was an agreement, the Bill might be amended either by the Lords inserting the agreed amendments, or by the Home Rule Bill. The Nationalists would do all they could to secure peace, but must not be asked to do what they could not do and what their people would not permit. Sir R. Finlay (U.), however, pressed for a general election; the Solicitor-General effectively put the Liberal and Nationalist case,[Pg 68] and Mr. O'Brien (N.) strongly deprecated exclusion and urged a Conference. The debate was cut short by the Labour motion on the rights of British citizens within the Empire (p. 73), and was resumed on April 2 by Mr. Balfour, who said that the discussion had shifted from the Home Rule Bill to the avoidance of civil war. The conciliatory tone of the debate meant that the House was frightened. Under a voluntary system they could not prevent the Army having its own views; it had to obey orders, but questions arose beyond the day-to-day code, and the Army ought not to have them put to it. After again demanding a referendum or a general election, he said that, though he had never been a believer in Federalism, if some moderate form of devolution met with general acceptance, and would avert civil war, he would not oppose it, but Ulster must be treated separately meanwhile. The President of the Local Government Board declared that Mr. Balfour's doctrine would make the mess-room a debating society. He had rather the Liberal party was beaten on other issues than that it won on this. He said most emphatically that there was no secret obligation of any sort between the Government and the Nationalists; that an election was not wanted, and would settle nothing, and that the election held after the passing of the Bill, and adverse to the Liberals, would mean that they would consent not to the repeal of the whole Bill, but to the exclusion of Ulster. It was only after the Bill passed that Federalism could be discussed. Later Mr. Agar-Robartes (L., Cornwall, St. Austell) attacked the Ministry and advocated giving Ulster a second option at the end of six years; and Mr. Cave (U.) inclined to devolution.

Before the debate was resumed two events affecting it took place outside (April 4)—the Prime Minister's speech to his constituents at Ladybank, and a great Hyde Park demonstration to protest against the coercion of Ulster. At the latter there were fourteen platforms, and the demonstrators reached the Park in twenty-two different processions; there was a large Stock Exchange and middle class contingent, and the speakers included Mr. Balfour (his first appearance at a Hyde Park demonstration), Sir E. Carson, Viscount Milner, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, and other Unionist leaders. The militant suffragists attempted a counter-demonstration, but the police prevented it and arrested Mrs. Drummond; and a Labour demonstration was meanwhile held in Trafalgar Square to protest against the different treatment by the Government of politicians and officers on the one hand and of anti-militarist strike-leaders and militant suffragettes on the other. The resolution carried here approved the conduct of the officers, and urged the rank and file to refuse to take up arms against their own class in industrial disputes.

Speaking to a select audience representative of his constituency at Ladybank (April 4), the Prime Minister began by ridiculing the Unionist rumours in circulation—the story of the plot, the[Pg 69] story that he had accepted his new office to escape for a fortnight from meeting the Unionist leaders in the House, the statement that his open journey to his constituency was provocative; and he ridiculed also the hesitation of the Unionists in opposing him. He had taken his new office in view of the grave situation that had arisen regarding the discipline of the Army and its relations to the civil power. As chairman of the Imperial Defence Committee, he knew the zeal, devotion, and settled traditions of discipline and honour pervading the military and naval forces of the Crown. The Army was not, and he prayed that it might never become, a political instrument; as an Army—and here he cited the elder William Pitt—it had no voice in the framing of policy and laws. "The Army will hear nothing of politics from me, and in return I expect to hear nothing of politics from the Army." The responsibility for the preservation of domestic order lay with the magistrates and police. In special emergencies the Army was called in to assist; in these it was the duty of the soldier, as of the civilians, to comply with the lawful demands of the civil power. The doctrines recently promulgated by some of the Tory leaders struck at the roots not only of Army discipline but of democratic government. As to the Home Rule Bill, he had brought the question into prominence at St. Andrews on December 7, 1910, and there was a complete justification for the application of the Parliament Act to it; but the Government were anxious to work out an agreed settlement, and hence the proposed optional exclusion of Ulster for a term of years. He should have preferred other solutions, but this one satisfied the conditions in his speech of October, 1913 (A.R., 1913, p. 219). The proposal had led to an unprecedented expression from both sides of the House of a desire to find some road to settlement, but any settlement must involve the placing of the Home Rule Bill on the Statute-book. Finally, Mr. Asquith referred to the other great Liberal measures pending, and deprecated division among the forces of progress.

The last day of the Home Rule Bill debate exhibited a continuance of the apparent movement towards a solution by consent, Mr. John Redmond (N.), after reviewing the various proposals for settlement, said that the only proposal from the side of Ulster was the total exclusion of Ulster, which was not a compromise, and was not put forward as the price of peace; the exclusion of Ulster by counties he regarded as dead; the Federal solution had been suggested in 1832, favoured by O'Connell and Parnell, and was the basis of Isaac Butt's movement. If Federalism meant that Ireland was to have priority, that her powers under the Bill were not to be watered down, and that the six years' limit was to stand, the Nationalists raised no objection. But the Opposition received that proposal with scoffing, and the only course was to proceed with the Bill as it stood. But even yet he did not despair of a settlement.

[Pg 70]

Sir Edward Carson (U.) said that Mr. Redmond's speech showed that there had been no real advance towards peace and conciliation. He had killed even the offer of the temporary exclusion of Ulster. If the Bill was passed, Federalism would be impracticable, for there would be no power over the Irish Parliament. Did Sir Edward Grey's speech mean that the Bill would be suspended till after a new Parliament had decided whether it was to be enforced? There was only one policy possible: "Leave Ulster out until you have won her consent to come in". Coercion would mean ruin to Ulster and to Ireland, and possibly to Great Britain also. This apprehension in Ulster was what the Nationalists had to overcome. Turning to them he said: "It is worth while your trying. Will you?"

The Attorney-General interpreted this speech as a great and significant advance towards conciliation. He added that the Prime Minister's offer of temporary exclusion was not withdrawn, and would remain open to the latest possible moment. If the exclusion would be till Parliament otherwise ordered, the House of Lords, at any rate as at present constituted, might frustrate the decision of the country. As to the Federal solution, Ireland came first because its case was urgent, and English opinion on Federalism was less advanced than Scottish, Irish, or Welsh. The immediate duty of the House was to go on with the Bill as it stood, but the Government hoped the efforts towards a settlement would still continue.

Mr. T. Healy (I.N.) in a brilliantly scornful speech, denounced Ministers for proposing the exclusion of Ulster and the Nationalist leaders for accepting it, and for making no effort at a settlement by other means. Exclusion was a device of Sir Edward Carson for killing the Bill. Later, Mr. Bonar Law (U.), who commented severely on the absence of the Prime Minister "from causes which might have been prevented or delayed," and of the Foreign Secretary, said he desired to convince the House and the country that the Unionists were prepared to make every possible sacrifice for peace. He had Lord Lansdowne's authority to say that, if the new proposals were embodied in a Bill and endorsed by the House and the country, the House of Lords would let it become law without delay. The Government might justify their denial of a "bargain" with the Nationalists by some quibble, but Mr. Redmond had not done so; the "Kilmainham treaty" afforded a parallel to the denial of the "bargain." The other way of escape was by the exclusion of Ulster, and the Unionists would welcome that proposal in a form in which it could be discussed, because the time-limit could not stand discussion. He described the Foreign Secretary's intimation as to the Government action towards Ulster as a cold-blooded indication of a policy securing bloodshed there. It was the duty of the Government to maintain order, but it was equally their duty to avert a situation[Pg 71] requiring the use of force. The Foreign Secretary would not coerce the Epirotes, and the British conscience would not permit the coercion of Ulster.

After a conciliatory speech from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who thought considerable progress had been made towards a settlement, the debate was closured and the rejection of the Bill defeated by 356 to 276. Sir Clifford Cory (L.) and Mr. Agar-Robartes (L.) voted in the minority; Mr. Pirie (L.) and the eight Independent Nationalists abstained. The majority for the Bill, putting aside the votes of all members from Ireland, was five.

Next day the East Fife Unionists decided not to oppose the Prime Minister, and he was returned on April 8 without a contest.

The militant suffragists, like the Labour members, had used the action of the Ulstermen and the officers as an argument for their own militancy; but their acts, while far exceeding anything yet attempted on the part of Ulster, were vexatious, but hardly formidable. Still, the perpetrators frequently escaped discovery; punishment was no deterrent; and imprisonment was speedily ended by hunger and thirst strikes, entailing temporary discharge under the "Cat and Mouse" Act. Miss Sylvia Pankhurst and her mother, thus released, were rearrested on their way respectively to demonstrations in Trafalgar Square (March 8) and St. Andrew's Hall, Glasgow (March 9); rioting followed and both were released after fresh hunger-strikes on March 15. Meanwhile Miss Mary Richardson had damaged with a chopper the Rokeby Velasquez in the National Gallery (bought by subscription in 1906), in order, as she explained, to protest against the treatment of the most beautiful character in modern history—Mrs. Pankhurst—by destroying the picture of the most beautiful woman in mythology; but her sentence of six months' imprisonment was soon suspended by a hunger-strike. A month later (April 9) a woman smashed a case in the British Museum containing porcelain, but did little damage. A charity performance attended by the King and Queen at the Palladium was interrupted (March 17); an attempt to carry Miss Sylvia Pankhurst into Westminster Abbey (March 22) was unsuccessful, but a clergyman conducted a suffragist service outside. A woman clumsily disguised as a man awaited the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary in the Commons lobby with a riding whip, but was detected and sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment (March 16, 17); and a discussion in the Poplar Borough Council whether its halls should be let to suffragists (March 26) was broken up by militants in the Council and the audience. A graver outrage was a bomb explosion at St. John the Evangelist's Church, Westminster (March 1), after evening service; a stained glass window was shattered. Damage was done a week later in Birmingham Cathedral; the interior was daubed with white paint, suffragist mottoes were displayed, and a stained glass, window injured. Attempts were made to fire[Pg 72] churches at Clevedon (March 21) and Glasgow (March 28), and an unoccupied house at Stewarton, Ayrshire (March 12), in revenge for Mrs. Pankhurst's rearrest; and, when Sir Edward Carson, after some days' picketing of his house, had refused to press women's enfranchisement under his Provisional Government, a house belonging to General McCalmont at Abbeylands, near Belfast, was burnt likewise. Though all this estranged the general public, militancy found ardent and devoted support among both sexes, and the receipts of the Women's Social and Political Union, for the year ending with February, 1914, amounted to nearly 37,000l., apart from some thousands raised independently by local branches. Mrs. Pankhurst's American tour in 1913 had produced 4,500l.

Besides the suffragist troubles, there had been a host of fresh manifestations of the general Labour unrest. In the London building trade (p. 3) further proposals for a settlement, made by the National Conciliation Board, were rejected by the men on a ballot in April by 23,481 to 2,021. A coal strike in South Yorkshire in March and April on the question whether certain additional payments to the men were to continue to be paid in spite of an increase of the minimum wage, though brief, proved costly, and was ended on April 15 by the acceptance of the terms offered on a ballot by 27,259 votes to 15,866. Other strikes occurred in the furniture trade at High Wycombe (settled by a conference under Sir George Askwith on February 23, when an elaborate code of rules and rates was devised to prevent the recurrence of disputes) and among agricultural labourers in various places, notably at Helions Bumpstead in Essex at the end of February, and on Lord Lilford's estate in Northamptonshire in April, where the men pressed for increased wages, a Saturday half-holiday, and recognition of the union.

These Labour troubles seemed beyond the reach of legislation; indeed, the South Yorkshire coal strike was the direct outcome of the Minimum Wage Act; but Liberals hoped that the increased cost of living, or at any rate the housing difficulty, which was a factor in it, might be mitigated by the achievement of the Ministerial programme of land reform. Further material for this was provided by the Report containing the urban land proposals of the Liberal Land Enquiry Committee, issued as a shilling volume of some 700 pages on April 1. Broadly, they substantiated the forecasts given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Holloway (A.R., 1913, p. 247), but only the briefest indication of them can be given here. Skilled observers, armed with a set of questions to be answered, had investigated the conditions in London and 100 other towns, and in sixteen London boroughs, and supplementary inquiries had subsequently been made in these towns and in 148 others. The inquiry fell into four divisions: (1) Housing; (2) Acquisition of land by public or quasi-public bodies[Pg 73] and private persons; (3) systems of tenure, especially leasehold; (4) the rating and taxation of land. Wages and labour conditions had been dealt with in view of their bearing on housing, and the recommendations included the fixing of a minimum wage, the consideration of remedies for casual employment, statutory obligation on all local authorities to provide adequate housing for their working-class population, supplementing it, if necessary, by schemes of transit; the appointment of district Government officials to stimulate these efforts; Government power to order the leasing of undeveloped land and the sale of mining and prospecting rights, and of land required for churches, chapels, village institutes, co-operative or trade union halls; copyhold reform under a pending Bill which was to be made more comprehensive; the prohibition of future leases for lives, and the conferring of wide powers on the Land Commissioners to vary and regulate the conditions of existing and future leases; a rate on site values to meet all future increases in local expenditure chargeable to the rates; further Imperial relief to local taxation, possibly amounting to 5,000,000l. annually, and statutory revaluation at least every five years, but annually if practicable.

To return to the House of Commons, the Home Rule Bill debate had been interrupted for a Labour protest on the South African deportations, in the shape of a resolution moved by Mr. Goldstone (Lab., Sunderland) declaring that "the rights of British citizens set forth in Magna Charta, the Petition of Right, and the Habeas Corpus Act, and declared and recognised by the Common Law of England, should be common to the whole Empire, and their inviolability should be assured in every self-governing Dominion." The mover pointed to the Labour gains at the South African elections as indicating that the Government would be supported by the majority in South Africa in intervention. He offered, however, to withdraw the last clause. The Colonial Secretary pointed out that many of the rights specified in Magna Charta were obsolete, and that the Common Law of England did not run throughout the Empire; in South Africa the law was Roman-Dutch. South Africa could not be controlled by debates in that House. He suggested an amendment making the motion read after "Act"—"as representing the freedom of the subject, are those which this House desires to see applied to British subjects throughout the Empire." Lord Robert Cecil (U.) pointed out that Great Britain had less control over an autonomous part of the Empire than over a foreign country, but he held that the British Government might and should have offered advice. After other speeches, the motion as amended was agreed to.

A Conference summoned by the Joint Board of the Trade Union Congress, the General Federation of Trade Unions, and[Pg 74] the Labour party, met at the Memorial Hall (London) on April 7, and resolved to call on the Government to counsel the repeal of Clause 4 of the Indemnity Act passed in South Africa, and to send Mr. Ramsay Macdonald and Mr. Seddon, both Labour M.P.'s, to present a protest to the South African Government. An amendment that "failing satisfaction, the Labour party turn out the Government at the earliest opportunity," was rejected by more than ten to one, but the party's inaction was severely criticised by the minority.

The remaining time before the Easter adjournment was filled up partly by minor Government Bills. The East African Protectorates Loan Bill (April 7) authorised the Treasury to lend 3,000,000l. to the Governments of British East Africa (l,855,000l.), Nyasaland (816,000l.), and Uganda (329,000l.). The trade, the Colonial Secretary explained, was outstripping the facilities for communication. The Bill was passed with a little adverse criticism. So was the Mall Approach Improvement Bill, enabling the London County Council to approve the Charing Cross Approach to the Admiralty Arch. The cost, 115,000l., was to be shared equally between the Council, the Westminster City Council, and the Commissioners of Works, and the First Commissioner would have a veto on the architectural design of buildings erected by the County Council on the superfluous land taken.

A significant contribution towards suffrage reform in the future was afforded by a debate on the "alternative" or preferential vote, a device favourably viewed by most of the speakers, but left an open question by the Government.

The debate on the adjournment (April 7) was ingeniously used to revive the subject of the obstruction of debate by "blocking motions," a practice condemned by the House in 1907 (A.R., 1907, pp. 74, 166). A week earlier attention had been called to the blocking of a resolution on divorce proposed by Mr. France (L.), through the introduction of a Divorce Bill by Lord Hugh Cecil (U.), who declined, when appealed to by the Speaker, to desist, though the Bill, as the Speaker said, was obviously a bogus one. By way of retaliation, and also to call attention to the necessity of getting rid of this practice of obstruction, Liberal members put down 160 notices of motion designed to bar out all possible subjects from the debate on the adjournment, in which any matter not thus barred can be discussed. A few questions were raised, less for their own sake than to exhibit the ingenuity of the raisers. Eventually a stormy debate was raised by Mr. Amery (U.) on the reticence of Ministers, which developed into a fresh conflict over the Ulster "plot." The adjournment, however, was carried by 171 to 21; and four weeks later the abuse of "blocking motions" was at last disposed of by a new Standing Order, to the effect that in determining whether a discussion was out of order on the ground of anticipation, the[Pg 75] Speaker should have regard to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time. This reproduced the chief recommendation made by a Committee in 1907.

The day following the adjournment more light was thrown on the Army crisis by Colonel Seely at Ilkeston. He did not propose, he said, either to pose as a penitent or to reproach others; the facts were these. He had learnt that certain hot-headed persons under no discipline might try to capture certain stores of arms and ammunition, and to remove these stores in the face of armed opposition might have precipitated bloodshed. It was decided to send small detachments to remove them. No orders were disobeyed; but the Conservative Press went mad, and thought that there was a plot to overwhelm Ulster by force of arms. So wicked a plan could not have been thought of by any Government, least of all a Liberal Government. Reports came that there had been breaches of discipline, not amongst the troops ordered to move, but amongst others. The parties concerned were sent for, and were found to have been under the complete delusion that a hypothetical question had been put to them. He had told General Gough that the Government were not contemplating unlawful action, and the General had promised to obey all lawful commands. The wild stories as to the King's interference were absolutely untrue, and the King never knew of the document (p. 60) till the next day. He himself had completed the document as he had stated it to his colleagues, so as to represent the substance of what he had said, and the last two paragraphs seemed to him to represent the true Liberal view of the duty of the Army in support of the civil power. But the Conservative Press treated the document as a trophy and a surrender. Having made the mistake of not calling his colleagues together again, he resigned, to make the task of the Government easier.

Sir John French and Sir J. S. Ewart had been replaced by General Sir Charles Douglas and Lieut.-Gen. Sir H. C. Sclater; and the approach of the Easter holiday gave time for the popular excitement to abate. On Good Friday one of the most extravagant delusions of Ulster was shattered by a letter in The Times from two eminent German Professors, Dr. Theodor Schiemann, whose weekly reviews of world-politics in the Berlin Kreuz Zeitung were famous, and Dr. Kuno Meyer, the great Keltic scholar, to the effect that the hope of interference by Germany was a delusion. The Covenanters, the letter said, were living wholly in the ideas and sentiments of a bygone age. In the seventeenth century the cause of Protestantism was at stake. But at the present day "no civilised country, least of all Germany, could look favourably on any policy which would run counter to the spirit of religious comprehension."

[Pg 76]

CHAPTER III.
FROM EASTER TO WHITSUNTIDE.

The brief Easter holiday was fortunately favoured by fine weather, and there was a large exodus of pleasure-seekers from the great towns; but the usual conferences of workers in various employments served mainly to exhibit the variety of the prevalent unrest. The Independent Labour party, in conference at Bradford, passed by 233 to 78 a resolution declaring Cabinet rule inimical to good government, and demanding that, in order to break it up, the Labour party should be asked to vote only in accordance with the principles for which that party stood. A report on the relations of the Liberal and Labour parties had previously been subjected to a "frank and friendly" discussion in private, but much dissatisfaction was exhibited in the debate on the resolution above given at the alleged subservience of the party to Socialism. The conference also passed a resolution in favour of uniting with the Fabian Society and the British Socialist party, originally the Social Democratic Federation; but it declined to allow its candidates to call themselves "Labour and Socialist," for fear that adherents of the moderate section would stand as "Liberal-Labour" or "Progressive Labour" candidates. The party funds were very low, and there were various indications that many working-men had lost interest in political means of reform. The speakers at the preliminary meetings, especially Mr. Snowden and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, were greatly interrupted by militant suffragists. At the Elementary Teachers' Conference a resolution favouring women's suffrage was declared outside the scope of the union, and a subsequent attempt to annul this decision was defeated amid disorder. At Conferences of postal employees, a number of grievances were ventilated.

Some of the grievances of the Civil Service were dealt with in the Report, published April 14, of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service (A.R., 1912, Chron., March 14; Chairman, Lord Macdonnell). It was a strong body, containing prominent members of Parliament, leading University tutors, and women and others with special knowledge; and it issued a Majority Report, signed by the Chairman and fifteen Commissioners, and a Minority Report, signed by three, but qualifying rather than diverging widely from the views of the majority. The Commission had still to examine the Foreign Office, the Diplomatic Service, and the legal departments. Briefly, the majority recommended that, as to patronage, when an appointment was made from outside the Service, the reasons for it and the history of the candidate should be given; the general control of the Service should be exercised by a new special department within the Treasury; the existing[Pg 77] five classes should be replaced by three, the First Division being called "Administrative" and recruited as before; the method of appointment should be harmonised with the national system of education; transfer between different departments should be permitted, so as to facilitate promotion; and there were a number of recommendations with regard to women, including equal pay with men where the work and efficiency were really equal, and compulsory retirement on marriage. The Commission discountenanced political action by Civil Servants, and recommended a special inquiry into the subject of the political disabilities by persons of experience in industrial conciliation and arbitration.

The House of Commons reassembled on Easter Tuesday, April 14, and devoted the week mainly to practical legislation. The East African Protectorate (Loans) Bill passed through Committee without amendment, after some unsuccessful opposition to its details, chiefly on the part of Independent Liberals. The Criminal Justice Administration Bill was read a second time (April 15), amid general approval, and was referred to a Standing Committee. The Home Secretary explained that its object was to reduce the number of commitments to prison by allowing not less than seven days for the payment of a fine of less than 40s., the fine to include all Court fees; to recognise societies for the supply of probation officers, and to hand them money provided by Parliament towards their expenses; to amplify the Borstal system; and to introduce other smaller changes. The Dogs Bill, exempting dogs from vivisection, was read a second time on April 17. A protest against it signed by eminent scientific authorities had been published; but Sir F. Banbury (U., City of London), who moved the second reading, justified it on the ground that the dog was the special friend of man; and he reminded the Ministerialists that, when the house of their Chief Whip was burnt, the alarm was given and the lives of the inmates saved by the barking of a dog. The Bill was opposed by representatives of Cambridge, London, and Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Mr. Rawlinson, Sir P. Magnus, and Sir Henry Craik) in the interest of physiological research. The only substitute for a dog for certain purposes, it was said, was a monkey, and its price was prohibitive. Without inoculation of dogs, Sir H. Craik stated, the existing great knowledge of tropical diseases could not have been reached, nor could Carrel have conducted his experiments on heart surgery. Dr. Chapple (L., Stirlingshire) added that operations as carried on in Great Britain were painless, and hydrophobia had been abolished by experiments on dogs, not by the muzzling order. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department suggested, as a compromise, that the use of dogs should not be permitted unless it could be shown that no other animal was available. The Bill was passed, after closure, by 122 to 80, and was sent to a Standing Committee; but its opponents destroyed it, first by[Pg 78] refusing to make a quorum, and afterwards by extensive amendments; and it was dropped on June 30.

Two other debates of the week deserve brief notice. On April 15 Mr. Leach (L., Yorks, W.R., Colne Valley) moved a resolution that in future no member should, unless by leave, speak in the House for more than fifteen minutes, or in Committee for more than twenty. Ministers, ex-Ministers, and movers of Bills and resolutions to be excepted. Sir A. Verney (L., Bucks, N.) moved an amendment that members should signify to the Chair the time they would take, and should be reminded when they exceeded it. It was generally admitted to be desirable that more members should speak, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, in a sympathetic speech, recommended that the subject should be left to the Committee on Procedure. Sir P. Banbury (U.), opposing the motion, talked it out.

Next day, in Committee of Supply, there was a debate on housing conditions in Ireland. Mr. Clancy (N., Dublin Co.), who began it, pointed out that over 20,000 families in Dublin lived in one-room tenements, breeding-places of tuberculosis; but of 5,500 houses only seventy-three were owned by members of the Corporation, the owners of the rest were frequently poor, and could not pay for repairs or demolition. The Corporation had housed 2.5 per cent. of the population. Unionist members contrasted the conditions in Dublin with those in Belfast, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland showed that the evil was largely the result of overcrowding and low wages, but could not promise State aid. Nothing could be worse, he said, than an attempt to combine Manchester principles with little patches of philanthropic Socialism. True, they had built labourers' cottages, but that was a corollary of Land Purchase. The people did not choose to be moved to the suburbs. Eventually the resolution was talked out.

The second reading of the Established Church (Wales) Bill was debated on April 20 and 21 in a rather small House. The rejection was moved by Lord B. Cecil (U., Herts, Hitchin). The attack on the Church, he maintained, had been lifeless; now that individualist theories of the State had decayed, what was wanted was more Establishment—the national recognition of religion; and personally, he would gladly see extended to Nonconformist bodies all the privileges, if they were privileges, possessed by the Church of England. Voluntaryism—the theory that a Church ought to depend on the day-to-day contributions of its members—was absolutely dead; at any rate, the Nonconformist bodies were all seeking endowments. After contesting the stock Liberal arguments for Welsh Disestablishment, he said that, apart from the thirty-one Welsh members, the evidence was that the majority of the Welsh people was adverse. Besides petitions, meetings, and addresses, there was the petition of over 103,000 Nonconformists, many of them Liberals, against the Disendowment clauses of the[Pg 79] Bill. People had been deterred from signing it by the threat that they would lose their old-age pensions. The Church, as a whole, would not suffer, but some of the curates would, and the Nonconformists would rue their work.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Hoare (U., Chelsea) and opposed by the Attorney-General, who ridiculed the idea that Wales was adverse; and read a letter from a Welsh rector stating the writer's conviction that the majority of the Welsh clergy were in favour of the Disestablishment clauses, and that, if the leaders of the Church party would accept the Government's offer of commuting life interests, the loss would readily be made up by Church people, and the result would be a message of peace to Wales and a blessing to the Church as a spiritual institution. The Nonconformist petition had been worked up in rural places by Conservative landlords and agents, and many of the signatories (though in this he did not impute blame to the organisers) had signed to protect themselves and their homes. Speaking as "half a Welshman," whose youth had been spent amid the tradition of Welsh Nonconformity, he said that the movement for Disestablishment was bound up with Welsh nationalism. The case for Disendowment depended, not on the historical origin of tithe, but on the difference between the mediæval and the modern Church, and no scheme had ever been more fair and moderate.

Later Sir Alfred Mond (L., Swansea Town) stated that at Newport, Mon., the Nonconformist petition was organised by four vicars, a curate, a Tory agent, and a Tory councillor; and that harrowing tales were told about churchyards being ploughed up.

In the debate next day Mr. Balfour eloquently appealed to the Welsh people to be more concerned with the great things they shared with the English people than with the relatively small things they held by a separate tenure. Granted that the Church had deservedly lost much of her earlier position, why should she be disestablished and disendowed? If Disestablishment meant dismemberment, why were the Welsh members to settle it alone? What good would Disestablishment do? On the central question of the Bill, Disendowment, weight should be given, not to Welsh sentiment, but to sound principles of jurisprudence, relating to corporate property, and these the Bill violated. The United States Supreme Court had decided that in Virginia Disestablishment did not involve Disendowment. The Parliament Act was passed to carry Home Rule and Welsh Disestablishment; it now seemed that these reforms were to be carried to justify the Act. The country was turning against them. There was something grandiose about the Irish policy of the Government, but the Welsh Bill was thoroughly mean.

The Prime Minister asked on what grounds Mr. Balfour asserted that the country had changed its opinion. No question had had such a hold on the Welsh mind for the best part of two[Pg 80] generations. Deference and concession, in matters of local concern, to strong local sentiment were among the first conditions of vivifying and sustaining Imperial strength. To the vast majority of the Welsh people the Welsh Church was not a national institution, but four dioceses in the Province of Canterbury. The Nonconformist deputation (p. 28) were all in favour of Disestablishment, and were very vague as to the Disendowment effected by the Bill. Against Establishment he cited the case of the United States. The Bill dealt with ancient endowments, given to the Church for charitable and educational, as well as for religious, reasons; it had a precedent in the Irish Church Act, carried by one of the greatest and most devout Churchmen of the time, and both parties had impartially used the released endowments for the most secular purposes conceivable. What was to prevent the continued community of action of the four dioceses with the Church of England? The Welsh Nonconformist farmer would gain the sense of religious equality which he and his forefathers for two centuries had looked upon as essential to the completion and quickening of their national life.

Later, Mr. Bonar Law (U.) after commenting on the unreality of the debate, said that if the Church was alien to the Welsh temperament, it was the fault of the latter. The Church was the only denomination in Wales which was increasing its membership. The Irish Church was disendowed on the ground that the money was not being properly used. He did not think it would be possible to replace the endowments; one of the first acts of the next Unionist Government would be to restore them.

After a reply by the Home Secretary, who said that if the voluntary subscriptions to the Welsh Church were increased from their actual figure of 300,000l. to 345,000l. annually its income would be the same as before, the second reading was carried by 349 to 265.

But the dominant question was still that of Ulster, and the echoes of the outcry over the alleged plot had continued, and had been reinforced by fresh revelations. Easter week saw a series of reviews by Sir Edward Carson of the Ulster Volunteers—of the South Antrim Regiment at Antrim Castle, of those encamped at Clandeboye, of 2,500 men of the North Belfast Regiment, and of some 3,000 from North Derry. Everything was done to make the ceremonies impressive, and Sir Edward reminded the Volunteers at Antrim, in words that afterwards acquired an unexpected significance, that they were out not for war but for peace, and were all willing at any moment to tender their services to the King, the symbol of the unity of the Empire. On April 17 the Ulster Unionist Council issued a statement purporting to give the "actual facts" as to the recent military operations and the plans of the Government. The War Minister and Sir A. Paget had been in correspondence and personal con[Pg 81]sultation (March 15-19), and on March 20 the latter addressed the Irish generals, summoned by telegram. He then stated that the Government had determined to undertake active military operations against Ulster, and had made the offer already mentioned (p. 56) to the officers; General Gough had thereupon resigned. Later on that day Sir A. Paget set forth to a meeting of generals and staff-officers the outlines of the plan of operations. The troops guarding the depots at Armagh, Omagh, Carrickfergus, Enniskillen, and Dundalk were being strengthened, the Victoria Barracks at Belfast, untenable as being commanded by houses, were being vacated, and the inmates ordered to Holywood; and the barracks at Newry were being prepared for use by the advance corps of the operating forces. The Third Cavalry Brigade was to advance and occupy the bridges and strategic points on the Boyne; the Fifth Division was then to occupy these and release the cavalry for a further advance; the Sixth Division was to move up from the South of Ireland to take the places occupied by the Fifth Division; a force of 10,000 was to come from Lichfield and Aldershot, and these, with Artillery and Army Service and Army Medical Corps, would bring up the strength of the total force participating to 25,000. Belfast was to be blockaded by sea and land, two destroyers had been sent to take troops to Carrickfergus and keep open communications between Carrickfergus Castle and Holywood Barracks, two flotillas of destroyers were ordered to Belfast, and a battle squadron was ordered from Arosa Bay to the North. The Army was not to begin the fighting; the police would seize arms concealed by the Volunteers; this would inevitably lead to bloodshed, and then the Army and Navy would be called in. He spoke of "battle" and of "the enemy," and, as an inducement to one regiment reluctant to join, said that when the enemy had been located this regiment would be sent to suppress a disturbance "arranged" in Cork.

The Unionists found in this statement a complete confirmation of their views on the plot; the Liberal Press scoffed at it, the ex-War Minister solemnly declared (April 18) that his whole aim had been a peaceful settlement; and the Financial Secretary of the War Office (at Coventry, April 18) said that there was "not one shred of truth in the document." On April 21 Mr. Bonar Law asked for "a judicial inquiry" into the military movements in question; the Prime Minister replied that the proper course was to move a vote of censure, and offered a day; Mr. Bonar Law asked if the Prime Minister was afraid to have the facts tested on oath. Stormy scenes took place during the next few days at question time in the Commons; a Liberal motion was put down calling on the Opposition leader to substantiate his charges or withdraw them; and, after seeing Sir A. Paget's account of his conversations with his officers, issued, with other documents, as a White Paper on April 22, the Opposition decided to move for an[Pg 82] inquiry into the attempt to impose Home Rule on Ireland by force. This motion was debated on April 28.

The White Paper contained much new matter as to the orders to the Third Battle Squadron (p. 60), and it was elicited in Parliament (April 22) that the Prime Minister had only learnt of these orders on March 21, and had then caused them to be countermanded; it contained, also, Sir A. Paget's account of his conversations with his officers. He had said that he was ordered to carry out certain "moves of a precautionary nature," which the Government believed would be understood to be precautionary and would not be resisted, but which he thought would set the country and Press ablaze and might lead to active operations against organised bodies of the Ulster Volunteers; and he explained the "concessions" to officers. He had to know before the second conference (pp. 56, 81) whether the senior officers held that "duty came before other considerations," and therefore he said that any officer who would be unable to obey the orders to be given him should absent himself from that Conference. But he had no intention of ascertaining the intentions of subordinate officers. He merely wished them to be informed of the exemptions, and of the penalty for refusal of officers not exempted to obey orders. But four of the seven generals misunderstood, and thought that officers not prepared to do their duty were to say so, and would then be dismissed from the service. Most of the officers of the Fifth Division, and those of the Third Cavalry Brigade, were thus misinformed (with a slight difference in the latter case). He regretted the misapprehension, for which he alone was responsible.

Pending the debate on the proposed motion, the Army Annual Bill went through Committee (April 23) and Mr. Keir Hardie (Lab., Merthyr Tydfil) moved an amendment making it unlawful to employ troops in labour troubles unless all the available police force had first been called out, and then only with the consent of three resident magistrates. He also desired that the troops should not carry firearms, but batons, and should be under civil law. The Prime Minister, pointed out that the latter proposal was out of the question; the law was contained in the Report on the Featherstone disturbance (issued Dec., 1893) and no new practice should be established. Military interference should be as infrequent as possible, and happily the police was more efficient than fifty or a hundred years earlier. The amendment was ultimately ruled out of order.

Meantime the King and Queen had returned President Poincaré's visit of 1913 by a brilliantly successful visit to Paris. Favoured by fine weather, they left Victoria Station, April 21, with a suite including the British Foreign Minister, crossed from Dover to Calais in the Royal yacht Alexandra, escorted by the cruisers Nottingham and Birmingham, and were met en route by two French cruisers and a flotilla of torpedo boats and sub[Pg 83]marines. At the Bois de Boulogne station they were met by the President of the Republic and Madame Poincaré, with various high officials, and drove into Paris amid enthusiastic crowds. At the State banquet at the Elysée the same evening President Poincaré remarked that the day was the tenth anniversary of the conclusion of the Anglo-French entente, and that the agreements then made naturally gave birth to a more general understanding, which was and would thenceforth be one of the surest pledges of European equilibrium. He was confident that, under the auspices of the King and the King's Government, these bonds of intimacy would be drawn daily closer, to the great gain of civilisation and universal peace. The King's reply was cordial, but studiously non-political. He said that, thanks to the close and cordial relations resulting from the agreement, the two countries were able to collaborate in the humanitarian work of civilisation and peace. The programme of the visit included, besides this State banquet, a review at Vincennes on the Wednesday—a magnificent spectacle—followed by a banquet at the British Embassy and a gala performance at the opera; a visit on the day following to the races at Auteuil, a banquet given by M. Doumergue, the Premier, and the exchange of costly presents, the King giving the French Republic some fine bronze medallions taken from a statue of Louis XIV. during the first Revolution, and purchased by King George III. Sir Edward Grey had meanwhile conferred with the French Premier, and it was officially stated that various questions affecting the two countries had been taken into consideration, and the identity of view of the two Ministers on all points had manifested itself. While placing on record the results of the policy pursued by the two Governments together with that of Russia, the two Ministers were completely agreed that the three Powers should continue their constant efforts for the maintenance of the balance of power and of peace. Some publicists in both countries desired that the Entente should develop into an alliance; but the British Government was still reserved. The visit itself, however, greatly strengthened the good feeling between the two nations; "the State functions," as The Times remarked, were "conducted with a dignified splendour which no Court in Europe could excel," and which greatly impressed the British people; the King, on landing at Dover, declared that he and the Queen could never forget the warmth and hospitality of their reception, and it was clear that Their Majesties had won a popularity in Paris at least equal to that of King Edward VII.

Before the Opposition motion for an inquiry into the Ulster "plot," the Plural Voting Bill was read a second time (April 27). The rejection was moved by Mr. Hume Williams (U., Notts, Bassetlaw) and seconded by Sir J. Randles (U., Manchester, N. W.) and supported by the usual argument that the Bill would[Pg 84] alter only one anomaly, and that not the greatest, in the representative system, for the benefit of the supporters of the Government. The Colonial Secretary replied that the various Bills dealing with the subject had been killed by the Lords or the ladies, and there was no time to pass the other reforms desirable in the election laws. The penalties under the Bill were less than those imposed by the Tories in the County Councils Act. In 1906 every Liberal member had received a direct mandate to establish one man, one vote. He added that redistribution of seats was made possible by the Home Rule Bill, and should be passed by consent; and later the President of the Board of Trade promised that, if the plural vote were abolished, the Government would confer with the Opposition leaders as to the terms of appointment of a Redistribution Commission. He suggested single-member constituencies of approximately equal population, and indicated that details should be left to the Commission. The second reading was carried by 324 to 247.

The debate on the motion for an inquiry into the "plot to coerce Ulster" followed next day; but a new phase in the crisis had been revealed.

On March 9 a small Norwegian steamer, the Fanny, had taken aboard two members of the Ulster Unionist Council at Dysart, Fife; and at the end of the month she was reported from Berlin to be shipping rifles from a lighter, towed from Hamburg by a steamer, off Langeland, Denmark. Her papers were taken by the port authorities for examination, and she left without them. The arms, it was suggested, were for ex-President Castro's use in Venezuela, and it was afterwards stated that they were for Mexico. But Sir Edward Carson had intimated (March 13) that preparations were in hand; and on the night of April 24-25 some 35,000 rifles and 3,000,000 cartridges were landed at Larne from a steamer temporarily bearing the historic name Mountjoy, possibly (though this was denied) the Fanny, and were then distributed throughout Protestant Ulster by motor-lorries and motor-cars. About 10,000 of the rifles and much ammunition were also transhipped from the Mountjoy into the Roma (commandeered at Larne by Ulster Volunteers) and another steamer, and landed on the Down coast. Some 12,000 men in all were engaged in the landing. Volunteers guarded the roads, the telegraphs and telephones were interrupted, the coastguards were powerless, and the Custom officers and the police were ingeniously prevented from learning of the movement in time to interfere effectively. Every detail of the scheme had been admirably organised, and nothing was heard of it at Dublin Castle till noon on April 25.

Warships were now posted on the Ulster coast to stop further gun-running, and military measures were expected; and the Prime Minister was bombarded with questions in the House on April 27. Most of them had reference to the alleged "plot" against Ulster;[Pg 85] but in reply to a question from Mr. Lough (Islington, W.) as to the gun-running and the steps to be taken by the Government, Mr. Asquith replied that in view of this grave and unprecedented outrage the Government would take appropriate steps without delay to vindicate the authority of the law, and protect officers and servants of the King and His Majesty's subjects in the exercise of their duties and the enjoyment of their legal rights.

Other angry questions followed next day (April 28) and then the debate opened on the Unionist motion for an inquiry into the "plot." But it took an unsuspected turn. Various Liberal amendments had been put down to the effect that in view of what had happened subsequently (i.e. the gun-running) the Government would be supported in whatever measures it might take. Mr. Austen Chamberlain moved the motion, which demanded a full and impartial inquiry, in view of the "incompleteness and inaccuracy" of the statements of Ministers and of the continued failure of the Government to deal frankly with the situation. He reviewed the course of events since the Prime Minister's offer of March 9, referring to Mr. Churchill's Bradford speech, the incidents at the Curragh, the Prime Minister's statement of March 22 (which, he said, was misleading), and he complained that information was still withheld—the police reports on which the Government had acted, the instructions given to Sir A. Paget at the War Office, his address to his officers in Dublin and at the Curragh. He charged the First Lord of the Admiralty with inventing an elaborate story to support his account of Lord Morley's connexion with the peccant paragraphs, and said that Colonel Seely was only the tool of more astute and unscrupulous colleagues. [Popular rumour had specified the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.] He commented on the application for field-guns for the Fleet, the appointment of Sir Nevil Macready as virtual Military Governor of Belfast, and said also that the Government had "seized important strategic points." His charges against them were: (1) That they took measures, not against a few evilly disposed persons, but on the basis that conciliation was hopeless till they showed overwhelming force; (2) that the protection of stores was only a pretext; (3) that they insisted on movements which Sir A. Paget thought dangerous after he had done all he thought necessary to protect stores; (4) that the warships' movements were part of the larger plan never avowed by the Government, but applauded by their followers; (5) that the withdrawal of troops from Belfast could only be so explained; (6) that Sir A. Paget's announcement to his officers, that he would have 25,000 men, was not compatible with the story that only a minor movement was contemplated. For his own honour the Prime Minister should have a judicial inquiry.

The First Lord of the Admiralty, whose opening words raised a scene, described the resolution as resembling "a vote of[Pg 86] censure by the criminal classes on the police." The Statute Book applied to the action of the Unionists language far stronger than any they had the wit to use against Ministers. The Conservative party was committed to naked revolution, to tampering with military and naval discipline, obstructing highways and telegraphs, overpowering police and coastguards, piratical seizure of ships, and imprisonment of the King's servants. The democracy, who were urged to be patient, were learning how the party of law and order cared for law and order when it stood in the way of their wishes. And what of India, in view of the "devastating doctrine" of the Opposition leader? He did not wonder the old Conservatives were uncomfortable, but there was another section, which had instigated the resolution, and postponed "law and order" till it had to deal with Nationalists and Labour men. This section's lawlessness, if it succeeded, might convince Irish Nationalists that Ireland never gained anything except by force. The Orange Army was being used to destroy Liberal reform by setting up the veto of the force in place of that of the Peers. Coming to the substance of the motion, the First Lord treated the precautionary measures as consequent on the failure of the Prime Minister's offer for a settlement. Those who were preparing civil war were aiming at the subversion of Parliamentary government. The movement of the Fleet, decided upon on March 11, had reference to the general Irish situation. The protection of the depots was a separate question; they contained from thirty to eighty-five tons of ammunition, and were scattered about unprotected. The only ships used were two scouts, to avoid moving troops through Belfast, and two boys' training cruisers were diverted in the belief that the Great Northern Railway of Ireland would refuse to carry the troops, which it ultimately consented to do. The Government also made a confidential survey of the whole military position in Ireland. The War Office and Admiralty were constantly considering quite hypothetical contingencies, but here Sir A. Paget thought that the authorised movements might lead to far larger consequences. The Government did not accept his views, but it was a good fault to be over-cautious. He scornfully declined to give details of the precise measures to be taken against potential insurgents, but said the contingencies considered were: (1) an armed attack on the depots or the troops marching to protect them; (2) the measures to be taken if a Provisional Government were set up at Belfast. No movements were authorised, but Sir A. Paget was assured of support in any contingency, and if British troops were attacked it would be the duty of the Government to chastise the assailants. The use of force rested with the Opposition. The Government would not use it till it was used against the representatives of law and order. They had an absolute right to make much greater movements. The talk of[Pg 87] Civil War came from the Opposition. Did they think it was to be all on one side? References had been made to his Bradford speech; he held to it, but asked whether they could not reach a better solution. Let them look at the danger abroad; foreign countries did not know that at a touch of external menace we should lay aside our domestic quarrels, but why could men only do so under the influence of "a higher principle of hatred"? Why could not Sir E. Carson say boldly, Give me the amendments I ask for to safeguard the dignity and interests of Protestant Ulster, and I in my turn will use all my influence and goodwill to make Ireland an integral unit in a Federal system?

This suggestion made a good impression, but the speech was followed by stormy scenes. Mr. Mitchell Thomson (U., Down, N.) endeavoured to fix a charge of untruth on the Home Secretary, who had said, before the revised White Paper was published, that there was nothing further to add; Lord Charles Beresford (U.) described the First Lord as "a terrible failure" when in the Army; and Sir R. Pole-Carew (U.) also made a very provocative speech. Later Colonel Seely stated that Sir John French had told him the day before that "As part of a strategic movement such movements [as the precautionary movements taken] would be idiotic," and that Sir A. Paget had been assured in reply to an inquiry that he should have all the troops necessary if grave disorder arose. If that were a plot, no Government which did not make it was fit to remain in office. A new situation, however, had been caused by the gun-running, and the law must be vindicated at all costs.

The debate was resumed next day in a much more conciliatory tone. The Prime Minister said that the First Lord's closing suggestion had been made on his own responsibility; but he added that he was personally in sympathy with it. Mr. Balfour (U.), however, was less conciliatory. He described the First Lord's speech as "an outburst of demagogic rhetoric," and reviewed the history of the "plot" from his own standpoint, saying that the Government had found it necessary to protect the stores by preparations almost as extensive as those of the United States in Mexico. He found discrepancies in the accounts, and intimated that the Government had adopted the odious rôle of the agent provocateur. Challenged by the First Lord to produce evidence of provocation, he said the evidence was in his speech, and they might have an inquiry. Civil war would be alike justifiable and ruinous; but the First Lord's suggestion seemed to have the promise and potency of a settlement which would avoid it. He thought nothing could do so save the total exclusion of North-East Ulster. The Government seemed afraid lest this should be regarded as a party triumph. He would not so regard it. For the greater part of his own political life he had been defending the Union. He had hoped for the removal of[Pg 88] grievances, for the growth of a common hope, a common loyalty, confidence in a common heritage, between the islands, under a common Parliament. For that he had striven and worked; if the result was that a separate Parliament should be established in Dublin, he should regard it as the mark of the failure of his life's work.

Later, Sir E. Carson (U.) after reading from a Belfast trade unionist manifesto to show the gravity of the crisis, and laying stress on the weakening it entailed in the position of Great Britain abroad, said that he would not quarrel with the matter or the manner of the First Lord's proposal. He referred to his speech at Manchester (A.R., 1913, p. 249) to show that they would not complain if Ulster got equal treatment with other parts of the United Kingdom, and said that he was not very far from the First Lord. He would say that, if Home Rule passed, his most earnest hope would be that it might be such a success that Ulster might come in under it, and that mutual confidence and goodwill might arise in Ireland rendering Ulster a stronger unit in the Federal Scheme. But that could only be brought about by goodwill. All he wanted was loyally to carry out his promises to those who had trusted him, and to get for them terms preserving their dignity and their civil and religious freedom.

Subsequently Mr. Bonar Law (U.), after defending his own strong language by reference to that of the Unionist leaders in 1886 and 1893, and the action of Ulster and the Unionist support of it by the American War of Independence, and Mr. Gladstone's concession to the Boers after Majuba, urged the Government to realise and meet the position before bloodshed came. Restating the Opposition view of the "plot," and criticising discrepancies in the official accounts, he described one of the orders as "suited to the Napoleonic genius of the commander at the Sidney Street siege" (A.R., 1911, p. 2). But the Unionists were really thinking of the finding of any tolerable way out of an impossible position. They were ready to consider seriously the Federal solution, and he was quite prepared to agree to a renewal of the "conversations" (p. 5). If the Prime Minister preferred to deal with Lord Lansdowne or another Unionist, he would let no amour propre stand in the way.

The Prime Minister said that they had learnt from the Opposition leader the flimsy and contemptible character of the Opposition case. An undefined and unknown body was to be set up to inquire into a mare's nest. The grounds alleged were that the Government had withheld information and had given misleading information. Since his re-election he had answered at least 500 questions on this matter; the time-honoured practice of the House had been degraded in a manner reminiscent of the worst traditions of the Old Bailey. Having gone through that experi[Pg 89]ence with as much good temper as the conditions permitted, he gave fair notice that after the next day he would answer no further questions on the matter. As to the charge of giving misleading information (through The Times) he had not mentioned that besides the small cruisers there were eight destroyers. The Cabinet had authorised the ordering of the battle squadron to Lamlash ten days earlier than the precautionary movements, and the two movements were independent of one another. He heard that the order had actually been given on Saturday (March 21) and suggested, in view of the public excitement, that it should be countermanded. This was done, and his statement on Sunday night was the strict truth. He did not know about the destroyers till some days later. After defending himself as to a charge of misleading the public as to the questioning of officers, he described the "plot" as one of the absurdest stories in the annals of mankind. Having made a conciliatory offer to the Ulstermen, would the Government, have engineered a plot for their provocation? He briefly summarised the Government's account of the measures described as the "plot," and remarked that an Opposition whose leader said it might be the duty of officers to disobey the law, and which had been admiring a "piratical adventure," had never presented a flimsier case against a responsible Government. But the debate would be remembered for the speeches of Mr. Balfour and Sir E. Carson. He did not think settlement would be successfully attempted by bargaining across the House, and every one must be brought in, Ulstermen and Nationalist. It must be accepted with sincerity by all the parties concerned. He took note of Mr. Bonar Law's statements, and fully recognised that his speech was meant to help a settlement. That spirit the Government entirely reciprocated. He would never close the door on any means of reaching a settlement, provided it secured the sincere assent of those mainly interested.

The motion was rejected by 344 to 264. The Nationalists were said to be rather disquieted at the tone of the Ministerial speeches.

The negotiations for a settlement were now privately resumed, and the hopes of their success had been strengthened by the smooth passage through the Upper House of the Army (Annual) Bill (April 27, 28). There had been frequent rumours that the extreme Unionist Peers would either throw it out or seek to insert a clause forbidding troops to be used to force Home Rule on Ulster—a course which would have so delayed the measure as gravely to imperil the discipline of the Army throughout the Empire; but the design, if it had ever been seriously contemplated, was abandoned, possibly because of the explosion of wrath occasioned by the belief that the Army was being used as a political instrument by the Unionists. But the Marquess of Lansdowne, at the annual meeting of the Primrose League at[Pg 90] the Albert Hall (May 1), was not altogether encouraging. The first part of his speech was an elaborate attack on the Government. He detected signs of a "chastened spirit" among Ministers, but they were not sufficiently their own masters to make an effective proposal. He carefully defined the attitude of the Opposition, insisting that they maintained their objection to Home Rule and the temporary exclusion of Ulster, but they were ready to examine a federal solution provided that Ulster could find an honourable and acceptable place in it, and that it was consistent with the interests of the rest of the United Kingdom. And Mr. Balfour and Viscount Milner, at a meeting next day at Coventry, were pessimistic. Mr. Balfour spoke of the recognition by some Ministers of "the clean-cut separation of the North-East of Ireland from any scheme of Home Rule"; and "the clean cut" passed into a catchword.

One of the stock bases of attacks on Ministers, meanwhile, had been further undermined by the unanimous Report (issued April 30) of the Select Committee of the House of Lords which had investigated the charges against Lord Murray of Elibank (p. 32). The accusers, the proprietors of the Morning Post and Mr. Leo Maxse of the National Review, had been required by the Committee to formulate their charges, and did so in print. No other charges were considered, though letters were received making allegations against Lord Murray which no one attempted to substantiate. The principal charge was substantially that in regard to his purchase of American Marconi shares at 2l. each from Sir Rufus Isaacs on April 17, 1912 (A.R., 1913, p. 72), he had acted in a way which in his position was dishonourable; in this and in his other purchases (for his own account in the open market on May 22, and for the Liberal party fund on April 18, 1912) the Committee found that he had acted without sufficient thought, but acquitted him of dishonourable conduct. The latter purchase was not, as was suggested, made from any one representing the English company. With his choice of trust investments the Committee had no concern. He ought, however, to have given his successor as Chief Whip full information as to his purchase of shares for the party fund, and to have had full information as to his dealings in American Marconis laid before the Commons Committee. Three other charges were wholly rejected: (1) that he used his position as Chief Whip to avoid discussion of the Marconi contract in Parliament; (2) that he bought railway stock for the party funds during the coal strike, knowing that a settlement was pending which would send it up; and (3) that he had given time to Mr. Fenner, the stockbroker, in order to avoid inconvenient disclosures. He had taken on himself a loss of 40,000l. He had admittedly committed errors, but had done nothing reflecting on his personal honour. But there ought to be an absolute rule prohibiting stock speculation to any person holding public office.

[Pg 91]

To return to Parliament, the Post Office Estimates were discussed in the Commons on April 30. The Postmaster-General stated that the expenditure was 26,150,000l., an increase of 1,770,000l., due to the increased pay of the employees. The estimated revenue was 31,750,000l., but the debt was 31,600,000l. The postal service proper showed a profit of 6,250,000l.; the telegraphs a loss of 350,000l., the telephones a profit of 300,000l. Pay of employees would be increased by about 2,000,000l. partly because of the Report of the Holt Committee (A.R., 1913, p. 255). But there would also be a minimum wage of 22s. per week for every full-time employee in Great Britain. The Post Office dealt with 3,470,000,000 letters yearly, and the surplus of its savings bank deposits over withdrawals was 12,000,000l. and the profit 160,000l. annually. He recommended legislation against the transmission of betting circulars, of which vast quantities were sent by English bookmakers established in Switzerland. The subsequent debate dealt mainly with the alleged inadequacy of the Holt Report; the Committee had found that the cost of living had risen 11.3 per cent., but had awarded a rise of wages averaging 4½ per cent. at once, and eventually 7 per cent. Mr. Pointer (Lab.) said the postal servants would accept the decision of a Board of Arbitration on this portion of the Report. Mr. Holt (L.), Chairman of the Committee, condemned the claim of the employees for a 15 per cent. increase. The discussion was resumed later (post, p. 116).

The next business of importance in the Commons was the Budget; but, before proceeding to it we must, as usual, supplement the particulars already given by a brief view of the Civil Service Estimates, summarising from the accompanying Memorandum of the Secretary to the Treasury.

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

The Budget, which had been postponed because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had temporarily lost his voice, was taken on May 4. It had been awaited with special interest in view of the Prime Minister's pronouncement at Oldham as to the income tax (A.R., 1913, p. 252) and of the promises of a revision of the system of Imperial grants in aid of local taxation (A.R., 1913, p. 58; 1911, p. 22). In view of the Ministerial attitude to food taxes, insurances had been effected against reduction or abolition of the sugar duty at premiums rising since March from 10 to 30 per cent., and also, at lower rates, against reduction or abolition of the tea, coffee, and cocoa duties, and increase of those on alcoholic liquors. But the Budget proved to be less sensational than was expected.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer began by pointing out that his forecast of 1913 had been more than justified (A.R., 1913, p. 102). Trade had reached its highest point, unemployment its lowest, and hardly any other country had had a like experience. He had estimated an increased revenue of 6,000,000l.; the increase had been unprecedented—9,441,000l. He had had, however, to meet Supplementary Estimates of 3,371,000l., against which were set savings in various departments of 1,500,000l. The deficiency he had to face was 1,860,000l. The increase of revenue enabled him to pay the Supplementary Estimates, wipe out the deficit, leave the 1,000,000l. which he had proposed to take from the Exchequer balances, and end with a surplus of 750,000l. The new taxes of 1909 had yielded 27,215,000l., the national income had increased since that year by 140 to 150 millions, and the national savings by 1,750,000,000l. The revenue from these taxes had sufficed for all their proposed aims except the relief of local taxation, and, but for increased naval expenditure, it would have sufficed for that likewise. In the current year the estimated expenditure was increased by 8,492,000l. and the conditions of revenue were very difficult to forecast. The total estimated revenue from existing sources was 200,655,000l., the total expenditure, apart from the new projects, 205,985,000l., leaving a deficit of 5,330,000l. But the readjustment of the relations of Imperial and local finance had long been imperative. He referred to the Commission which reported in 1901, and to the pledge of the Government in 1908 (A.R., 1908,[Pg 94] p. 42). Local authorities had immensely wide functions, but inadequate means; Parliament for forty years had almost annually imposed new powers on them, making hardly any provision to meet the cost. Rates in some districts had doubled in twenty or thirty years; slums could not be cleared because the cost was prohibitive (though this was not altogether a question of rates), and education demanded assistance. The existing system of rating was indefensible, discouraging improvements and very unequal in its incidence. A workman in a town paid about 5 per cent. of his income in rates, a supertax payer 1 or 2 per cent., a tradesman 9 and (in London) 13 per cent. The basis of taxation was too narrow, and the system of assigned revenues and of the Agricultural Rating Act had failed. Further and substantial aid from the Exchequer was necessary to save the municipalities from bankruptcy; but mere subsidies without conditions would be pernicious. There should be a national system of valuation for local taxation, involving the taxation of site values; the machinery for this existed already, and the effect would be to relieve owners who had spent heavily on improvements; but there must be a time-limit, or one might go back to the Roman period. The distribution of relief would give the greatest proportion of it to the most hard-pressed areas; the grants would bear a direct relation to the expenditure; the assigned revenues would be abolished, and efficient service would be a condition of the grant. These grants, for England and Wales in the first full year, would be: Poor law, 3,615,000l.; police, 3,400,000l.; criminal prosecutions, 120,000l.; suppression of cattle disease, 71,300l.; mental deficiency (optional provisions), 45,000l. additional; small grants under Shops and Employment of Children Acts, 22,500l.; Reformatories and Industrial Schools, 22,000l. additional; Public Health, 4,000,000l. (first year, l,300,000l.); Tuberculosis, Nursing, and Pathological Laboratories, 750,000l. The Education grant would be reconstituted on the principles sanctioned by the Kempe Committee (post, Chron., March 30), so as to give the greatest relief to the poorest districts and to those where the expenditure was highest. For the current year the increase—2,750,000l. for England and Wales only—would be confined to the necessitous areas. But besides this, the Exchequer would contribute half the cost of feeding necessitous school children, and give further grants for health work—physical training, open-air schools, crippled and feeble-minded children, and maternity centres, and for technical, secondary, and higher education. These grants for the first year would be 560,000l., the health grants 282,000l. For insurance, also, there would be further assistance, 1,250,000l. for the whole United Kingdom. Something would be done for deposit contributors, and health lectures would be established. The grant would be distributed on the "Goschen principle"—80 per cent, for England and Wales, 11 per cent. for Scotland, and 9 per cent. for Ireland, omitting[Pg 95] education and police, which were almost exclusively paid for there by Imperial grants. The grant would begin on December 1, subject to the condition that legislation as to the basis of distribution, including valuation, should have passed in time. For the current year the new grants would increase the deficit by 4,218,000l., and he needed a margin of 252,000l. He had, therefore, to find 9,800,000l. The best method of equalising the burden was by a graduated income tax. A local income tax, according to experts, would not work; in Germany it drove away the men with large independent incomes. He would not interfere with earned incomes up to 1,000l. a year, but after that the scale would be: 1,000l. to 1,500l., 10½d. in the pound; 1,500l. to 2,000l., 1s.; 2,000l. to 2,500l., 1s. 2d.; 2,500l. to 3,000l., 1s. 4d. On unearned income and all income above 3,000l. it would be 1s. 4d. The allowance for each child of 7s. 6d. in the case of incomes under 500l. would be doubled; and the 25 per cent. limit on deduction for repairs would be abolished. The supertax would begin at 3,000l. instead of 5,000l.; the first 500l. would be excepted, the next 1,000l. charged 7d., the next 9d., the next 11d., the next 1s. 1d., the next 1s. 3d., and the remainder 1s. 4d. The total yield of this and the existing supertax would be 7,770,000l. in a full year. Incomes left abroad for reinvestment, which had been exempted actually by a decision of the Courts, would be included by means of declarations, with penalties and recovery when death duties became payable. The death duties would increase by 1 per cent. for estates between 60,000l. and 200,000l. and thereafter to a maximum of 20 per cent. for 1,000,000l. Relief would be granted, however, in cases of rapid succession to property, by remissions of estate duty on realty and stock-in-trade, varying from 50 per cent. if death occurred within one year of succeeding to property to 10 per cent. if it occurred within five years. The settlement estate duty would be abolished, and settled property treated like any other. These taxes together would produce 8,800,000l. for the current year, and he would fill the gap by taking a million from the Sinking Fund, seeing that the existing Government had paid off 104,000,000l. of debt and by 1915 would have paid off 114,000,000l. Direct and indirect taxation, which were equally balanced when the Government came into office, would now be 60 and 40 per cent. of the whole respectively. In conclusion, he claimed that the Government were honourably fulfilling pledges and taking a decisive step towards the greater happiness and efficiency of the people and the greater strength and honour of the land.

The complexity of the Budget proposals precluded immediate discussion. Mr. Austen Chamberlain condemned the proposal to have recourse to the Sinking Fund, partly in view of the new charges, amounting already to 21,000,000l., added by the Government under Old Age Pensions and Insurance alone. A number[Pg 96] of questions were asked by other members, and answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, after the resolution enacting the new income tax had been agreed to, the House adjourned early—at 7.15 P.M.

The following table shows the Estimated Revenue for 1914-15, compared with the Receipts of 1913-14.

The following table shows the Estimated Expenditure, 1914-15, compared with the Issues of 1913-14.

The final balance sheet, 1914-15, as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was as follows:—

[Pg 97]

The Budget was well received by the Liberal and Labour parties, chiefly because of its expected furtherance of great social reforms; the Unionists strongly condemned the new valuation provisions and the increases of the supertax and of the death duties, and argued that it must encourage the policy of doles which, when practised by Lord Salisbury's Ministry, the Liberal party had condemned. Lord Esher, in a letter to The Times, put forward an objection savouring of a familiar economic fallacy, to the effect that it would diminish employment by causing the discharge of servants and others engaged in ministering to the luxury of the rich. Liberals retorted that the Unionists had intended to readjust Imperial and local taxation, partly with the revenue they expected from Tariff Reform; they had also made political capital out of the dangerous financial position of the friendly societies and the grievances under the Insurance Act of the casual labourer, and these evils the Budget proposed to remove. Thus the controversy made indirectly for a renewal of party conflict on the other pending issues.

The general Budget debate was taken on the resolution continuing the tea duty (May 6, 7, 11). Mr. Austen Chamberlain (U.) opened the attack, pointing out the disappointing yield of the new land taxes and the immense cost of their collection both to the State and to individual taxpayers, and also the enormous increase, present and prospective, of national expenditure, on which the Treasury, he said, had ceased to act as a check. In years of less prosperity and any serious complication this would involve great injury to the State—loss of credit, and of elasticity of finance. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raided the new Sinking Fund, and held that an undue[Pg 98] burden of taxation was being thrown on the rich. Let Liberals consider how the line could be drawn between the proposed taxation and that advocated by the hon. member for Blackburn [Mr. Snowden, a Socialist]. "Unearned" income might well be the result of labour and self-denial, and on incomes between 700l. and 1,000l. a tax of 1s. 4d. in the pound in peace time was a tremendous burden. The increase of the death duties interfered with provision for them by insurance, and the abolition of the settlement estate duty involved a breach of contract. An unjust burden must not be placed on the few because they were few. The real interest of the Budget, however, was in the other Bills it would entail on rating, valuation, insurance, education, and housing. The new Valuation Department would be very costly and far less satisfactory than the local assessment committees, and the effect of the Budget on the local authorities was quite uncertain. Its proposals marked the abandonment of the Liberal tradition of the extension of local responsibility and of retrenchment, and left no resources for war taxation.

The Financial Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Montagu) replied that the new taxes mainly went to decrease existing burdens. The debt per head was lighter than it had been since the Napoleonic wars; in 1887 it was 20.11l. per head, in 1899 15.52l., and in 1914 15.37l. Relatively to the estimated wealth of the country it had diminished since 1906. Wealth had many political weapons besides the numbers of the wealthy, and the actual rate of income-tax paid was usually far below the nominal rate. National wealth grew much more rapidly than taxation. The valuation had greatly increased the yield from the death duties; and it was only fair that the Imperial taxpayer should have a substantial control over the expenditure of the money he found.

Of other speakers, Mr. Mills (U., Middlesex, Uxbridge) said, that national debt was being reduced out of national capital, and that the Budget would undermine the international position of the City in finance; Mr. Pretyman (U.), resuming the debate (May 7) bitterly complained of the burdens imposed on agricultural properties by the settlement and estate duties, denounced the treatment of the settlement duty as a disgraceful breach of a contract, made by Sir William Harcourt in 1894, and argued that, as the Bills appropriating the money could not be passed except in an autumn session, which it was officially stated would not take place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a large surplus at the end of the year. Mr. Snowden (Lab., Blackburn) heartily approved the new taxes, and predicted that in 1924 the Budget would have reached 250,000,000l. The nation could never before afford this expenditure so well, and the taxes, by furthering social reform, benefited landlords and employers. The Labour party would renew their demand for the removal of the taxes on food.[Pg 99] Mr. Wedgwood (L., Newcastle-under-Lyme) mentioned that unless the local authorities were limited to using the grants for improvements, the Liberals who desired taxation of land values would block all other legislation, and Mr. Steel Maitland (U., Birmingham, E.) said that what was wanted was not control by the Treasury but control of the Treasury.

On May 11, after further criticisms, the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied. He remarked that nothing had been said of Tariff Reform. The criticisms were "muddle-headed and contradictory"; the money raised would help employment in more effective ways than those it was supposed to injure. Grants in aid had been applauded and asked for by the Opposition, and the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896 had been financed out of the revenue from Sir William Harcourt's death duties. He admitted that the taxes on small incomes raised certain grievances, but the difficulty was that allowance on unearned incomes was hampered by collection at source. The case of widows with small incomes and children would be met by doubling the allowance made [under the Budget of 1909] for the children, and in other cases by extending rebates on application—which, however, would involve the establishment of a horde of officials. For incomes under 300l. the tax would be 1s. instead of 1s. 2d. As to the settlement estate duty he promised to consider one case—where a testator left a life interest in his property to his wife with reversion to the children; but as to the other taxes, there was really no criticism. The Government would insist, before the money was distributed, on a valuation differentiating between improvements and site value, and on a statutory provision that relief should be granted only in respect of improvements, not of site; till this could be done—in the second half of the financial year 1915-16—there would be provisional arrangements for distribution. He defended the expenditure as a good investment and spoke of "a 1s. 4d. extra insurance against revolution." His defence was severely criticised by Mr. Long (U.), but the Budget resolutions were agreed to by majorities varying from 81 (in the case of the tea duty) to 102 in the case of the tax on earned income, which was carried by 290 to 188. The members dividing numbered approximately 370 to 400.

Meantime a well-meant effort towards at least a provisional solution of the women's suffrage question was being attempted in the House of Lords by the Women's Enfranchisement Bill, conferring the Parliamentary franchise on those women—estimated at about 1,000,000—who possessed the municipal suffrage. The Earl of Selborne, in moving it (May 5), after condemning militancy as "not only criminal, but stupid," said that there were very few facts in dispute. Many of the most able and highly educated women earnestly desired the franchise, and even if many women did not, that was no reason for depriving those who did.[Pg 100] Women would divide along the same lines as men. The anti-suffragists held at bottom that only the fit should vote, but in that case many men would lose the vote, and many women would have it. Instinct and character had to be considered more than fitness, and he thought women generally cared more for their religion and their country than men did. The Bill would therefore add to the stability of the State. The majority of those whom it would enfranchise were poor women—many of them widows with children—who had fought the battle of life and triumphed. Dominion and American experience was treated as irrelevant, but the human nature of women was the same. Women would be on the side of the angels against the political machine. Earl Curzon of Kedleston, opposing, held that the measure would weaken British prestige. Hitherto Bills affecting the franchise had always originated in the Commons. The great majority of the women admitted by the Bill would be unmarried, and if women were to be enfranchised at all, married women were the best qualified. Only 25 or 30 per cent. of the municipal women electors voted, and an insignificant number stood. To give women the vote would entail their admission to Parliament and the Cabinet. The militant organisation was widespread and powerful, and militancy was widely connived at by other organisations, such as the Church League for Women's Suffrage. Would it cease if women got the vote, or be carried into politics? The question was not of equality of the sexes, but of fitness to discharge public duties. The million would eventually be swollen to five or ten millions, and then women might combine as a sex against men. Lords Newton and Tenterden supported the Bill; so did the Lord Chancellor, partly on the ground of the need of women's help in industrial questions and social problems, notably in infant mortality and the decline of the birth rate. Militancy was a bad symptom which showed the need of action. Lord Ampthill opposed the Bill; the Bishop of London avowed himself a convert, in spite of the bomb placed under his throne (A.R., 1913, p. 112). The unrest was caused by a deep-seated feeling of injustice. The qualification for municipal bodies excluded all women but a tiny minority. Housing, the raising of the age of consent, and Sunday closing needed the support of women's votes. The Bishop of Oxford also strongly supported the Bill, eulogising the suffragist women. Next day Lord Courtney of Penwith supported the Bill "as a small experiment," dwelling on the progress made by the women's movement, not yet fifty years old, and dwelling on the action of women in School Board elections, on Royal Commissions, and in political work. Of later speakers, Lord Willoughby de Broke complained that the Press suppressed the public expression of the movement and so misled the public as to its strength; Viscount St, Aldwyn said that the municipal franchise was the least suitable basis for extension, and[Pg 101] the Bill would be rejected by the electorate. He deprecated the increasing activity of women in political work. The Marquess of Crewe thought that, while the cause of women's suffrage was making progress, the country was not yet convinced. Amid laughter, he said that, regarding the Bill as a purely Conservative measure, he would give a purely party vote against it. The Earl of Lytton said that separate legislation for women implied their separate representation. There were five million women workers competing with men represented in Parliament. Women, he showed in detail, had given overwhelming evidence of their demand for the vote, and would be satisfied with any removal of the sex disability. The Bill would settle no more than that. He laid stress [being the brother of a militant] on the magnificent qualities wasted in militancy—courage, self-devotion, self-sacrifice—waste which could only be stopped by granting the demand. The Bill was rejected by 104 to 60.

Brief mention only can be made of two discussions on subjects unexpectedly illuminated by the later experience of the year. On May 6 Mr. Morrell (L., Burnley) moved a resolution in favour of negotiation for the abolition of the capture of private property at sea; and the Foreign Secretary specified the terms on which the Government would agree. And on May 13 Mr. Bird (U., Wolverhampton) moved a resolution demanding State provision against the danger of starvation and enforced capitulation in case of war. He claimed that six months' supply of wheat should be ensured, as the actual amount in the country was sufficient for only six weeks, except just after harvest, when sixteen weeks' supply existed, and he advocated a scheme of free storage, suggesting also reduced taxation on grain-growing land and the building of swift grain ships. A scheme of Government insurance of food-carrying ships was suggested in the debate. The President of the Board of Agriculture indicated that such a scheme was under examination, and further that the question of supply had been carefully studied, and that it had been ascertained that there need be no anxiety in war time, provided the arrangements made for distribution were carried out. The chief source of security must be the Navy. Both motions were talked out.

The monotony of the political struggle was somewhat relieved by the state visit of the King and Queen of Denmark (May 9-13), who were received alike by their Royal relatives and by the people of London with all possible honour and goodwill. Both Kings laid stress in the speeches at the state banquet at Buckingham Palace (May 9) on the growth of commercial and friendly intercourse between the two nations; so did the King of Denmark and the Lord Mayor at the entertainment given by the City Corporation at the Guildhall (May 12); the Order of the Garter was conferred on the Danish monarch, the visitors were entertained at a gala performance at the opera, and presented with an address[Pg 102] by the Common Council. The visit, however, had probably no great political significance.

The Parliamentary conflict was resumed when the Prime Minister introduced a resolution (May 12) to dispense with discussion on the Committee stage of the Home Rule, Welsh Church, and Plural Voting Bills, and on the financial resolutions necessary for the two former measures. The discussion on the financial resolutions, he said, had proved valueless in 1913; and the so-called "suggestion stage" was intended to apply only to exceptional cases—to the correction of some error or oversight, or to amendments consistent with the principle and purpose of the Bill in question. But the Opposition declined any responsibility for the Home Rule Bill, so that the consideration of suggestions was nugatory. The only proper way of carrying out an agreed settlement, for which he hoped, was by an Amending Bill. The House would be asked to give the Home Rule Bill a third reading before Whitsuntide, but the Government would go forward another step, and make itself responsible for an amending Bill, which might pass—perhaps not in its original shape—practically at the same time as the Home Rule Bill. As to the Welsh Church Bill, the suggested amendments, which seemed to have been put down as part of a concerted policy, would completely transform the Bill into a measure which the House could not accept. The House of Lords might amend these Bills if it liked, and the Commons would consider their amendments. To the Plural Voting Bill no amendments were suggested. The course proposed evoked protests from the Opposition, and Mr. Bonar Law (U.), in a bitter speech, declared that the Parliament Act had taken the interest out of the debates. Ministers did not trouble to attend, and great damage had been done to the House and still more to the representative system. The forces which would decide the Home Rule question were outside the House. He charged the Government with a change of front on the suggestion stage with regard to the Welsh Church Bill; whether they had it or not now depended on the House of Lords. It would be quite possible to let the Chairman select suggested amendments for discussion. As to the projected Amending Bill, he saw less hope of a settlement than there had been six months earlier; the Government must either (1) submit the Bill to the country, (2) coerce Ulster, (3) or exclude Ulster. While refusing all responsibility for Home Rule, the Unionists, if it were to be carried, would do their best to help the Government to carry it without civil strife. The only conversations of any interest would be those between the Prime Minister and Mr. Redmond. He attributed the Ministerial refusal to disclose the Amending Bill to Mr. Redmond's insistence that the Home Rule Bill should pass before Whitsuntide, so as to strengthen the Nationalist position. When it had passed, however, the Nationalist members[Pg 103] would find it difficult to make concessions, and the Ulstermen would have no confidence that the Amending Bill would pass, and so there would be a real and unnecessary risk of bloodshed.

Mr. Gladstone (L., Kilmarnock Burghs) protested against the suppression of the suggestion stage for the Welsh Church Bill as a bad precedent and an encroachment on the independence of members. Later, Mr. Balfour (U.) said that the suggestion stage, for which the Speaker had had to improvise the machinery, was ill thought out at first and excessively difficult to work in practice. He complained that the House was asked to force through under the Parliament Act a Bill admittedly requiring amendment without knowing how it was to be amended. They were to vote without knowing what the real measure was which was being forced on the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer retorted that, if every offer by the Government was to be treated as an admission that their proposal was defective, that was the way to promote civil war (a declaration which caused a stormy scene). He added that the proposals embodied in the Amending Bill were known to be those made by the Premier (p. 39), and that a suggestion stage on the Welsh Bill would be useless if, as had been intimated, the House of Lords meant to reject it. The Opposition wanted one, in order to waste time and to embarrass the Government. Mr. Redmond said that the Government had had another lesson as to the inevitable effect of making advances to the Opposition. He could not, however, approve of the Prime Minister's decision to introduce an Amending Bill even if the negotiations between the leaders should fail, and if one were introduced after such failure he held himself absolutely free to deal with it. It could not be passed except by agreement, and every fresh offer by the Government only hardened the Opposition, who had made no concession. He was prepared to run great risks and make great sacrifices for a peaceful settlement, but the position in which it was sought to put the Nationalists was unfair and intolerable. They had the consolation of knowing that the vision which had sustained them would be realised. (Mr. Redmond's closing words were greeted with prolonged Liberal cheers.) Later, Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen (U., Dudley) moved an amendment declining to restrict the time for discussing the remaining stages of the Home Rule and Welsh Church Bills till the Government had given an opportunity for discussing suggestions for amendment. Eventually this was rejected by 293 to 217; but, at the instance of Mr. Cassel (U., West St. Pancras), an opportunity was given for discussing the financial resolution under the Home Rule Bill. The Government's motion, thus amended, was carried by 276 to 194.

Just before the first of these divisions a Unionist victory was announced at the Grimsby bye-election, due to the death of Sir George Doughty (Chron., May 12). The Unionists retained the[Pg 104] seat, but with a reduced majority, on a heavier poll than at the last general election; but the Liberal candidate, though no politician, was popular (as the late member had been) among the fishermen, and the Liberals had hoped to win.

The financial resolution necessary for the Welsh Church Bill was discussed for three hours on May 13. It authorised the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums necessary to pay the principal and interest of money borrowed by the Commissioners for the purposes of the Bill—no money being available from the endowments taken until life interests began to fall in. The object of the resolution was to enable the Commissioners to borrow at a lower rate than they could have without this Treasury guarantee. It was still doubtful whether the Church would accept commutation, and the Opposition pressed in vain for the Commissioners' names. Ultimately an amendment omitting "principal" was rejected by 215 to 304, and the resolution was carried by 306 to 218.

The "Federal Solution" of the Home Rule problem was indirectly touched upon on May 15, when the second reading of the Government of Scotland Bill was moved by Mr. Macpherson (L., Ross and Cromarty). He explained that the Bill was practically the same as that of 1913 (A.R., 1913, p. 124), except for the inclusion of a clause giving the suffrage to women. It was not a Separation Bill, and the seventy-two Scottish members would remain at Westminster pending a complete scheme of devolution; but Scotland sought control of limited and local functions peculiarly her own. The Bill was the first plank in the Scottish Liberal programme, and devolution was supported by the Royal Convention of Scottish Burghs and was necessary to end the neglect of Scottish interests—especially education, the land law, and the fishermen's vote. Mr. W. Young (L., Perthshire, E.), seconding, dissented strongly from the clause introducing women's suffrage. The Bill was opposed by Mr. Mackinder (U., Glasgow, Camlachie), who, while approving of devolution, objected to the retention of the Scottish members at Westminster, which would rivet the Liberal tyranny on England; the financial clauses would create friction, and Scotland would lose her influence on Imperial affairs. The objects of the Bill might be attained by a Standing Committee sitting in Scotland. Subsequently Mr. Clyde (U., Edinburgh, W.) argued that industrial and trade legislation should be assimilated in England and Scotland, and that one Parliament could do this better than two. The two countries, however, might well revise their common administrative system. Mr. Balfour (U.) said that none of the supporters of the measure had dealt with its practical operation, and that nothing would be done by giving administrative or even legislative Home Rule to Scotland to facilitate the expression of Scottish nationality; it was only after the Union that Scotland showed what she could do in litera[Pg 105]ture, art, government and war. The advocates of the Bill were mixing up two questions—separate administration and Scottish nationalism. A system of devolution was impossible if the different local Parliaments and Executives were to have different powers. If such crazy methods were adopted, how could the Imperial Parliament be relieved? England would not approve a system under which it would have less power to manage its own affairs than Scotland or Ireland. Claims would be made for the removal of restrictions in the Scottish Bill which were absent from the Irish, and then the Imperial Parliament would be again plunged into discussing the re-hash of our Constitution. The machinery established would tend further to disintegrate the Union. For devolution there must be a thought-out plan equally applicable to each several part of the United Kingdom. After a reply from the Scottish Secretary, who commented on the absence of Unionist Federalists, and described the question as simply one of administrative and legislative convenience, the Bill was talked out; but the speech of the Scottish Secretary, coupled with previous Ministerial utterances, led some Scottish members to press, though vainly, for the introduction of a Government Bill.

The Welsh Church Bill finally left the House on May 19, after two days' debate. In reply to a question, the Home Secretary announced the names of the Commissioners—Sir Henry Primrose, Sir William Plender, and Sir J. Herbert Roberts (L., Denbighshire, W.). (Only the first named accepted a salary—1,500l. annually.) The Report of the financial resolution and the resolution suppressing debate on the Report stage of the Bill were carried on the previous day, each by precisely the same numbers (298 to 204), and then, on the third reading, the rejection was moved by Mr. Hume Williams (U., Notts, Bassetlaw). He laid stress on the demonstrations and "miles of petitions" against the Bill, and said that it had only been carried by the Nationalist vote. What good, he asked, would Disendowment do to any one? Mr. E. Wood (U., Ripon), seconding the rejection, quoted the Dean of Ripon, a Liberal and Broad Churchman, as saying that the Bill would intensify the difficulties in the co-operation of Churchmen and Nonconformists, and laid stress on the danger of weakening the Church in the struggle for social reform and the conversion of the heathen. Mr. W. Jones (L., Carnarvon, Arfon) said that the Nonconformist quarrel was not with religion or with the Church, but with Establishment. Petitions only showed what a grand thing the ballot box was. In all the great divisions on the Bill, if the Ulster members were eliminated as well as the Nationalists, the British majorities ranged from 27 to 42. The movement for separation of Church and State originated in the Welsh religious revival, which had transformed the moral, religious and intellectual life of the people. The endowments were wanted for[Pg 106] the nation; and he laid stress on the multiplication of Welsh Nonconformist and Welsh Anglican Churches, without State endowment, in London, Liverpool, North America and Argentina. Young Churchmen in Wales were going to the national Colleges instead of to Lampeter, and, after the Bill had passed, a great religious spirit apart from Anglicanism and sectarian domination would flow and commingle for the regeneration of Wales. In the second day's debate, the Home Secretary announced that the King had placed his interests in bishoprics and other ecclesiastical dignities and benefices in Wales and Monmouthshire at the disposal of Parliament; and then the Under-Secretary for the Home Department spoke. He said that unless the Welsh dioceses were separated from the Province of Canterbury the English Church would predominate in governing the Welsh Church. By ending the traffic in the cure of souls, giving more power to the laity, enabling congregations to choose their own clergymen, and helping to reconcile national sentiment to the Church, the Bill would do good. What with the fabrics, the rectories and vicarages, the movable property, and the income left to the Church, capitalised, the Church would retain a capital of 10,000,000l. for 200,000 communicants. The Church desired to retain its Establishment and endowments, and to be free from State control. Lord Hugh Cecil (U.) said that there was nothing behind Disestablishment but the will of the Welsh representatives; Welsh Nonconformity was only 103 years old and was in a state of flux. He laid stress on the prospective injury through Disestablishment to religion in other countries, and described the Bill as immoral and unjust. Later Mr. Cave (U., Surrey, Kingston) contended that the House had a right to have the suggestion stage, and that, even had the suggestions been accepted by the House of Lords and the Bill rejected there, they would have been part of the Bill sent up for the Royal Assent. The endowments were not given to "the Church," or in trust, but for religious purposes, and to secularise them broke the cy-près rule. On disendowment no Parliamentary majority was even relevant, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after commenting on Mr. Cave's first point, said that disendowment followed inevitably on Disestablishment. The Opposition claimed at once that the Church was endowed as a great national institution and as a sect. Would not the pious founders have been shocked to learn that their gifts were being used to support a married clergy? The title was not legal but Parliamentary, and much of the property was derived from an Act of Parliamentary spoliation. The payment of stipends to ministers was the least of the functions recognised by the founders, and Parliament was recognising the trusts and restoring them. Mr. F. E. Smith (U.) declared that the Welsh could long ago have had Disestablishment without disendowment; they were after the money, and he noted that the Government had not attempted to deal with lay impropriators.[Pg 107] The Bill was passing by a bargain with the Nationalists. The Home Secretary, in his reply, said that the Church was being disendowed because it held national property. Half the parochial endowments belonged to parishes with 27,800 communicants, some with less than five, the other half to parishes with 163,000. After Disestablishment, the total income of the Church if the voluntary subscriptions remained constant would be 511,000l. instead of approximately 556,000l. as in 1906. The loss of 45,000l. would be met by amalgamating parishes. The Bill would restore freedom to the Welsh Church. The third reading was carried by 328 to 251.

The financial resolution requisite for the Home Rule Bill was the subject of a stormy debate next day (May 20). The President of the Local Government Board explained its meaning and effect. It proposed to authorise the payment into the Irish Exchequer each year of a fixed sum based on the cost of the services to be administered by the Irish Government on the passing of the Bill, plus a subsidy of 500,000l. annually. The President of the Local Government Board explained that in 1912-13, when the Bill was introduced, Irish revenue amounted to 10,600,000l., expenditure on Irish services to 12,600,000l.—a deficit of 2,000,000l. But the increased revenue due to the pending Budget was estimated for 1915-16 as follows: Income tax, 185,000l.; supertax, 175,000l.; estate duty, 75,000l. As about 35,000l. of this was arrears, the normal yield of the new taxes in Ireland would be 400,000l. The additional grants would be in all 765,000l.,—education, 112,500l.; other services, 517,500l.; Post Office wages, 3,000l.; tuberculosis nursing and laboratories, 65,500l.; insurance, 65,000l.; collection of duties, 1,500l. After the Budget changes in 1915-16 the revenue would be 11,450,000l., the expenditure 14,150,000l., and the deficit 2,700,000l. No calculation, he told Sir E. Carson, had been made as to the amount of the new grant which would go to additional purposes in Ulster. The grants would be handed over to the Irish Parliament to dispose of as it pleased. He was much questioned by members, and Mr. T. Healy (I.N.) declared that Ireland was being tricked and over-taxed, while Mr. A. Chamberlain said that the Government were increasing the grievance that the Home Rule Bill was supposed to diminish—that Ireland had to keep up to the level of England, the richer country. Every time the burdens on Great Britain were increased, a heavier subsidy was to be paid out of British taxes to Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, saying that under Home Rule it would be possible to leave local services to the local Parliament. If money was to be raised from Ireland, it must be treated like Great Britain in distributing the funds, Ireland had been contributing 1,800,000l. to Imperial taxation; she was now getting 2,000,000l. After an amendment moved by Sir F. Banbury, providing that the payment in con[Pg 108]nexion with Irish services should not fall on the British taxpayer, had been rejected by 305 to 213, the resolution was carried by 303 to 215.

The remaining stages of the Home Rule Bill were to have been completed next day, May 21, but they were deferred through an outburst of passion on the part of the Opposition. At question time the Prime Minister, in answer to inquiries, stated that the Home Rule Bill would be introduced in the House of Lords, but he could not name the date, and refused to anticipate the disclosure of its contents there by a statement in the Commons. This course, he told Mr. Bonar Law, would be contrary to all Parliamentary precedent. This was resented by the Unionists and by some Liberals, among them Mr. Hogge (L., Edinburgh, E.). After the Report of the money resolution (p. 107) had been carried by 316 to 228, and the Bill reported to the House without amendment by 316 to 227, Lord R. Cecil (U.), amidst a rising storm, moved the adjournment of the debate, on the ground that the Bill was to be passed before the House knew how it was to be amended. These amendments might change its whole character. The procedure of the Government was an insult to the Commons. Either they had not yet made up their minds, or they knew that their proposals would imperil the progress of the Bill. Mr. Worthington Evans, seconding, said the Government hoped again to raise the cry, "Peers versus People." The Prime Minister said that the language of the two last speakers would be appropriate if they were the dominant party dictating terms of surrender to an impotent minority. The Home Rule Bill had passed all its stages by substantially undiminished minorities, and represented the deliberate and considered judgment of the Commons. In its principle, details, and machinery it was a wise and statesmanlike measure; whenever the Government made any proposal towards peace it was treated as a hypocritical sham. Still they had made proposals in order to remove any possible sense of injustice and coercion, allowing the people to vote as to whether any would come in. But they must have as a preliminary the firm and deliberate judgment of the House on their main proposals. For that reason, the Amending Bill was to be introduced in the House of Lords. They had been told that whatever was done, that House would reject the Home Rule Bill. It would be waste of time to ask the Commons to spend weeks in elaborating suggestions which might be summarily rejected. The last voice in the matter would be that of the House of Commons. Mr. Bonar Law retorted that the Commons, after all, represented the people. If the Home Rule Bill was wise and just, why amend it, and why was the Commons not to know how it would be amended? He himself believed that the Prime Minister desired a peaceful settlement, but considered only what would give him a majority. He had gone back at Leeds on his speech at Ladybank (A.R., 1913, pp. 243, 219), and in his pro[Pg 109]posals on his speech on the Address (pp. 39, 21). He would not let the House know the proposed amendments because the Nationalists would not let him. They meant to pass the Home Rule Bill, and force the Prime Minister to use all the forces of the Crown to drive loyal men out of the Union. The course adopted was an insult to the Commons. A discussion of the third reading of the Home Rule Bill was an absurdity, and he could see absolutely no use in taking part in it. Among subsequent speakers, Mr. A. M. Scott (L., Glasgow, Bridgeton), Sir H. Dalziel (L., Kirkcaldy Burghs), and Mr. Pringle (L., Lanarkshire, N.W.) protested against the withholding of the terms of the Amending Bill, and Mr. Amery (U.) was sharply and repeatedly rebuked by the Speaker.

The motion for adjournment was rejected by 286 to 176, and Mr. J. H. Campbell (U., Dublin University) came forward to oppose the third reading of the Home Rule Bill. Before he had uttered a word the Unionists started a concerted cry of "Adjourn, adjourn." After it had continued for five minutes the Speaker rose, and asked the Opposition leader whether this was with his consent and approval. This unexpected and unprecedented question provoked an outburst of protest from the Opposition, and Mr. Bonar Law, after the cheers that greeted his rising had at length subsided, replied, speaking evidently under great excitement, "I would not presume, Sir, to criticise what you consider your duty. But I know mine, and that is not to answer any such question." The Opposition cheered savagely and waved handkerchiefs and papers, and the Speaker suspended the sitting in view of the grave disorder. The Opposition cheered their leader wildly as he passed out; some of them shouted taunts at the Ministerialists; one, carried away by excitement, stood before the Prime Minister and shouted abuse at him; the Liberals and Nationalists, meanwhile, laughed good-humouredly and made no response to the Opposition taunts. When the Prime Minister went out, however, they rose and cheered him enthusiastically.

The disturbance was thought to have been preconcerted, possibly in the lobbies during the division on the motion for the adjournment, and to have been suggested by Mr. Bonar Law's concluding words on that motion. At any rate it was in conformity with advice long ago given by the Observer (A.R., 1912, p. 156).

Moreover, the North-East Derbyshire bye-election (Chron., May 20) resulted in a Unionist success, due, indeed, to a split between the Liberal and Labour parties, whose joint aggregate poll had increased largely as compared with that of December, 1910, though the Unionist poll had also somewhat increased. But still it meant a Unionist gain, to be followed by many others if the split were not speedily closed. Again, a keen electoral contest was in progress at Ipswich (Chron., May 25). For the[Pg 110] seat vacated by the sudden death in the United States of Mr. Silvester Horne (L.), Mr. Masterman, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and recently defeated in Bethnal Green, was the Ministerial candidate, and the struggle in an always uncertain constituency was so acute that both Sir Edward Carson and the Chancellor of the Exchequer went down on the last day to speak for their respective sides. The former laid stress on the determination of the Ulster people to resist Home Rule, and declared that he had never been so proud of his leader as he had been on the occasion of the scene in the House; the latter declared that the scene was part of a deliberate plot for destroying representative government, because the Tories saw that the people meant to use it for their own redemption. Ipswich had 1,700 old-age pensioners; it was getting 21,400l. a year on that head, 35,000l. out of the Insurance Act, and some 15,000l. out of the new Budget; the weary and the heavy laden in all climes were looking with hope to England. All this, of course, the Unionists denounced as a direct appeal to the cupidity of the people. And, in an essentially working-class constituency, the Liberals lost the seat. Not only was Mr. Masterman defeated by 532 votes on a poll of 12,675, but the combined Liberal and Socialist vote was 137 below that given to the Unionist victor.

Possibly the Unionist satisfaction at this new success helped to intensify the calmer feelings brought by the week-end, and by the diversion of the attention of members to a non-party measure, the Weekly Rest Day Bill. At any rate, when the House reassembled on Monday, May 25, it reverted to its best traditions. After the introduction, amid enthusiastic Unionist cheers, of the two new members, Major Bowden (U., Derbyshire, N.E.) and Mr. Ganzoni (U., Ipswich), the Speaker made a personal explanation. He now understood that the Opposition had had some reason when they interrupted the debate on May 23 to expect that a statement would be made by the Prime Minister; and with regard to the Opposition leader he was betrayed into an expression he ought not to have used. He did not mean to imply that Mr. Bonar Law was responsible for the demonstration, and he was sure that he might always look to the leaders to maintain order. He suggested that the Prime Minister should give further information as to the Amending Bill. Mr. Bonar Law expressed his gratitude to the Speaker for his generous statement, and then the Prime Minister, after associating himself with the tribute paid by the Opposition leader to the dignity and impartiality of the Chair, stated that the Amending Bill would give effect to the terms of agreement if arrived at, and, if not, to the proposals outlined on March 9 (p. 39). Mr. Bonar Law, while acknowledging the conciliatory tone of the Prime Minister's speech, held that it had not altered the situation. The strain on the minority was more than they could stand. The climax was reached then, when the House[Pg 111] was asked to give a final verdict on the Irish policy of the Government without knowing what it was. It was useless to discuss the third reading. Ring down the curtain, the sooner the better. The Government had the power to carry their Bill through Parliament, but not in the country.

The Prime Minister replied with dignity that he held his office not as the slave of taskmasters, but by the consent and with the confidence of the majority of the House. He contrasted the ample opportunities of debate enjoyed by the Opposition since 1906 with the position of the Liberals in the preceding Parliament, and declared that it was because the balance had been redressed against the Liberal party that the Opposition took up its present attitude. The Amending Bill was introduced, not because Ministers thought the Home Rule Bill imperfect, but for the sake of peace.

Mr. W. O'Brien (I.U.) denounced the "resurrecting of the House of Lords" and the introduction of the Amending Bill as designed merely to put off the day of disillusion. So long as it was clogged by an Amending Bill, partitioning Ireland, it was a Bill for the murder of Home Rule.

The third reading was passed by 351 to 274. A scene of great Nationalist enthusiasm followed. Then, after a brief and discursive debate on the occasion of the adjournment, the House adjourned for the Whitsun recess.

Two Liberals (Sir Clifford Cory and Mr. Agar-Robartes) voted against the Bill, and Mr. Pirie abstained, as did the eight Independent Nationalists. Three Nationalists and two Labour members were absent through illness.

Mr. Redmond that evening told a representative of the Freeman's Journal that "the Union, as we have known it, is dead," and that, while no amendment of the Bill was desired by either the Government or the Nationalists, it was worth paying a great price to ensure that the Bill should come into operation peacefully. He appealed earnestly to Irish Unionists for a conciliatory discussion of points on which they required further safeguards. There was no disorder, as had been feared, in Ulster; but the strain was severe, and Sir Edward Carson, speaking at Mountain Ash, South Wales, three days later, declared that the third reading was only the first act in a gruesome tragedy, and that the Government would only hold Ulster as a conquered province, if at all.

Two minor Bills, described by the Nation as "signs of a new spirit of freedom sweeping powerfully through the world," proposed respectively to prohibit the traffic in recommendations for titles and honours, and to permit any holder of a peerage or baronetage to disclaim it by deed poll lodged in the Chancery Division, in which case it would lapse. The former was introduced by Mr. O. Locker-Lampson (U., Hunts, Ramsey), the latter by Mr. Ponsonby (L., Stirling Burghs). Neither got very far, and the former was not quite untinged with party politics; but they at any rate marked a[Pg 112] reaction against a craving for artificial distinctions which had reached proportions hitherto unknown in English life.

More definite signs of social change were exhibited in the series of further outrages by militant suffragists. As usual, some were very grave in character, others merely vexatious and even childish, but all were carried out with great determination by women for whom the punishments provided by the law appeared to have no terrors. On April 17 the pier pavilion at Yarmouth had been burnt down, apparently through the explosion of a bomb; on April 28 the Bath Hotel at Felixstowe, just made ready for the season, was also burnt, the damage being estimated at 35,000l.; on May 4, at the first public view of the Royal Academy Exhibition, a portrait of Mr. Henry James, the novelist, presented to him by his admirers and painted by Mr. Sargent, R.A., was damaged with a chopper by Mrs. Mary Wood; a week later (May 12) a similar outrage was committed on Herkomer's portrait of the Duke of Wellington in the same exhibition; at the gala performance in honour of the King of Denmark at the Italian opera (May 11) there were unsuccessful attempts to interrupt the performance by addressing King George V.; while on May 14 the houses of Lord Lansdowne and Sir Edward Carson were picketed by suffragists to emphasise the contention that the Ulster leaders should also be treated as in revolt. A few days later a cricket pavilion was burnt at Harborne, near Birmingham (May 15), and a like fate befell the grandstand and offices on the Birmingham racecourse; and on May 21 a deputation of women, in defiance of the principles of British constitutional government, attempted to force their way to Buckingham Palace to present a petition against forcible feeding to the King. The police had formed a cordon around the Palace, and a crowd had naturally assembled; the procession appeared suddenly to emerge from it near the top of Constitution Hill, and the painful and distressing spectacle was presented of a conflict, before a jeering crowd, between a group of women and the police. Sixty-six women and two men were arrested, and, for the most part, was sentenced to be bound over to keep the peace; they refused to be bound over, and were sentenced in default to one day's imprisonment. Others, sentenced to longer terms of incarceration, were speedily released after hunger-and-thirst strikes. Mrs. Pankhurst, who had appeared in the front of the procession, was rearrested, but released again after four days' thirst-and-hunger strike, and her arrest was the signal for fresh outbursts. The day after it five very valuable Italian pictures at the National Gallery were damaged, as well as a picture by Mr. Clausen, R.A., at the Royal Academy; and hence the National Gallery, the Wallace Collection, the Tate Gallery, and a few days later the Watts Gallery near Guildford, were closed till further notice. Again, at a special matinée of "The Silver King," attended by the King and Queen (May 22), a woman stood up and addressed[Pg 113] His Majesty as "Russian Tsar"; another interrupter had chained herself to her stall; and others in the galleries showered suffragist literature on the audience. Next day Mr. Lavery's portrait of the King in the Royal Scottish Academy was damaged, and an attempt was made to cut off the aqueduct supplying Glasgow with water from Loch Katrine; but the criminals in this last case escaped. Finally, windows were broken at Buckingham Palace on May 27. The two Felixstowe incendiaries were sentenced at the Suffolk Assizes (May 29) respectively to nine months and two years' imprisonment, but the "Cat and Mouse Act" afforded them a certain, though painful, escape. A more efficient method of suppression was foreshadowed by the raiding of a flat on May 21 at Maida Vale, where several women and a man were arrested, and stones, hammers, and choppers were seized. Two days later, the offices of the Women's Social and Political Union in Kingsway were raided also, and the secretary was charged with conspiring with the inmates of the Maida Vale flat. The accused persons, following the example of the Felixstowe criminals, behaved outrageously in court, and their conduct and, indeed, the whole of the outrages, probably gave a severe set-back to the suffragist cause.

The Labour outlook, too, continued alarming. The railway servants' leaders decided on May 16 to demand the recognition by the companies of their trade union, a forty-eight hours' week, and an increase of wages in all grades by 5s. weekly; and in the building trade, the ballot taken upon an offer of compromise by the employers, which the men were advised by their leaders to accept, resulted, on the contrary, in its rejection by 21,017 votes to 5,705. The struggle was causing extreme suffering, and was kept up with a determination ominous of its long continuance. And behind all these signs of multifarious social unrest loomed the spectre of civil war.

CHAPTER IV.
THE POLITICAL STRUGGLE AND ITS CLOSE.

The brief Whitsuntide recess was a time of gloom and anxiety alike for politicians and for the people at large. It was overshadowed by the almost certain prospect of a national lock-out in the building trade and by the sinking of the Canadian Pacific liner, Empress of Ireland, the greatest disaster, except the loss of the Titanic, in the history of the mercantile marine (Chron., May 29). Politically the situation was becoming more and more critical. Ministers had lost much of their prestige both in the country and in Parliament; one Minister had gone; another had failed to find a seat; of seven bye-elections since the session began they had lost four; they were suffering from the effects of Labour and Nationalist[Pg 114] estrangement, and their supporters in Parliament were divided on the Budget, the "Federal solution" of the Irish question, the treatment of the incipient rebellion in Ulster, and the policy exhibited in the introduction of the Amending Bill. A general election towards the end of July was freely predicted; but, while a Liberal victory might have provoked an explosion of rebellion in Ulster, an indecisive result or a Unionist victory would almost certainly have led to prolonged and grave disturbance. In Ulster there were Church parades of Ulster Volunteers, militant speeches, popular demonstrations, and every sign of determined preparation to resist Home Rule. Sir Edward Carson, who spent the recess in the province, said (at East Belfast, June 2) that he "had come to make arrangements for the final scene"; that he "was going to have more Mausers"; and that he had scant faith in the Amending Bill. It was not surprising under these circumstances that several deputations, including Liberal and Labour working-men, and sent over, generally by Unionist aid, to see the condition of affairs in Ulster for themselves, declared themselves converted to Unionist views. On the other hand, the probable consequences of the triumph of those views were indicated by the growth of the National Volunteers. They were stated to number nearly 130,000, of whom 5,000 had joined in the last week of May; their numbers were estimated at 41,000 in Ulster, 42,000 in Leinster, 27,000 in Munster, and nearly 19,000 in Connaught; drilling was going on daily, and they were assured of the assistance of many retired military officers of repute. The movement had begun independently of the Nationalist party (A.R., 1913, p. 267), and was stated by its leaders to be non-political; but the Nationalist leaders were now endeavouring to secure its assistance and to obtain control. The position was described by Viscount Milner (at Rothwell, May 30) as "smouldering war"; and trustees and others were transferring securities from the North of Ireland to Great Britain for safety, while preparations were being made in England for the reception and housing of Ulster Protestant refugees.

Speaking at Criccieth, however, on June 2, to members of the Bristol Radical Association who had come on a day's excursion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that the Government stood firm. It would definitely reap the full harvest of the Parliament Act, and would decline to dissolve until the existing Parliament had carried the measures which the people had empowered it to carry. Were the Parliament Act swept away, a Labour Parliament in five years' time might find itself confronted by a powerful plutocratic Second Chamber more firmly entrenched than ever. No Government dissolved Parliament for the loss of a few bye-elections. The real rock ahead for Liberalism was not the "little temporary trouble" in Ulster, but the dissensions between Labour and Liberalism. Ipswich had been lost owing to this dissension, and to its occurrence in North-East Derbyshire. The[Pg 115] nation as a whole wanted to go forward, and to go faster, and in the villages the land programme was creating enthusiasm.

A host of Unionist speeches and impressive demonstrations took place at the week-end (June 5, 6) at Hull, at Newcastle, at Eastbourne and elsewhere; and at a garden party at Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's residence at Birmingham Mr. Austen Chamberlain spoke, and Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, in a bath-chair, received the greetings of a few local Unionist leaders. But these speeches merely conveyed the impression that the Ulster crisis was becoming graver. On the other hand, the Lord Chancellor, at the combined dinner of the Russell, Palmerston, and Eighty Clubs at Oxford, while recognising Sir Edward Carson's efforts to keep the peace, said that his Ulster army had caused the raising of the National Volunteers; both forces were illegal and unconstitutional, but the Government had decided, he thought wisely, to leave events to take their course. As to the Amending Bill, the Government were prepared, as the Premier's speeches had shown, to make offers towards a settlement, and to consider suggestions from the other side. Two days later the Archbishop of York pleaded earnestly in The Times for some form of exclusion of Ulster accompanied by a scheme of devolution; and on June 10 an earnest appeal was published by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York against Disestablishment both in Wales and generally, partly on the ground of the need of a National Church, for which they were prepared to agree to a larger measure of self-government.

Parliament reassembled on June 9, and began by giving a second reading to three non-contentious measures—the National Insurance Act, 1911 (Pt. II.), Amending Bill, and two Milk and Dairies Bills, for England and Scotland respectively. The first named was described by the President of the Board of Trade as designed to remove administrative difficulties, to diminish the working cost, and to remove certain delays inevitable in the first administration of a new Act of the kind. He gave particulars (too detailed to be reproduced here) and said that the Bill would not increase the total charge on the Treasury, but would give relief to employers and workmen, and might lead to the extension of the Act to new trades, and to the extension of the benefit or reduction of the contribution. He had been surprised at the small number of grievances under the Act; it had not only stimulated organisation among working-men, but had enabled many employers to increase the stability of employment and to regularise their work. Some of the Labour members' speeches were much less optimistic, but the Bill passed its second reading without a division. The Milk and Dairies Bill, introduced by the President of the Local Government Board, empowered that Department with the approval of the Board of Agriculture, to make regulations preventing the supply of contaminated or dirty milk, which would be laid before Parliament before becoming operative. Means would be[Pg 116] provided for tracing and stopping the source of diseased milk, and for punishing the real adulterator, and a single inspection would replace the existing multiple inspections. Similar precautions would be applied to imported foreign milk. The Bill was supported by Mr. C. Bathurst (U., Wilts, Wilton) and other members, and criticised in detail by Mr. Forster (U., Kent, Sevenoaks) and Mr. Astor (U., Plymouth), who suggested various amendments, and, after a reply by the President of the Local Government Board, was read a second time without a division. So, after a very brief conversation, was the corresponding measure for Scotland.

The Post Office Vote was further discussed, according to promise, on June 10. Sir Henry Norman (L., Blackburn) complained of the delay in establishing the Imperial wireless chain (A.R., 1912, p. 199), and ascribed the loss on the telegraph service largely to the old-fashioned methods in use. Mr. Joynson-Hicks (U., Middlesex, Brentford) said that the badness of the telephone service—of which there had been countless complaints since the transfer to the Post Office—was largely due to the discontent of the staff. Other members laid stress on the postal servants' grievances, and Sir T. Whittaker (L.) and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (L.) suggested that a special and permanent Board should be set up to deal with them, representing the Government, the Departments, and the employees. The Postmaster-General promised to set up a Committee or Commission to inquire into the future relations of the State with its employees, and to take action on its report, partly to free members from political pressure and to ensure a competent and impartial tribunal. A reduction of the Vote was defeated by 275 to 221.

Previously Major Archer-Shee (U., Finsbury, Central) had obtained leave under the ten-minutes' rule, to introduce a Foreign Companies Central Bill, requiring foreign companies raising money in the United Kingdom to comply with the requirements of British company law—a measure occasioned by the circumstances of the flotation of the American Marconi Company, and thus a sequel of the Marconi scandal. It got no farther.

Next day, on the Home Office Vote, the House discussed the pressing and vexatious problem of the treatment of militant suffragism. Wargrave Church, near Henley, a picturesque edifice containing historic monuments, was burnt down on the night of May 31; the same gang were responsible for an attempt a few hours later to set fire to a country house near Windsor; the services in St. Paul's, Westminster Abbey, and the Brompton Oratory were disturbed by women protesters against forcible feeding; a picture was destroyed in the Doré Gallery; and at the King's Court (June 4) a lady fell on her knees when passing Their Majesties and cried out, "Your Majesty, won't you stop torturing women?" They took no notice, and she was carried out. She proved to be Miss Mary Blomfield, daughter of an[Pg 117] eminent architect and a descendant of a famous Bishop of London. Two days later an empty house was burnt at High Wycombe; and, among minor disturbances, windows were broken by women at Criccieth during Mr. Lloyd George's speech (June 2), and would-be interrupters of Sir E. Carson in Ulster were all but lynched. Miss Sylvia Pankhurst was rearrested (June 10) in the East End while heading a deputation of suffragists to Parliament, though part of it reached the Houses of Parliament and saw the Liberal Chief Whip, who naturally gave them no satisfaction. To repress these outrages, "cat and mouse" treatment had evidently proved ineffective; but the offices of the militant organisation at 17 Tothill Street, Westminster, were raided (June 9), and it was hoped that the names might be obtained of subscribers to the funds, and that they could then collectively be made pecuniarily responsible for the damage done.

The possible methods of combating militancy were the topic principally discussed on the Home Office Vote (June 11). Previously the Home Secretary, in reply to questions, had stated that no general relaxation of prison rules had been made for militant offenders, and that no official statistics of arson by them were available. In moving a reduction of 1001 in the Vote, Lord Robert Cecil (U., Marylebone, E.) referred to the number of the outrages recorded (Times, June 4; pp. 112, 116), and said that the gravest circumstance was the open defiance of the law. What was going on in Ireland might be rebellion, but this was anarchy; the public irritation was increasing, and was venting itself on peaceable suffragists. He believed the militants' leaders now cared more for the existence and power of their society than for the ultimate success of its propaganda. The followers, however, where they were not paid to commit outrages, were acting from honest motives. They were devoted to Mrs. Pankhurst, and she and her daughters were the people almost wholly responsible. But the continuance of militancy was largely due to the repeated mistakes of the Government. Repudiating the suggestion that the suffragist members should postpone their efforts till militancy had ceased, he strongly advocated deportation, and welcomed the design attributed to the Government to attack the militants' funds. He suggested, also, that the French Government should be asked to take proceedings against Miss Sylvia Pankhurst.

The Home Secretary said that the phenomenon they had to deal with had no precedent in history. The number of women actually committing crimes was small, the number of sympathisers with them extremely large. But the number of militants committed to prison in 1906, the first year of the agitation, was 31; in 1909 it was 156; in 1911, 188 (six being men); in 1912, 290 (two being men); in 1913, 183, and in the current year 108. The "Cat and Mouse" Act had therefore greatly reduced the number of offences, but these had become much more serious. He did not[Pg 118] think the irritation which was the aim of the campaign would recoil on the Government. Dealing with the recent acts of rudeness to the King, he said that while all subjects had the right of petitioning His Majesty in respectful language, there was no right to a personal audience of him; the Home Secretary's duty was to submit petitions to him and advise action on them, and they were presented even if the action requested was illegal, unconstitutional, or impracticable. The militants' action had been an effective advertisement, and he wished that the Press would not give it prominence. On the other hand, many of the fires attributed to the suffragettes were really cases of ordinary crime, and the whole number was an insignificant percentage of the total. He discussed the four alternative methods proposed of treating the militants. (1) To let them die was the most popular, but he had the authority of a great medical expert for saying that they wished, and actually tried, to die in prison. Such deaths would be the greatest possible incentive to militancy, and, as they multiplied, there would be a violent reaction against the Government. Even supposing the necessary Act were passed relieving the prison officials of responsibility, a humane prison doctor could not let a woman die whose only offence had been obstructing the police. (2) Supposing they were deported, say to St. Kilda, if it were not treated as a prison they would be speedily rescued; if it were, they would still refuse food. (3) To treat them as lunatics would require medical certificates, which would not be given. (4) To give them the franchise was hardly a remedy for the existing lawlessness. They were, in fact, more severely punished by their hunger-and-thirst strikes than by imprisonment. Statistics showed that the "Cat and Mouse" Bill had been effective. Of the eighty-three persons discharged under it, fifteen had given up militancy, six had fled the country, twenty were in hiding, possibly abroad; the rest, mostly women who had obstructed the police in the recent procession to Buckingham Palace, were either legally at large or were at addresses known to the police. Just before the Act came into force, a report had been made to him showing that the women coming into prison were physically defective; they were sent there to die, and the offenders were paid to commit crime. The Act had been effective in diminishing the number of crimes, but not their seriousness, which naturally increased as the movement was combated. As to other possible steps, the militants' funds were doubtless lodged in banks abroad, but the raids on the militants' society's offices had provided the Government with evidence enabling them, they hoped, to proceed against the subscribers and make them personally liable for the damage done. Criminal proceedings might also be possible, and the insurance companies would doubtless bring actions besides. The militants, he declared, lived only by the subscriptions of rich women, who paid their tools 30s. or 2l. a week to go about and commit outrages. If the means of revenue of the Women's Social[Pg 119] and Political Union could be totally destroyed, the power of Mrs. Pankhurst and her friends would be ended.

In the subsequent debate the Government was severely criticised for its vacillation and ineffective action; other speakers dealt with the maltreatment of ponies employed in mines, street accidents in London, and police pay. The debate was adjourned.

While Mr. McKenna was concluding his speech, about 5.30 P.M., a bomb exploded under the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey, but fortunately did only slight damage to the Chair and the famous Coronation Stone. It had probably been deposited by some member of a large party which was being conducted over the Abbey by a verger; and two innocent foreign lady tourists were detained for a short time by the police, and protected from the crowd. The bomb was made of two domes of a large double cycle bell, wrapped round by wire, containing a chlorate explosive and iron nuts; and it was hung over the back of the Coronation Chair. The criminal was not discovered.

It must be added that a joint protest against militancy was issued on June 12 by the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies and the Conservative and Liberal Unionist Women's Franchise Association, declaring militant methods to be "a negation of the very principles for which we stand," as making physical force the ultimate basis of government. This view was emphasised next day by Mrs. Fawcett at a suffrage meeting; and a similar manifesto had been issued on June 11 by the Women's Liberal Federation. But a bomb, which did little damage, exploded on June 14 in St. George's Church, Hanover Square; and a solicitor's clerk (June 13) was fined for conveying to a suffragist prisoner an emetic drug intended to nullify the effects of forcible feeding; thus so weakening the patient as to secure her immediate release.

Meanwhile the gun-running in Ulster, and the efforts of the British "Covenanters" to avert the coercion of the Unionists, had temporarily transferred the Home Rule controversy to the platform. A group of Liberals, among whom Sir William Byles (Salford, N.) and Mr. Neil Primrose (Cambs, Wisbech) were conspicuous, were holding meetings in the great towns to strengthen the hands of the Government against incipient rebellion; and the Covenanters undertook a campaign against "the coercion of Ulster" in Scotland, of which the chief features were Mr. Bonar Law's speeches at Inverness (June 11), to an audience of 6,000 drawn from all parts of the Highlands, and at Glasgow next day at St. Andrew's Hall. There was little new to be said, but in the Inverness speech, described by the Spectator as one of the best fighting speeches that Mr. Law had ever made, he appealed from the House of Commons to the people, and reiterated the charge that Ministers had "torn open the old wounds" of Ireland to secure themselves a majority. He charged the Government with provoking the prevalent spirit of lawlessness by acting as dictators in[Pg 120] the name of the King; he elaborately attacked their contention that Home Rule was before the electorate at the last general election; and even had they had a mandate for it, he said, the projected resistance of Ulster had completely changed the situation. Moreover, they had not redeemed their pledge to give the country a reformed Second Chamber, which would certainly have forced an appeal to the people. In spite of the Prime Minister's declaration of 1906, he was dealing with Home Rule without an independent majority. The Government would not appeal to the country either because they knew they would be defeated or because of a bargain with the Nationalists. There were two sections of them—the drifters and the gamblers; the latter had been let loose by Mr. Churchill's speech at Bradford, followed by a concentration of force against Ulster greater than any made by Great Britain since the Crimean War. They were saved by the accident of the resistance of the Army. The cry of "the Army against the People" was started by the Labour members, who had been bought by the Government through their salaries. The Unionists had appealed, not to the Army, but to the nation. He dwelt at length on the results of the thirty-eight bye-elections, in which the Unionists had gained eleven seats, and the Coalition majority had fallen off 40 to 50 per cent. It was a conflict between the Government and the nation, and the nation was bound to win. As at the siege of Derry, the Ulstermen had been shut off from British help by the Parliament Act. He appealed to the people of Great Britain to break the boom.

Next day at Glasgow Mr. Bonar Law amplified his speech, especially in regard to the Ulster situation. He repeated his charges against Ministers of subservience to the Nationalists, and described the proposal of exclusion by counties as insane. It meant that Ulster, which then was strong, should lay down its arms and come in when weak.

An incident of this campaign was an Irish Nationalist attempt to break up a Unionist demonstration, 25,000 strong, on Woodhouse Moor, near Leeds (June 13), at which the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Milner were among the speakers; but the attempt was a failure. Efforts were made—notably at a meeting two days later at Oxford—to advocate a search for a "Federal solution." But the campaign did not affect the attitude of the Government.

The Plural Voting Bill finally passed the Commons on June 15, Mr. Sanders (U., Somerset, Bridgwater) moving the rejection. Little remained to be said; Mr. Sanders mentioned that when Mr. Gladstone was Premier a proposal to abolish plural voting found only forty supporters; the President of the Board of Education replied that the plural vote had been abused since 1885 through increased facilities of transport. Ministers were quite ready to negotiate with the Opposition to secure "one vote, one value." Later, Lord Hugh Cecil revived the charge of dishonourable[Pg 121] behaviour against the Government in connexion with the Franchise Bill fiasco (A.R., 1913, pp. 20-24). Their honour was "post-Impressionist" and smudged. Eventually the rejection was negatived by 320 to 242.

This subject was now worn out; but Home Rule was entering a new phase. A Provisional Committee, mainly self-elected, was about to devise a constitution and appoint leaders for the Irish Volunteers (A.R., 1913, p. 267). The Nationalist leaders felt, like Sir Edward Carson in Ulster, that the force must not continue uncontrolled; and Mr. Redmond (June 9) issued a statement announcing that his party, which had thought the movement premature, had been converted by the events at the Curragh and the gun-running in Ulster, and for the past six weeks had given it their support. Since then it had "spread like a prairie fire"; and he suggested that the existing Provisional Committee should be immediately strengthened by the addition of twenty-five representatives nominated by the Nationalist party and in sympathy with its policy and aims. The reorganisation might then be completed, and a Conference might elect the permanent governing body. This proposal was not at once accepted by the Provisional Committee; and on June 12 Mr. Redmond issued a further manifesto, urging the Nationalists—who were 95 per cent of the force, though only a minority of the Provisional Committee—to organise county committees independent of that body. The Nationalist party, he warned the Committee, would not submit to dictation on questions of policy. The members of "Sinn Fein" and other advanced Irish patriots resented this interference, and Unionist spectators did their best to promote a breach. But the local leaders generally saw that the union was necessary, and therefore favoured Mr. Redmond's intervention. The combination of the Volunteer and the Nationalist forces tended necessarily to strengthen the influences at work in Ireland, both against the exclusion of Ulster and for the revocation of the prohibition of the import of arms (p. 66), of which the validity had been upheld (June 15) on appeal by the Dublin Court of King's Bench, though only by two Judges to one.

The new development was discussed in both Houses on June 16. A day earlier the House of Lords had been told that the Amending Bill would be introduced in the following week and the second reading of the Government of Ireland Bill put down for June 30. Complaint was made by the Opposition that the conversations between leaders, on which the Amending Bill was to be based, had not taken place; and on June 16 the Marquess of Lansdowne called attention to the position and to the delay in producing the Amending Bill. After saying that he distrusted "triangular" conversations, in which Ministers had to submit the proposals made them to the Irish Nationalists, he ascribed the Amending Bill to fright on the part of the Government. They were drifting towards an overwhelming catastrophe. The Amending Bill ought to have[Pg 122] been introduced long ago in the Commons, and the House of Lords, the constituencies, and the House of Commons—through the suppression of the suggestion stage—had all been defrauded. The two Bills were to be carried, one by Nationalist votes, the other by those of the Ulster members. The Amending Bill, if limited to the terms offered on March 9 (p. 39), would not be acceptable. The Unionists in that House would accept an Amending Bill to avoid civil war, but would take no responsibility for it.

The Marquess of Crewe said that the delay in the Amending Bill was caused by the desire that it should represent an agreement. The conversations would be quadrangular rather than triangular, as the views of British and Ulster Unionists did not agree. The delay might have been avoided had that House given the Home Rule Bill a second reading and amended it, for under the Parliament Act the second reading in that House did not imply assent to the principle. The Lords could amend the Amending Bill into any shape they pleased, and he hoped the measure would pass in a form which, though perhaps in some respects acceptable to no one, would receive general acquiescence. He thought no body in Ireland wanted to engage in conflict, so that the Government was still wise in refraining from interference. Viscount Milner complained that no conversations had yet taken place; this was partly contradicted by the Marquess of Crewe, but it eventually appeared that there had only been "communications," and after Lord Macdonnell had declared that the Volunteer forces did not desire to fight each other, and several Unionists had spoken in the same strain as their leader, the subject dropped.

In the Commons on the same evening Lord Robert Cecil (U.) moved the adjournment to call attention to the growing danger caused by the existence of the two Volunteer forces and the failure of the Government to deal with the situation. He said that the Irish Volunteers were ready and even anxious to fight Great Britain, and existed to secure and defend Home Rule. In proof of this latter statement he quoted a recent speech by Mr. Devlin, and he declared that it demolished all the safeguards in the Home Rule Bill. The Prime Minister had said the day before he hoped that when Home Rule became law the activity of both forces would be diverted into constitutional channels; but the Government were simply drifting. When the Ulster Volunteers were formed they should either have made concessions or prepared to coerce Ulster; were they going to submit to the National Volunteers or resist them, and were they going to make real concessions in the Amending Bill? The position was a scandal to the Government and to civilisation. Mr. Amery (U.) said that the position in Ireland was paralleled only in Albania. The only way out was to go to the people. The Chief Secretary for Ireland replied that the drillings of the two forces were legal with the permission of two magistrates; so was carrying arms, with a proper licence. It[Pg 123] would be difficult to prove that the purpose was seditious to the satisfaction of a Belfast or Donegal jury. The history of Ireland showed the vanity and futility of trying to suppress the expression of public opinion by British State prosecutions. The creation of one Volunteer force entailed that of the other. The Ulster gun-running was almost as much admired among the Nationalists as among the most fervent Protestants; many strong opponents of Home Rule were proud of the inclusion of many old soldiers and fine young men in the Nationalist Volunteers; a feeling might quite possibly arise in favour of a united Ireland. The Volunteer movement itself did not add greatly to the dangers of the situation; discipline and the ability to use firearms were good things, and discipline under responsible men did not readily lead to action against the law. He hoped a solution would be found of the existing difficulties; the Government must continue in their path of securing for the Irish people responsibility for the conduct of their own affairs. Mr. Bonar Law said that no strong Government would have submitted for a moment to Sir Edward Carson's challenges to put down the Ulster Volunteers. The Government had done nothing because they knew the people were not behind them, and to interfere with the Ulster Volunteers would have brought about an election. Pending an election, the British Unionist party must support Ulster. The Government were still drifting. Mr. Dillon (N.) said the Volunteers of the South had arisen spontaneously, and for purely defensive purposes. They were prepared to maintain the law, because it was going to do justice to Irish liberties. When the Ulster Volunteers realised that 250,000 Nationalists were enrolled, they would be slower to break the peace. The Government had taken the right course in abstaining from coercion; Nationalist Irishmen who had undergone it knew its effect. After speeches from Sir W. Byles (L.) and Mr. Neil Primrose (L.), who complained of Mr. Churchill's volte face (pp. 52, 87), the motion was rejected by 288 to 223.

It may be added that the Nationalist addition to the Committee, giving the party substantial control, was effected at the end of June, and that a "Defence of Ireland Fund" was started in July to purchase arms and ammunition for the force.

The day following this debate (June 17), the attention of the House was diverted to a development of the Government's policy of oil fuel for the Navy (A.R., 1913, p. 167), which caused misgivings in both political parties, more especially among advanced Liberals. A concession obtained in 1901 from the Persian Government, with the consent of certain local chieftains, had passed in 1909 to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (a subsidiary of the Burmah Oil Company) and gave it the exclusive right for sixty years to work oil deposits and prospect for oil throughout Persia, except in Khorasan and the provinces bordering on the Caspian—where, however, there was no sign of oil. The Government had[Pg 124] now contracted, on terms which were (very properly) kept secret, with the Anglo-Persian Company for a large supply of oil fuel for the Navy during a term of years; and, to enable it to control the company's management, it proposed to invest 200,000l. in the debentures, and 2,000,000l. in the ordinary shares, the capital to be applied to the improvement of the pipe lines, tanks, etc., necessary to the fulfilment of the contract. The existing pipe line ran from Tembi, near Shustar, by Wais and Ahwaz, to Muhamrah and Abadan Island at the mouth of the Karun River, the site of the refinery. An expert Commission under Admiral Slade, and including three eminent geologists, had reported favourably on the scheme; the upper sections of the pipe line were policed by the Bakhtiari tribes, the lower sections and the refinery would be protected by the Sheikh of Muhamrah. As a business arrangement the plan seemed excellent, but the properties in question were practically all in the neutral sphere under the Anglo-Russian Agreement (A.R., 1907, p. 375), and Sir Edward Grey (A.R., 1908, p. 25) had seemed inclined to avoid taking risks in that region. A protest meeting of persons interested in the petroleum trade had been held in the City on June 5; but in other quarters it was held that the risks of local disorder or interruption of the supply in war time might be serious, or that the step might provoke Russian jealousy and so lead further towards the dismemberment of Persia.

The arrangement was discussed (June 17), on the resolution in Committee of Ways and Means required as the basis of the necessary legislation. The First Lord of the Admiralty said that oil was necessary for the Navy, and the question was solely the policy and soundness of the proposed arrangement. The Government would not depend on oil supply from any one quarter; coal would for many years continue to be the main motive power of the Fleet; oil would be purchased from companies in all parts of the world, British or foreign; the home supply of shale oil would be further developed, and experiments made for the production of liquid fuel from shale and coal, and support would be given to the search for new oilfields in the Empire. An unlimited amount of oil was obtainable if the Government was willing to pay for it and had command of the seas. The oil reserve obviated any fear of an oil famine in the first days of war. During war, oil from this field could easily be brought by the Suez Canal or the Cape. The problem was really the price during peace. There were two dominant oil corporations, the Standard Oil, and the Shell and Royal Dutch. The only notable independent company was the Burmah Oil Company and its offshoot, the Anglo-Persian. In the past few years the price paid for oil by the Admiralty had more than doubled; and the Anglo-Persian field had been kept in view since the previous Unionist Administration, when Lord Strathcona came forward, at the instance of the hon. member for Chelms[Pg 125]ford (Mr. Pretyman), to keep the company commercially independent and British, A Special Commission had reported; the northern field, near Shustar, would suffice for Admiralty requirements, but besides that the Government got control of an oil region of 500,000 square miles, some of the indicated sources being near the sea or the Indian border. A great military Power could only cut off the supply as an incident in a world-wide war, and the only effect on the Navy would be that the price of its oil would be higher. Local disturbances could do even less, and the development of the district would tame the wild tribes and strengthen the Persian Government. The Admiralty must have power to control an oilfield somewhere, and neither Trinidad nor Egypt offered a practical alternative, nor would Scottish shale oil be adequate for years. The Government took 200,000l. in debentures and 2,000,000l. in shares. This latter sum would be used in developing the company. The Government would obtain control and would also be the company's principal customer. The company would supply less than half the total amount needed for the Navy, and the prices would be on a sliding scale according to the profits. The money would come from the Consolidated Fund—l,500,000l. diverted from the New Sinking Fund by the Finance Act of 1912, and 750,000l. representing the Old Sinking Fund for 1913-14. The oil was necessary for the Navy, and the criticisms came from representatives of the Shell Company. The only difficulty of the Admiralty with this company was price. It was easier to pay what it asked and let the matter alone; but Parliament must decide between taking a fair commercial risk and the certainty of overcharge following monopoly.

Several members from both sides remarked on the difficulty of defending the wells and the danger of fresh complications resulting in Persia; the Foreign Secretary, in reply, made little of the first objection, and said that the Russian Government had not been consulted, because the contract was earlier than the Anglo-Russian Agreement. The Government would encourage production from the home fields and research to make it available. Later Mr. Pretyman (U.) said that it was at the instance of the Admiralty under the Unionist Administration that the Anglo-Persian Oil Company had not been sold to a foreign syndicate, and that Lord Strathcona and the Burmah Oil Company had undertaken to form an exploration company. Lord Strathcona had characteristically only asked one question—Was it in the interest of the Navy that the scheme should go on and that he should take, part in it? Mr. Dillon (N.) also anticipated that the risks would be too great; Lord Charles Beresford (U.) said that the scheme was "a purely speculative gamble," because the Admiralty had built oil-driven ships before they had oil storage. Mr. S. Samuel (U., Wandsworth) protested against the attack on the Shell Company. The resolution was carried by 254 to 18.

[Pg 126]

In the intervals of these exciting debates some ordinary business was done. The Vote for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (344,027l., the largest on record) was briefly debated on June 16. The President of the Board referred in his statement to the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, which had stopped the export trade in breeding stock to Argentina. He indicated that the outlook was brightening; but swine fever was far more serious. Experiments were being made in its treatment; research scholarships were being created in veterinary science. The small holdings movement was not going to break down. There were 11,000 small holders, and 1,400 holding under associations. On June 13 193,000 acres had been or were being acquired, over 4,000,000l. had been invested, and 65,000l. was being paid in rent of the land hired for the purpose by local authorities. Over 6,000 approved applicants had not yet been satisfied, and 90,000 acres would be required to meet them. Comparatively few labourers had acquired small holdings, their wages being so low that they could not accumulate the necessary capital. After referring to the work of the Agricultural Organisation Society, to premiums paid for breeding stock, and to the desire for scientific knowledge, he said that agriculturists were being repaid some of the money taken from them by the Budget of 1909. Mr. C. Bathurst (U.) and other speakers complained of the restrictions in connexion with swine fever; but the debate was cut short by the discussion on the Irish Volunteers and never resumed.

On the Local Government Board Vote the debate (June 18) dealt mainly with the housing problem, and Sir A. Griffith Boscawen (U., Dudley) moved a reduction of 100l. in order to call attention to the administration of the Housing Act. He complained that the Government omitted to house their own employees (e.g. postal servants and navvies at Rosyth) and that Mr. John Burns, when President of the Board, had neglected to remedy administrative difficulties, and that local authorities had been incited to close houses while provision was not made for rehousing. This latter charge was endorsed by Lord Henry Cavendish Bentinck (U., Nottingham, S.) and Mr. H. W. Forster (U., Kent, Sevenoaks). The latter said that one cause in rural districts of the deficiency in housing was the permission given, very properly, for the retention of cottages by occupants past work. The new President of the Board said that under the Act of 1909 the local authorities had compelled owners to repair 130,000 houses unfit for habitation, and in the current year to the end of May loans had been sanctioned amounting to 979,000l. for building new houses, while in four years (1910-13) the loans sanctioned amounted to 1,400,000l. During the Unionist rule of 1886-1905 only 2,000,000l. in all had been spent on building new houses, and in the rural districts 47,000l. on 233 new cottages. He promised a Housing Bill sanctioning larger loans to local authorities for rehousing. Of town planning, which was equally[Pg 127] important, about ninety schemes, dealing with 200 square miles, had come before the Board, and 142 other schemes had not yet reached it. He touched also on health administration, nursing, new Poor Law circulars, one requiring that children over three years old should not be kept in the workhouse, another contemplating relief to widows with children, and advising that the relief should be adequate and the unity of the family respected, and he foreshadowed an increase in the number of women inspectors. He mentioned also the clearance effected of houseless poor from the Thames Embankment by directing them to charitable agencies, and successful efforts for the diminution of vagrancy. An Intelligence Department was to be established by the Department to report periodically on housing, land, tuberculosis, and health questions. Mr. Long (U., Strand) while commending this statement generally, regarded the part of it relating to housing as wholly unsatisfactory, and held that demolition had gone too fast under the Act of 1909. After other speeches, and a reply by the Secretary of the Board, the reduction was negatived by 233 to 106.

Outside Parliament, meanwhile, two notable advances in existing social movements must be chronicled. The Labour movement seemed to be entering on a new stage with the approval by the Conference of National Railwaymen at Swansea (June 18) of the projected alliance of their union with the Miners' Federation and the Transport Workers' Federation. The exact details were left for future adjustment and the settlement was subject to final completion by a National Conference. Several of the speakers described the combination as a reply to the establishment of the fund of 50,000,000l. to fight trade unionism; and Mr. Thomas, M.P. (Lab., Derby), warned the members against hastily using it for sympathetic strikes (A.R., 1913, p. 255). It should be resorted to only as a last resource.

The other advance was due to a section of the militant suffragists, whose activities otherwise continued to estrange popular feeling; a deputation waited on the Prime Minister of six working-women from the East-End of London, which was sent by Miss Sylvia Pankhurst's organisation, the East-End Federation of Suffragettes (June 20). It was headed by Mrs. John Scurr, and accompanied by her husband, recently the Socialist candidate for Ipswich, and by Mr. Lansbury (A.R., 1912, p. 245), and the statements of its members as to their conditions of life and labour evidently much impressed the Prime Minister. Mrs. Scurr said they were asking for a vote for all women over twenty-one. The Prime Minister complimented them on their presentation of their case, which was, he said, that the economic conditions of a community like East London could not be relieved by legislation or administration unless women had votes. Some improvements, he said, had been made by the Trade Boards Act, and by the appointment of[Pg 128] women as factory inspectors, and other problems referred to admitted of no speedy remedy. But he agreed with them fully on one point: the franchise, if given to women, should be given on the same terms as men. In conclusion, he promised to consult the Home Secretary as to the case of Miss Sylvia Pankhurst.

But less remote means of improving social change were contemplated by the supporters of the Budget.

Speaking at Denmark Hill on June 20, amid some disturbance through suffragist interruptions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after declaring that the Government would not tolerate the exclusion of Ulster, said that the Budget carried on the Government's policy of strengthening the national defences against possible enemies abroad and actual enemies at home—poverty, disease, unhealthy homes, the suffering arising from bad social and economic conditions; and a fair contribution had been levied on wealth. Replying to a prophecy just made by Mr. J. J. Hill, an American railway magnate, that "the false humanitarianism of British social legislation" would destroy the sources of wealth in Great Britain, he declared that since the recent social legislation had passed there had been unprecedented prosperity, and that "the Power that governs the world does not punish with bankruptcy" nations that do kindnesses to the old, the feeble, the broken, and the sick. While Trust magnates were looking on with dismay, the great democracies of the West were looking towards Great Britain with a new hope. Beaten at home, "these American buccaneers" were coming over to stop the deluge at its source, but they had failed and would fail again.

But the Budget, as embodied in the Finance Bill, was threatened not only by the opposition of the rich but by the rules and precedents of Parliamentary practice. On June 15 a deputation of more than thirty Liberal members (mostly very wealthy), led by Mr. Holt (Northumberland, Hexham) had protested to the Prime Minister against the invitation to the House to sanction fresh taxation before it had approved of the objects on which the proceeds were to be spent. Dissatisfied with his reply, they issued a protest (June 17) urging that the new taxation should be deferred until the passing of the Bill establishing the machinery for separate assessment of site values and improvement values, since, should a Unionist Government take office in the interval, the valuation would be dropped, and the temporary grants, repugnant to all Liberal principles of finance, would become permanent features of the financial system. Unless the valuation Bill passed, moreover, the Government would be unable to pay to the local authorities any of the money provided by the new taxation. Either it would be hastily devoted to some new purpose, or it would pass to the Sinking Fund. Neither application would have been contemplated by Parliament when voting the Budget. They did not object to taxing those best able to bear it, but money should not[Pg 129] be voted unless its objects were determined and the machinery for raising it was in existence.

Mr. Gibson Bowles had attacked the Finance Bill on somewhat the same lines in The Times; and Mr. Asquith had promised the dissentients that the Commons would not part with the Finance Bill (imposing taxes) until the Revenue Bill (securing the allocation of the proceeds) should have passed the Lords; but the completion of both Bills within the four months' limit laid down by the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act (A.R., 1913, p. 86) was seen to be impracticable. And, when the Finance Bill came before the House on June 22, Mr. Cassel (U., St. Pancras, W.) asked whether it was in order, inasmuch as it went beyond the money resolution on which it was based, which did not cover either the proposed allocation of grants in relief of rates to local authorities or the reduction of the charge on the National Debt; and Sir F. Banbury (U., City of London) raised other points, one being that the Bill increased the "transferred sum" under the Home Rule Bill, and was thereby out of order as going beyond its title. The Speaker dismissed this latter point; in regard to the others, matters could be set right by introducing a new resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, citing a precedent of May, 1894; but he deprecated the recent practice of including in the Finance Bill matters not purely financial. In moving the second reading, the President of the Local Government Board said that two principles of the Bill were that new sources of income should be provided for local authorities, and that personalty should contribute to local taxation; but, as a local income tax was, for reasons which he specified, impracticable, the Bill adopted an alternative method. About 38,000,000l. annually, or one-third of the total expenditure of local authorities in the United Kingdom, would eventually be provided under the Bill from the Exchequer. Education, public health, poor-law services, and main roads, were of national concern as well as local, and the central authority should see that they were well administered, and that the relief given should be given to the part of the rating which fell on local improvements, not to that on bare land values. The existing system of rating adopted "the methods of the Eastern taxgatherer." The rates would be levied in two parts—on land value, and on building and improvement value, and in the current year the Revenue Bill would provide for the collection of the information necessary to enable the division to take place in 1915. The case of the Liberal dissentients could be met by procedure. An instruction would be moved to divide the Bill into two parts, one containing the provisions relative to the new taxation and the National Debt, the other those relating to the new grants to local authorities. Both Bills and the Revenue Bill would be proceeded with. This would unfortunately mean the abandonment for the current year of the temporary grants on the new basis to local[Pg 130] authorities. The increased taxation to meet these would be unnecessary, and the income tax would only be 1s. 3d. in the pound. This was a postponement, not a release.

Mr. Holt (L.) abandoned an amendment in the sense of the dissentients' protest, but objected both to the huge expenditure on armaments and to the excess of the actual over the estimated cost of recent social reforms. Members themselves, he thought, were in fault for pressing for more expenditure. It was increasing more rapidly than income, and a decline in trade was at hand. He and his friends did not object to the character of the new taxation; direct taxation was preferable to indirect; but it would be impossible to pass the Finance Bill as it stood and the Revenue Bill by August 6, as required by the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. It invited obstruction, which would be met by the guillotine closure. He and his friends, therefore, would cordially support the revised programme of the Government.

Mr. Long (U., Strand) congratulated the dissentient Liberals on their success. The great Budget was crumbling already. But was there any law left in the House? Income tax was being collected at a rate for which there was no Parliamentary authority; what would be done where it had been already collected "at the source"? Would the Irish proposal (to increase the "transferred sum") be abandoned as well as the English? The Unionists had thought of moving to adjourn the debate, but had preferred to state their case for further information at once. Every one wanted social reform, but were they not really burdening the weak? The Treasury had become a spending instead of a supervising department, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer one of the most powerful causes of public expenditure. In every department of public expenditure there was an enormous increase, due either to hasty legislation or to want of control by the Minister whose duty it was to exercise control. Employment on estates was diminishing, and the increase in the death duties imposed unequal burdens. He was unable to understand what the rating proposals were. By thus changing their plan the Government had insulted the House. Later the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that only some 50,000l. had been collected in regard to the 1d. of income tax now dropped, and the banks would adjust the matter on the next dividend payment. Some Budgets had been altered while before the Commons, e.g. the wheel and van tax in 1890.

The House adjourned early in view of the King's Birthday dinners, and next day (June 23) Mr. Hayes Fisher (U., Fulham) moved an amendment expressing regret that the promised grants to local authorities were not to be made in the current year, and condemning the new system of valuation by which these grants were to be conditioned. He agreed with the views of the dissentient Ministerialists about the Bill (p. 128) and suggested that money might be found by taxing imports; the Port of London[Pg 131] Authority already charged dues on 2,200 articles. Would the Chancellor repeat his Ipswich speech now? He strongly protested against central control of valuation. Mr. Cassel (U.) seconded the resolution. Among later speakers, the Secretary for Scotland said that the only difference to the local authorities would be that they would not receive the four months' grants during the current year. Mr. Healy (I. N.) attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the bases on which the grants were allotted to Ireland. Mr. G. Roberts (Lab., Norwich) said his party profoundly regretted the capitulation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The President of the Board of Education said that there was no danger of the abolition of free education. Next day (June 24) Mr. J. F. Hope (U., Sheffield, Central), in a speech characterised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as fresh and interesting, suggested that 200,000l. a year might be saved on payment of members, and the Development Commission and the Road Board might be abolished. The Estimates should be sent to a special Committee for scrutiny. He favoured higher import duties on foreign luxuries and a graduated tax on amusements. He feared for local freedom and knowledge in administration. After other speeches, the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied. He said that nothing had been said about the taxes; reduction of expenditure had been suggested on armaments, but it had no support, at any rate from the Opposition, and on the Development Commission and Road Board, but nearly all the expenditure on the former had gone to agriculture, and the primacy of Great Britain in roads was due to the tax on motor petrol. The Opposition had constantly pressed the Government to spend millions to relieve the ratepayers; when this was attempted, they tried to wreck the Bill. The industrial districts were strangled with rates due to absolute necessities, such as education; the projected readjustment of the grants would save some of those hardest pressed between 1s. and 2s. in the pound. Housing, which had been so often pressed, could not be undertaken unless the rates were relieved, and yet members rummaged in the dustbins of ancient precedents for obstacles to the Budget proposals. The truth was, the Opposition wanted to obstruct, for they had rather do the job themselves. Interference with local authorities had a precedent in the case of education and the existing valuation by overseers was a farce. The separation of improvement values from site values was regarded as insane, but it worked well in British Columbia. When the Colonies proposed to tax corn they were our kith and kin; when they taxed land they were lunatics. The abolition of the sugar tax had been suggested, but the penny was wanted, and abolition would mean an increase next year on the income tax. Those who voted against the Bill would be voting against means to increase the efficiency of the people and make a stronger and more enduring State.

[Pg 132]

Mr. Austen Chamberlain (U.) said that the Chancellor's speech gave no idea of the Bill, and he seemed not to have read the amendment. The relief of rates being of the utmost urgency, it was dropped, with trifling exceptions, for the current year, and made contingent for the next year on the passage of other Bills and a system of valuation of which the main features were still obscure. The proposals as to settled estate duty broke a bargain. Social reform could not be conducted regardless of its cost, and it was only on domestic expenditure that economies were possible. After protesting against the attack on Mr. Cassel for defending the rules and practice of the House, he said it was the conditions imposed by the Chancellor which made it impossible to give the strangled municipalities relief. Were the grants intended to relieve rates or to extend municipal activity? He recalled the Chancellor's speech at Ipswich, and described his electioneering as a crude form of bribery of a kind, for a less serious instance of which a Liberal Whip had been obliged to apologise.[1] He protested against centralised control as tending to extravagance, and attacked the valuation scheme. It was the Chancellor who by his attacks on property, adopted "the methods of the Eastern taxgatherer." He was using his conditions of relief to cover up the mess he had made.

After other speeches on that day and the next, the Prime Minister rose (June 25). He began by remarking that the predictions of financial disaster owing to increased expenditure and so-called confiscatory taxation had been made when the Corn Laws were repealed, when succession duties were begun in 1853, on Sir William Harcourt's Budget in 1894, and on the Budget of 1909. But since 1894 there had been the largest investment of capital recorded in British history; the capital which had gone abroad had found itself subjected to far larger exactions than in Great Britain; and the experts had been refuted by experience. Between 1905-6 and 1914-15 national expenditure had risen by 57,000,000l. Of this, the Navy had taken 18,000,000l., the Civil Service, including social reform, 30,500,000l., of which 20,000,000l. were due to old-age pensions and insurance, and 2,500,000l. to Imperial expenditure on education. The revenue derived from taxation had increased in the same time by 41,000,000l.; the non-tax revenue, mainly from the Post Office, by 11,000,000l., or nearly 50 per cent. In 1905-6 direct taxation produced 50.3 per cent. of the tax revenue, indirect 49.7 per cent.; the proportion now was 59.5 per cent. to 40.5 per cent., and of the latter only a little more than 7 per cent. was derived from the non-sumptuary taxes. This Mr. Asquith treated as an argument against using the 1d. taken off the income tax to reduce the sugar duty.

[Pg 133]

Meantime Great Britain, almost alone among nations, had been reducing her national debt. In principle he had always been a rigid economist, but expenditure on the Navy certainly could not be reduced, and that on social reform was likely to increase. Treasury control was in fact being vigorously exercised; the mainspring of additional expenditure was in the Commons, which had largely expanded the scheme of old-age pensions and other social reforms. The increase in indirect taxation had been wholly in sumptuary taxes. As to direct taxation, income-tax law had become to the ordinary man a Chinese puzzle, and he repeated that there ought to be a thorough revision of the system of collection. As to the present problem, the injustice of the existing system of local rating was unquestionable, and a local income-tax, which he would have preferred, being impracticable, the fairest way to reach personalty was through the income tax and supertax payers. That was the first principle of the Chancellor's proposals, the second was that the grants must be accompanied by security for efficiency, which would involve no interference with local autonomy; the third was that the increased subvention to local authorities should be accompanied by a new system of valuation. Every one admitted that the existing system was unfair and ineffective. They desired to assist the local authorities with expert advice. The need for expenditure on these objects was much more urgent than the relief of the sugar duty. The Government meant to obtain in the current year three distinct things: (1) the maintenance intact of the provisions for necessitous school areas, feeding of school children, nursing, measures against tuberculosis, and national insurance; (2) statutory authority for a more generous system of payment of grants during the next financial year; (3) statutory authority for a new system of valuation separating site from improvement value. Anyone who voted for the amendment was tending to put off social reform.

The subsequent speeches exhibited in various ways the dissent among a section of Liberals from the proposals of the Government. Eventually Mr. Bonar Law rose. After saying that the change in the Budget was really due, not to the Speaker's ruling, but to the Liberal dissentients, he remarked that the plan for relieving local rating conflicted with the Report of the Committee, and asked why, if the separate valuation of site value was so simple, it was not put into the Bills? Because Ministers generally would only agree to an inquiry. He then elaborately attacked Mr. Lloyd George's financial methods. The Chancellor ignored regularity in procedure; he utterly failed to control expenditure; he ignored the maxim that taxes should not be imposed which involved an excessive cost of collection; and he and other new Liberals promised, not retrenchment, but extravagance. With the Chancellor of the Exchequer extravagance was a principle. He was trying to use Budgets to correct the inequalities of[Pg 134] wealth. That could not be done by taxation. The Chancellor's theory of life was based on the strictest system of predestination. It was mere luck whether one was industrious and thrifty or an idler and wastrel, and so the duty of the former was to support the latter. Mr. Bonar Law closed by warnings against the excessive taxation of the rich and against depleting the resources of the country in regard to tax revenue and loans in time of war.

The Attorney-General, in the course of a brief reply, remarked that nothing was now heard of Tariff Reform; and the amendment was then rejected, but only by 303 votes to 265, and the second reading agreed to. One Liberal voted with the Opposition, as did seven Independent Nationalists; thirty-five Labour members abstained, and it was only the Nationalist vote that saved the Government from defeat. It was felt that they, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular, had received a severe check; and the confusion caused by the provisional collection "at source" of the 1d. on the income tax now dropped was only increased by the instructions sent out by the Treasury.

The aim of the framers of the Budget was eloquently set forth by the Lord Chancellor at a National Liberal Club dinner on June 26. There had been three great Budgets, he said, dealing respectively with the past, the present, and the coming generation. Old Age Pensions in 1908, national insurance, which was raising the level of the people, in 1911, and the pending Budget of 1914. This latter was productive expenditure. Since 1868 the total national income had risen from 860,000,000l. to 2,400,000,000l., while the cost of government had risen in about the same proportion, from 70,000,000l. to 207,000,000l. Everywhere democracy was demanding a larger share of the total wealth produced, and the demand was partly met by the relative decline of indirect taxation (p. 132). It was necessary to meet the decrease of the birth rate—itself not wholly an evil—by reducing infant mortality, which amounted to 128 per 1,000 in the first twelvemonth of life, and still-births, which were 150 per 1,000, half of them due to syphilis, which accounted also largely for deaf mutes and deformity, and many due to phthisis. Mothers, therefore, must be looked after and trained; at school the child must be cared for in body and mind, it must be encouraged, and its parents assisted, to choose a definite career; continuation schools must prepare their pupils for trades; and the ablest pupils should have a chance of university education. The Budget would have been impossible ten years earlier; the growth of science had made it possible; and he hoped some day to see a Ministry of Public Health. He laid stress on the curriculum of German continuation schools and the need of equality of opportunity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a short speech, said that the Lord Chancellor had had a large share not only in framing the Budget, but in its initiation and inspiration. Had the taxes imposed been larger, the majority of[Pg 135] thirty-eight would have been doubled. The Unionists were determined to defeat land reform, and absolute Ministerialist unity was necessary to frustrate their design.

We must now turn to the House of Lords, where the Government of Ireland Amending Bill was introduced on June 23 by the Marquess of Crewe. After regretting that his statement as to communications with the Opposition leaders had been misinterpreted (p. 122) he said that the Bill was introduced to meet the religious forebodings of Ulster and its fears regarding the business capacity of the men of the rest of Ireland. The exclusion of Ulster was clearly not liked by the Opposition leaders or the Nationalists, and Disraeli had repudiated the doctrine that Ireland was two nations. The Government had had a preference for giving autonomy to Ulster, but this the religious forebodings of the Protestants precluded. To exclude the whole of Ulster was impossible; it would be not a "clean cut," but a "ragged cut," owing to the great Roman Catholic majorities in Donegal and Cavan. The Bill would, therefore, embody the Prime Minister's offer of March 9—viz., that within three months after its passing any Ulster county should be entitled to take a poll, and if there was a majority for exclusion, the Government of Ireland Act should not apply to it. The exclusion would be for six years from the first meeting of the Irish Parliament. At the end of that period there would be, not automatic inclusion, but obligatory reconsideration. It would be unfair to leave the question of exclusion to be then fought over again from the beginning or postponed by other questions. The civil government of those areas would be exercised by the Lord-Lieutenant through such officers of departments as he might direct by Order in Council; a Minister of the Crown would deal with Irish business in Great Britain; no members of Parliament would go to the Irish House of Commons, but every constituency in the excluded area could send a representative to the House of Commons; the Joint Exchequer Board would take the cost of Irish services for the whole of Ireland, would divide them in proportion to population, and that portion which was due to be paid to the included area would be deducted for the purposes of the excluded area, and in addition to that it would be necessary to give the Board power to vary the charges in those cases in which it was possible. With respect to judicial arrangements, where any cause was tried, or where the party to any cause was ordinarily resident in the excluded area, he could claim to have his case tried either by one of the existing judges or by some judge appointed by His Majesty in pursuance of this section. Arrangements would be made for the allocation of civil servants to carry out the necessary duties in the excluded area. He invited amendments, and declared that, whatever modifications were made in the existing state of things, the Government would not hold the Opposition responsible. The Marquess of Lansdowne expressed his profound disappoint[Pg 136]ment with the Bill. The separate treatment of Ulster was fore-doomed to failure, and the time limit was intended to avoid a confession of failure by the Government. The Bill would not suffice to avert civil war. If the Prime Minister's terms were insufficient on March 9, they were doubly insufficient after the appearance of the Irish National Volunteers. The Government seemed to expect that the Opposition would make the Bill workable, but was not this undignified on their part? Apparently the Bill itself was to be amended by Orders in Council. Earl Grey regretted the refusal of the Prime Minister in the autumn of 1913 to entertain the offer of the Opposition leaders to consent to a Federal solution. In the Dominions the universal opinion was that he was not a free statesman. Even now, the Government should summon a Constitutional Convention to consider the questions of Ireland and of the Second Chamber. Otherwise the sooner a general election came the better, but he hoped that the Unionist leaders would undertake, if returned, to summon a Convention and be guided by its recommendations. The Bill was read a first time.

The Welsh Disestablishment Bill had been read a first time in the House of Lords on June 23; but the second reading was deferred until after the appointment of a select committee moved for by Viscount St. Aldwyn on June 25, and agreed to by the Government. This Committee was to inquire (1) whether the constitution of the Convocations of the Church of England had ever been altered by Act of Parliament without the assent and against the protest of Convocation, and (2) whether the memorials attributed to Welsh Nonconformists against disendowment represented a real and increasing objection to it among them. Viscount St. Aldwyn referred to the recent protest of the Convocation of Canterbury against the separation of the Welsh dioceses, pointing out that this separation might set up a breach in the spiritual unity of the Church in the case, for example, of the pending revision of the Prayer Book, and suggested that, notwithstanding the Bill, the Archbishop might still summon the Welsh Bishops and clergy to Convocation, or they might come of themselves. As to disendowment, the opponents of the Bill had become keener, and the support of it was waning. The Committee could conclude its labours during the session. The Marquess of Crewe agreed, rather doubtfully, to the proposal; the Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed it, laying stress on the great services rendered by Convocation, which the Bill now proposed to mutilate. Other Peers were favourable, the Bishop of St. Asaph denouncing the "dishonourable balance-sheet" which gave the sum alienated from the Church at 51,000l. a year, whereas it was really 157,000l. The Bishop of Hereford, however, thought the purpose of the motion would be regarded as dilatory. The Select Committee, nominated July 2, consisted of the Marquess of Bath, the Earls of Halsbury and Crawford, Viscount St. Aldwyn, and[Pg 137] Lords Barnard, Stanley of Alderley, and Courtney of Penwith; and the opposition to the Bill was further emphasised meanwhile by a demonstration in Victoria Park, London (June 27).

During these Parliamentary conflicts the King and Queen had paid a brief visit to the Midlands (June 24-26) as the guests of the Duke and Duchess of Portland at Welbeck Abbey. An official reception at Nottingham, a lunch with Lord and Lady Middleton at Wollaton Hall, and a tour of various hosiery, lace, and cotton factories, filled the first day; a visit to Mansfield and the surrounding coal-mining district the second; on the third their Majesties opened the King George Dock at Hull, and the chief magistrate of the town was permanently dignified with the title of Lord Mayor. Everywhere their reception was enthusiastic, and, as usual, they conversed with the workers and visited some of them in their homes.

The following week saw the first step towards a great catastrophe. The murder of the heir to the thrones of Austria and Hungary at Sarajevo on Sunday, June 28, was destined to change the whole course of European history; but, for the moment, it merely shocked and horrified public opinion in Great Britain, and the apprehensions it aroused were limited to the fortunes of the Dual Monarchy and the peace of the Near East. It was only referred to parenthetically in the rambling debate on the Foreign Office Vote (June 29), from which, indeed, but one fact of importance seemed to emerge—that the British Government was beginning to protest against the forward policy of Russia in Persia. After various speeches, chiefly about Persia, whose desperate position, financially and otherwise, was insisted on, but also on other topics, the Foreign Secretary made a comprehensive reply. He began by expressing his personal sympathy with the Dual Monarchy and its Imperial family in view of the assassination of the heir to its thrones, mentioning the goodwill of the late Archduke to Great Britain and the pleasure he and his consort had derived from their visit to the King in 1913. Every Foreign Minister in Europe knew the support given by the life of the Emperor of Austria to the cause of peace. The settlement of the Panama tolls question was due, not to any British diplomatic pressure or finesse, but to the respect of President Wilson for treaty rights. As to the Persian oil concession, Great Britain had got no rights which did not exist before the Anglo-Russian Convention. It was improbable that the oil wells would require military protection, and new developments would naturally be near the coast. No new obligation could be placed on Japan under the alliance with Great Britain unless disturbances in the region were the result of causes operating much more widely. The arrangement gave no increase of imperative obligation; the oil could not be got within the British dominions, and where, outside it, could it have been got with fewer and less dangerous commit[Pg 138]ments? The Government desired that the Anglo-Russian Convention should not be the means of further diminishing the independence and integrity of Persia, and had begun to discuss the existing situation under the Convention with the Russian Government. The financial situation in Persia was very serious, the control over expenditure being weak; but the Government, while not proposing to lend money for general expenses, had decided to advance 50,000l.—half from India—to prevent the gendarmerie officered by Swedes from collapse. It would be secured on the Customs. The Baghdad railway would stop at Basra, and so would not unsettle the position in the Persian Gulf; the rights of Messrs. Lynch on the Euphrates were assured, and there would be a Turkish company, half British, and with a British casting vote. Turkey also recognised the status quo in the Persian Gulf, and Great Britain would agree to an increase of 4 per cent. in the Turkish Customs duties, i.e. to 15 per cent. In Armenia the Inspectors-General would have wide powers, enabling them to realise the desired administrative reforms. The Powers were not prepared to set up an International Commission for the protection of minorities in the Near East. The root of the difficulty in Armenia was that the thing was beyond control. He would not send British troops, but if other Powers did, Great Britain could not well object. The working of the condominium in the New Hebrides was being reviewed by a conference, and the publication of papers might lead to friction. After touching on the opium conference at the Hague, he said that greater Parliamentary control of treaties could hardly be discussed on the Foreign Office Vote. Their reference to a Committee of the House would be undesirable. Incidentally, he ridiculed the statement that in 1911 Great Britain had been within twenty-four hours of war.

Next day Addresses to the King were moved in both Houses, requesting His Majesty to express to the Emperor of Austria their abhorrence of the crime of Sarajevo, and their profound sympathy with the Imperial and Royal Family and the Governments and peoples of the Dual Monarchy. In moving the Address in the Commons, the Prime Minister described the murder as "one of those incredible crimes which almost make us despair of the progress of mankind." The victims, recently guests of the King, had "left among all those who had the privilege of seeing and knowing them a gracious and unfading memory." He spoke of the example set to other rulers by the almost unparalleled assiduity of the aged Emperor in the pursuit of duty, as the unperturbed, sagacious, and heroic head of a mighty State, "rich in splendid traditions, and associated with us in this country in some of the most moving and precious chapters of our common history," and tendered, in the name of the Commons and the nation, "our most heartfelt and most affectionate sympathy," Mr. Bonar Law, in seconding,[Pg 139] said that no living Sovereign enjoyed in fuller measure than the aged Emperor the respect, confidence and love of his people. In the Upper House the Marquess of Crewe described the Emperor as "the most dignified and lonely figure in the waste places of the world"; and the Marquess of Lansdowne laid stress on the impression of "manliness, simplicity of character, ability, and interest in public affairs" left by the murdered Archduke during his visit to India in 1893, and his appreciation of the stupendous difficulty of governing a country so composite as the Austrian Empire.

In this connexion it may be added that on June 11, in reply to an inquiry from Mr. King (L., Somerset, N.) as to the existence of an Anglo-Russian naval agreement, or negotiations to that end, the Foreign Secretary had distinctly replied in the negative, saying that the Prime Minister's answer of the year before (A. R., 1913, p. 70) still held good, and that, if any agreement, were concluded modifying it, such an agreement, in his opinion, should be laid before Parliament.

The dignified tributes to the murdered Archduke were followed in the Commons, by a storm. In Committee of Supply on the Treasury Estimates, Mr. J. F. Hope (U.) attempted to revive the Marconi scandal by moving to reduce the Premier's salary as a protest against a recent refusal by him to warn Civil servants against speculation in stocks. Despite repeated calls to order, Mr. Hope managed to mention Lord Murray, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir Rufus Isaacs; Major Archer-Shee (U.) added fuel to the flame; the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not allowed by the Chairman to reply by citing "more pertinent illustrations"; the Prime Minister treated the suggestion that a warning was needful as a reflection on the honour of the Civil Service, and ultimately the reduction was negatived by 274 to 122.

The rising excitement of the Opposition was partly accounted for by the increasing difficulties of the Government. The Finance Bill was taken in Committee on July 1 and 2; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already found that the course of his plans must be cleared and their burden lightened by dropping its second part and putting the additional grants to local authorities into the Revenue Bill. This was announced in the House on June 29. On July 1 the President of the Local Government Board moved an instruction empowering the Committee to provide for amending the law relating to income tax (including supertax), death duties, and the National Debt. This was intended mainly to enable members to discuss grievances relating to the taxes in question, but Mr. Cassel (U.) moved to extend it so as to empower the Committee to deal with grievances affecting general taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a bitter speech, opposed this as an obstructive manœuvre; Mr. Austen Chamberlain, who described him as "a bad loser," said that the amendment was de[Pg 140]signed to revert to the old procedure of discussing grievances before imposing fresh taxation—a procedure imperilled by the practice adopted in 1913 of dividing the Finance Bill; for the second part of that Bill might be dropped, or delayed too late for adequate discussion. Eventually, however, the amendment was rejected by 271 to 185; another amendment moved by Sir F. Banbury, excluding the National Debt from the purview of the Committee—in order, he said, to prevent the reduction of the Sinking Fund—was defeated also by 276 to 182. In Committee, amendments (1) to graduate the tea duty ad valorem, and (2) to give a preference of 1d. per lb. to tea grown in the British Empire, were rejected, after discussion, by 241 to 130 and 258 to 165 respectively. On the first, Mr. Snowden (Lab., Blackburn), speaking for the Labour party, said that ad valorem duties on tea were barred by insuperable difficulties, and that, while his party disapproved of indirect taxation, they would support the Bill as intended, broadly, to increase direct taxation. On the second, the Attorney-General pointed out that 270,000,000 lb. of tea came from British India and Ceylon, 11,000,000 lb. from China and 31,000,000 lb. from other countries.

Next day (July 2) the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved an amendment reducing the income tax from 1s. 4d. to 1s. 3d. (p. 130). He explained that the alternative lay between taking off this additional penny and reducing the older taxation. But the amount saved by postponing the grants to local, authorities would not suffice to relieve the death duties, or to take off the sugar duty, and the income taxpayer, especially in the lower rates of income, deserved relief more than the payer of supertax. The inconvenience of the change to bankers had been greatly exaggerated, and, as soon as they had been officially told to deduct 1s. 4d. on dividends till the House otherwise ordered, the position became simple. The reduction was passed after a long debate by 251 to 56. The Committee was resumed on July 13 after the introduction of the guillotine (post, p. 146).

Meanwhile the debate on the second reading of the Amending Bill had begun in the House of Lords on July 1. After a preliminary objection by Lord Willoughby de Broke, that it proposed to amend a non-existent Act, had been overruled by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Morley of Blackburn moved the second reading. The Bill, he said, afforded a better solution than Earl Grey's proposed Convention; had it not been introduced, Home Rule would have been wrecked by the sectarian prejudice which hampered the Union at its outset. The Government believed there could be no better opportunity for discovering the common ground existing in Parliament for attaining an effective peace in Ireland. The situation in Ireland had a historic base for which neither party could escape responsibility. As to exclusion, no part of Ulster was homogeneous. The National Volunteers had dispelled the[Pg 141] illusion that the masses in the South and West of Ireland had lost their care for Home Rule. The danger was that the constitutional agitation for self-government might give place to the older methods of violence and disloyalty. He hoped the House would have no hand in promoting the change.

The Marquess of Lansdowne described the Bill as a "freak Bill," fit for a museum, and wholly inadequate to avert a calamity. Exclusion, on its merits, had probably no friends at all; and the form of it in the Bill was futile and vicious. It had been accepted by the Nationalists only because they thought Ulster would refuse it; so that the original proposal was insincere. The plan of voting by counties was most unfortunate, for in some of the counties Roman Catholics and Protestants were almost equal, and the voting would set up a saturnalia of intimidation and corruption. The time limit was vexatious and superfluous. After criticising in detail the system of government for the excluded areas, he said that the Opposition would not resist the second reading, but would move amendments in regard to the area excluded, the duration of the exclusion, and the conditions of government in the excluded area. But any revision of the Government of Ireland Bill was hopeless, and they would not deal with minute points of the Amending Bill, but leave the Government to make it "watertight." They would be misrepresented and misunderstood, but failure of this last effort might mean an irremediable misfortune to the country. When Æneas descended to Hades, the final and most dread of all the spectres he met was War. But they would support the second reading as that of a makeshift emergency measure meant solely to gain time. The meshes of the Parliament Act left them no other way, but, were a better way offered, they would be ready to explore it. They fully recognised that there was a great Irish problem, requiring to be handled with courage and sympathy, and that they could not adopt a policy of mere negation or destructive criticism.

Viscount Bryce, as an ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland, pointed out that the Lord-Lieutenant would have to act on the advice of the British, not the Irish Minister, and thought future Irish parties would be formed on different lines. Personally he would have preferred to give certain northern areas local autonomy, with an appeal to England against any measure which they thought objectionable. He defended the provisions as to exclusion, while admitting the great difficulty as to areas.

The Archbishop of York said that a general election would now give no chance of a settlement; and he suggested a Statutory Commission in two sections, to consider devolution from the point of view respectively of Ireland and of the United Kingdom. They had suffered all along from shortness of view; let Parliament stand aside and allow the Irish people to come to an agreement. The chances, however, were not propitious.

[Pg 142]

After other speeches, Lord Willoughby de Broke moved the rejection of the Bill. The Home Rule Bill might never become an Act. The Irish policy of the Government had broken down, and with it the Parliament Act, and they were asking the despised House of Lords to help them out. Nobody wanted the exclusion of Ulster, and to vote for it was to support a Parliament in Dublin. He spoke strongly for the maintenance of the Union. Lord Macdonnell urged that the problem might be solved by proportional representation and Home Rule within Home Rule, rather than by exclusion. Of later speakers, the Earl of Mayo, opposing the Bill, did not believe in the danger of civil war.

The debate was resumed next day (July 2) by the Marquess of Londonderry, who asked whether the Prime Minister would tell Mr. Redmond that the Government would insist on the acceptance of the far-reaching amendments invited by the Marquess of Crewe? If not, the House had better reject the Bill. Lord Wimborne, in a vigorous speech, charged the Unionist party with having exceeded their constitutional rights in their opposition to Home Rule. The Government did not admit any imperfection in their main Home Rule measure, nor their inability to put it into operation. They were not asking for relief; they did not believe that the provisional government that was contemplated was practicable, or that the electors would tolerate it. They proposed temporary exclusion only to enable passions to cool and apprehensions to be allayed. The salvation of Ireland must be won in Ireland, and he hoped all parties would work together for a solution. The Earl of Dunraven said that the only solution was by conference. The essence of the Amending Bill was apparently that Ireland must be governed by Orders in Council. As the provisions of the Bill as to Customs and Excise did not apply to the excluded areas, the confusion would be inextricable and the administration impracticable. Still, he would vote for the second reading in the hope that the Bill might be shaped into something that would avert a catastrophe. Viscount Midleton condemned the provocative character of Lord Wimborne's speech, and said that they must hope that the Bill would avert civil war, but an election must follow, and then both Bills must be revised. He asked that (1) the minority should be assured impartial trials; (2) attention should be given to the land question; (3) the graduation of taxes common to Ireland and Great Britain should not be different in Ireland, and provision should be made against the discriminating taxation of land. Even so, the Opposition would not accept the Bill, but they would pass it from patriotic motives. Lord Islington, a former Colonial Governor, favoured a Commission of Inquiry to devise amendments along with the passing of the two Bills. The Earl of Halsbury felt that the Bill should be read a second time to avoid civil war, though he would have naturally voted for its rejection. Lord Sydenham favoured a Statutory Commission, or[Pg 143] some other effort towards settlement by Consent. Lord Courtney of Penwith said that unless the Nationalist and Ulster leaders would consent to a Conference, a Royal Commission would defer the solution under circumstances which gave no prospect of eventual accomplishment. He pleaded for "Home Rule within Home Rule." Among later speakers, the Duke of Abercorn (an Ulster Volunteer) said the whole of Ulster would have to be excluded without a time limit, and the Earl of Crawford, who described the Bill as "vague, nebulous, and amorphous," said that the six years' limit was not a truce, but a provocation, and the whole of Ulster must be excluded. The suggestion of a statutory convention was too vague. The Earl of Denbigh, as a Catholic Unionist, scouted the idea of religious persecution, but opposed Home Rule as weakening Great Britain. He supported the Bill as gaining time.

The debate was resumed and concluded on July 6. Viscount Milner commented on the lukewarmness of the Ministerialists towards the measure, and, while approving of a Conference as an entirely fresh start towards solution, urged the Government to facilitate such a fresh start by a general election or a referendum. The Amending Bill, however, might be useful if it were so entirely remodelled as to reassure the Ulstermen, and nothing would do that but a frank and complete assurance at once that they would never be subjected to the authority of an Irish Parliament and Executive without their own consent. If Ulster remained free to decide, she might conceivably some day join the rest of Ireland, but to conquer her would make a united Ireland impossible, and, were the Army and Navy employed to do it, the British Empire would not long survive the shock. The Amending Bill was a temporary expedient which might tide over an interval of great danger. He feared nothing could be done for the Unionist minority in the South and West of Ireland, though he hoped for some relief to them by proportional representation, and indirectly by inducing the Nationalists to treat them well in order to attract Ulster. He therefore supported the Bill. Earl Roberts said that to use the Army to force the Home Rule Bill on Ulster would mean its utter destruction. He denied absolutely that the Army had conspired with the Unionist party to defeat the Home Rule Bill. The Army had no politics, but this was no mere political crisis, but one which affected the roots of our national existence. Following the example set by Viscount Wolseley in 1893, he had warned the Government, and subsequently the Prime Minister, that any attempt to use the military forces of the nation to coerce Ulster would break and ruin the Army. Discipline, as in the British Army, might override human nature under almost every imaginable circumstance, but there was a stratum in every one which was impervious to it. The solution must be taken in hand at once, and the consequences of delay might be irreparable.

[Pg 144]

After several Irish Peers had either condemned or very reluctantly accepted the Bill, Earl Curzon of Kedleston summed up against it. After dwelling on the paradoxical character of the situation, he declared that the debate had shown (1) that the Bill was forlorn and friendless, and they were really discussing another and an undefined Bill; (2) that exclusion was thoroughly unpopular, and was only considered as a makeshift; but if it were to come, "better a clean cut than a cut with ragged edges and festering lips." He looked forward to a reunited Ireland, managing some portion of her local affairs, but subject to the Crown; but that could only be accomplished by Irishmen themselves; (3) the debate had shown that no ultimate settlement could be found but by a Conference. An immediate Conference seemed impracticable and relief had to be provided for the immediate emergency. The Amending Bill, which he called a Peace Preservation Bill, and the Home Rule Bill, would prove unworkable, and a Conference would have to come. Meanwhile, did Ministers still propose to adhere to the impossible time-limit and the even more impossible scheme of voting by counties?

The Marquess of Crewe, summing up for Ministers, replied to a number of questions of detail raised in the debate. Bills not yet law had been amended or repealed by other Bills in 1851 and 1907. As to judicial proceedings, the parties to them in the excluded area were safeguarded at all stages. For the excluded area an independent Land Commission must be established. The question raised by Lord Midleton as to income tax and supertax had no bearing on the exclusion of Ulster, but the Government did not apprehend oppressive taxation by the Irish Parliament. Customs and Excise were not mentioned because it was felt that no splitting up of Ireland could be permanent. All serious amendments would be considered, but what was called "looking facts in the face" ignored the existence of Nationalist Ireland. Were Ulster totally excluded, would the Opposition guarantee Ireland and Great Britain against civil conflict? A Conference would be impossible if it pre-supposed the scrapping of Liberal policy, but otherwise, if it took place between leading Irishmen and were backed by strong public opinion, it would be the best augury for some permanent arrangement.

The second reading was passed by 273 to 10.

The resumption of this debate had been preceded by tributes from the leaders on both sides to the memory of the most conspicuous figure in the Unionist party for the twenty years preceding 1906. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, disabled in that year by paralysis, had since then made but few and brief public appearances, and on July 2 he had passed away painlessly at his home at Highbury, near Birmingham. He was buried on July 6 at the Key Hill Cemetery at Birmingham, after an impressive funeral service at the Church of the Messiah (Unitarian), conducted, at his own desire, by the Rev.[Pg 145] Prof. Jacks of Manchester College, Oxford. The church was filled with representatives of the City Council and of local institutions and political associations; vast crowds lined the streets, and messages of sympathy were sent from the King, the King of Spain, the President of the French Chamber, the Dominions, and all parts of the world. Meanwhile a memorial service, held at St. Margaret's, Westminster, was attended by representatives of the King, foreign Powers, and the Dominions, and by many members of the Cabinet and the two Houses. In the House of Lords, three hours later, the Marquess of Crewe spoke of Mr. Chamberlain's greatness alike as a Colonial Secretary, as a debater, and as "the greatest civic figure ever engaged in British politics," as well as of his "serene family life "; the Marquess of Lansdowne bore witness to his merits as a colleague and a leader, and Viscount Milner testified that Mr. Chamberlain was "an incomparable chief." The House of Commons marked the occasion by adjourning for the day, after the Prime Minister and the actual and former leaders of the Opposition had paid their tributes to the memory of a great Parliamentarian and promoter of the Empire. The Prime Minister, analysing Mr. Chamberlain's Parliamentary career and character, said that neutrality was impossible to a man of his temperament and convictions. He was the pioneer of a new generation, and a new type of personality in the House, introducing and perfecting a new style of speaking, and giving the impression of complete and serene command of his material and himself. The Prime Minister further touched on Mr. Chamberlain's genuine sympathy for the victims of the strain of social and industrial life, on the imaginative quality that touched his ideals in the larger issues of national policy, on his unsurpassed confidence and courage, and on his generosity as an antagonist. It was fitting that within those walls, where the echoes of his voice seemed still to linger, they should suspend for a few hours the clash of controversy and join in acknowledging their common debt to his life and example. Mr. Bonar Law expressed the gratitude of the Opposition for Mr. Asquith's tribute. Mr. Chamberlain, he said, was his hero when he entered Parliament, and had continued so, and he described him as a great fighter and a great friend. Two principles were at the basis of his political action—a desire to improve the condition of the people, and an intense, perhaps almost aggressive, national pride. He almost alone had changed the whole spirit of the reciprocal relationship of different parts of the Empire, and had thus laid strong the foundation on which others might build. Mr. Balfour added his tribute, as one of the very few left who had served with Mr. Chamberlain in Cabinets. The future historian, he thought, would think of him mainly as an Imperial statesman. As Colonial Secretary he had done the greatest work that had ever fallen to a statesman in Great Britain. He had recognised that the Dominions must be[Pg 146] treated with absolute equality, and that there must be a bracing feeling of common patriotism. He was a great idealist, a great friend, a great orator and a great man.

This commemoration of a great Parliamentarian had secured a day's intermission in party strife, but it broke out afresh on July 7, when the Prime Minister moved that the remaining stages of the Finance Bill should be limited to seven days. He pointed out that ten and a half days had been spent already on various stages of the Budget, and, under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913, the Finance Bill must become law on August 4, while standing orders required the Estimates to be disposed of by August 5. Of the sixteen Parliamentary days (omitting Fridays as not full days) available before August 5, six and a half were needed to Supply, and seven given to the Finance Bill would leave two and a half for contingencies. He reviewed the progress made, promising a day and a half for the new clauses, and said that if there were ever a Tariff Reform Budget, there would certainly have to be an allocation of time for it. He would prefer that such allocations should be the duty of an independent tribunal, and hinted that the committee then sitting on procedure might make them so. Mr. Bonar Law (U.) moved an amendment repudiating and condemning, as a dangerous innovation, proposals for the curtailment of discussion on measures tending to impose heavy burdens of new taxation. He pointed out that the main business of the House was finance, and that a guillotine had never before been imposed for the Finance Bill. The Government might suspend the 11 o'clock rule, and use ordinary and kangaroo closure. The Government had taken every precaution to ensure that they would be short of time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had despised the real work of his office, and had used the Exchequer to help electioneering. Several Liberals defended the proposal as necessary, though Mr. Leif Jones (L., Notts, Rushcliffe) and, later, Mr. D. Mason (L., Coventry) spoke against it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that the experience of the Budget debates in 1909 showed that closure was necessary. Other and more important Budgets, e.g., those of 1842 and 1860, had produced similar attacks on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that of 1842 was only discussed for sixteen days. He agreed, however, that better methods of examining the Budget might be found. Mr. Balfour (U.) said that, while it was true that the art of obstruction had been perfected, the difficulty arose mainly from the fact that more members were able and eager to speak than formerly, and that the constituencies watched them more. The Government should have found a remedy long ago. With the guillotine, no Minister was required to explain, or even to understand, his Bill. The amendment was rejected, but only by 269 to 263, many Liberals abstaining, among them the group who had followed Mr. Holt (L.) in objecting to the Budget (p. 128).[Pg 147] The majority of 269 contained but 181 Liberals, the rest being Nationalist and Labour members. Various amendments involving an extension of time were defeated that day and the next by majorities varying from 79 to 124, and finally the motion was carried by 265 to 175 (July 9).

The rest of the week in the Commons was devoted to less contentious business. On the Board of Trade Vote (July 9) the grievances alleged by members concerned chiefly the mercantile marine, London traffic, and the absence of official statistics in regard to agricultural wages, which Mr. Peto (U., Devizes) demanded in order to facilitate a correct judgment on the land controversy before the general election. The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Burns), in reply, promised these statistics by January, which would be quite time enough for the election. For the mercantile marine, he said, existing sight tests must be maintained, for the safety of life at sea. As to health, he had noticed that from 1891 to 1911 the death-rate in that calling fell only from 4.9 to 4.7 per 1000, as compared with falls in the Navy from 4.7 to 2 per 1000, in the Army from 9 to 3.6 per 1,000, and in the civil population of ages corresponding to those in these callings from 8 to 4.7 per 1000. This might be accounted for by the men coming from a poorer class than formerly, or from an inferior class to those represented by the Army, Navy, and industrial population. He had appointed an expert Inquiry Committee. Much had been done, meanwhile, to increase the number of cargo steamers having hospitals. He promised closer inspection, preferring good administration to bad legislation. The pending International Convention on timber deck loads would only be frustrated if, as some members desired, questions as to other deck loads were introduced. With London traffic the concern of the Board of Trade was purely statistical and historical, but, with 600 people killed annually and 20,000 injured, something must be done. He would report the views expressed to the Prime Minister. After further discussion, the Vote was agreed to.

The debate on the Foreign Office Vote (p. 137) was continued next day (July 10), according to promise. A number of questions were raised by various members on both sides; and Mr. Bonar Law introduced a party note by scornfully remarking that the Foreign Secretary had been lectured on the duty of keeping peace throughout the world, when his ability to do so at home was doubtful. Sir E. Grey ignored this taunt, and after commenting on the vast amount expected from the Foreign Office by members, replied specifically on the points raised. He repelled the charge of inaction as to railway concessions in Asia Minor and China; he had much rather that concessions should be given willingly than obtained under pressure. He believed that under the new agreement as to navigation on the Euphrates and Tigris the British position would be better and more secure. He was not in favour of[Pg 148] securing the survey of the Muhamrah-Khoramabad railway by force, or of pushing British trade or concessions at excessive cost. As to the oil concession the British position was the same as in regard to trade in Southern Persia. After dealing hopefully with a pending arrangement regarding Chinese railway concessions, with the Portuguese West African labour question, and other matters, and specially acknowledging the release by the Portuguese Government of nearly all its political prisoners after a popular agitation in Great Britain, he mentioned that the Dutch Government had just invited Great Britain to send a representative to an International Committee in June, 1915, to draw up a programme for the Hague Conference. As to expenditure on armaments, direct suggestion of reduction was resented on the Continent, and neither it nor the improvement of the relations of the Great Powers had produced much result. Great Britain was not responsible for the increase, the most notable part of which had been military, not naval. He saw no remedy except the interference of public opinion when things became intolerable. The Government would do its best to encourage reduction, but not by direct suggestion. He looked rather to the promotion of good relations with other Powers. After a speech by Mr. Dillon the Vote was agreed to.

In the intervals between dealing with the Amending Bill the House of Lords disposed (on June 30 and July 7) of the Council of India Bill, a measure attributed (though inaccurately) mainly to Mr. Montagu, late Under-Secretary for India, and carrying out the developments of Liberal policy indicated in 1913 (A.R., 1913, p. 187 seq.). The salient feature was that the Council of the Secretary of State for India, which was now to contain from seven to ten members instead of from ten to fourteen, must always include two natives of India, to be chosen by the Secretary of State from a panel nominated by the Indian elective members of the Viceroy's Council and the Provincial Legislative Councils. Changes were also made in the working rules of the Council, partly to expedite its business, and one, which was severely criticised, provided that it should meet not, as heretofore, weekly, but only when summoned by the Secretary of State. The actual rules of procedure were extremely cumbrous, and it appeared from Ministerial statements made in the debate that it took nearly a month to get the most ordinary piece of business through the Council, and that in fact the Secretary had often, for practical purposes, to come very near evading the law. The Bill had been supported by a deputation from the Indian National Congress, though some organs of native opinion held that the elective provisions did not go far enough. It was strongly opposed both in The Times and by Peers with Indian experience, including Lords Ampthill and Harris; and Earl Curzon of Kedleston moved its rejection, as diminishing that element in the Council that possessed administrative experience,[Pg 149] rendering procedure by Committees impossible, and making the Secretary of State into an autocrat. The presence of Indian members he thought entirely desirable, but the methods of selection would bring in platform speakers rather than competent advisers on questions of administration. The opposition to the Bill had gathered force by the second day's debate (July 7) when it was strongly defended by Lord Morley of Blackburn, and Lord Reay, and opposed no less strongly by Lords Ampthill, Harris, and Sydenham, Earl Roberts, and Viscount Midleton, while Lord Faber commended its proposals for simplifying financial business, and other Peers urged the House at least to give it a second reading. Lord Courtney of Penwith had desired to refer it to a Select Committee, but in spite of these arguments, and an able defence by the Marquess of Crewe, it was rejected on second reading by 96 to 38.

Next day (July 8) the Lords proceeded completely to transform the Amending Bill. They struck out, by 158 to 35, the provision that any county in Ulster might vote itself out of the Home Rule Scheme for six years, the Earl of Selborne, who moved this deletion, laying stress on various complications which the provision would set up, and explaining that, as an advocate of the Referendum, he desired that it should not be associated with an experiment that could only end in disaster; and Lord Killanin said that if no time-limit were imposed, Ulster would be free to come in voluntarily. Next, the House rejected, by 196 to 20, Lord Macdonnell's scheme for establishing in Ulster "Home Rule within Home Rule," in the form of local administrative control through an Ulster Council elected by proportional representation. To this Council would be transferred the Departments concerned with education, local government, and agriculture and technical instruction, and possibly portions of others. The expenses incurred by the Ulster Council would be provided by the Irish Parliament, or, in default, deducted from the transferred sum by the Joint Exchequer Board. The Marquess of Crewe said that the proposal would be rejected by the various parties to the controversy; Earl Loreburn, Lord Courtney of Penwith, and, later, Viscount Bryce supported it; the Lord Chancellor, while admitting that the exclusion of Ulster was a most unfortunate solution, said that the Government only proposed it because the Opposition were deaf to all appeals. The latter were forcing the country into proximity to a great danger. They hoped soon to take office, but had no clear idea how they would deal with the situation.' To this Earl Curzon of Kedleston retorted that they at any rate had a consistent policy and would not flinch from the issue. After this division the Marquess of Lansdowne moved an amendment permanently excluding the whole of Ulster from the operation of the Home Rule Bill, advocating this course as the most likely way to avert a conflict, though the Opposition could[Pg 150] not guarantee that it would do so. The Archbishop of Canterbury thought that a division based on religious differences was the worst possible, and that only a geographical division was practicable. Lord Macdonnell protested strongly against the exclusion of Cavan, Donegal, and Monaghan from the control of the Irish Parliament, but the amendment was passed by 138 to 39. Among other amendments passed one substituted a Secretary of State for the Lord-Lieutenant as the executive authority in the excluded area. Another reduced the representation of Ireland in the Imperial House of Commons from 42 members to 27. A third, moved by the Earl of Halsbury, continued the existing method of judicial appointments and of appeal, to the House of Lords instead of to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as provided in the Bill. This was supported next day by several Unionist Peers, the Earl of Desart urging that under Home Rule one party would be permanently in power, that the Judges would therefore be under special pressure, and that attacks on a Judge would probably have the sympathy of the Irish Parliament. The Marquess of Crewe urged that the amendment would be a slight on the Irish Government; the Marquess of Lansdowne supported it, partly as tending to reassure the Unionists outside Ulster. It was passed by 166 to 42. An amendment by Lord Macdonnell, making the administration of the Land Purchase Acts a reserved service, was next adopted. The Marquess of Lansdowne supported it, but explained that the Opposition had limited themselves to framing amendments to the provisions intended to avert civil strife, and had, therefore, abstained from attempting to protect minorities outside Ulster. The Marquess of Crewe intimated that, if the Bill were altered after discussion between the Houses, the alteration need not be confined to Ulster. Lord Macdonnell then proposed a scheme for proportional representation in the Irish Parliament; but the question, after debate, was deferred to the Report Stage. Some other amendments were negatived; one, moved by the Earl of Kenmare, was passed, keeping the Royal Irish Constabulary under the Imperial Government; and a new clause, moved by the Earl of Selborne, provided that nothing in the Home Rule Bill should prejudicially alter or affect the powers and rights of any person in the excluded area.

Meanwhile the Labour and suffragist disturbances continued to promise fresh complications. The London builders' dispute had resisted all attempts at settlement; and a strike similar to those which had caused the dispute arose at Woolwich Arsenal (July 3), where an engineer in the Carriage Department refused to erect machinery on a concrete base prepared by a non-unionist. At first only the men in certain departments were called out, but by July 6 over 10,000 had ceased work. On July 7, however, the Prime Minister stated in the House that the contract under which the base had been laid ran from 1912 to 1915, that no question as[Pg 151] to non-union labour under it had been raised previously, and that the men had left work without notice. A Court of Inquiry, however, was appointed—two representative employers, two trade unionists, and Sir George Askwith as Chairman, and on July 9 the men returned to work.

Though this fresh extension of the Labour unrest was happily checked, the Suffragist militancy which was gradually estranging public sympathy did not abate. On July 3, Ballymenoch House, near Belfast, was burnt, the damage done being estimated at 20,000l.; an attempt was also made to burn Carmichael Church, Lanark, and on July 9 to destroy Robert Burns's birthplace at Alloway. A day earlier Mrs. Pankhurst had recovered sufficiently to visit the militant headquarters, and to submit to rearrest as the prelude of her ninth hunger-and-thirst strike; and two women (whose behaviour in court was disorderly) had been convicted of conspiracy to destroy windows, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, while a sentence of two months had been passed on the printer of the Suffragette. The King's visit to Scotland had occasioned futile and fatuous attempts to gain the Royal attention by throwing leaflets into the carriage or shouting protests (during his visit to the Clyde) through a megaphone; and on Mrs. Pankhurst's arrest, a bomb was deposited in St. John the Evangelist Church, Westminster (July 12); the depositor, however, was arrested, and no harm was done. Nevertheless there was a strong feeling that the true remedy for the agitation had not been found, and it was intensified by the publication of a letter from the Bishop of London (Times, July 5), in which, however, he disclaimed support of militancy. But two real successes were obtained by the promoters of the "emancipation" of women. On July 9 the Representative Church Council of the Church of England (consisting of the members of the Convocations and the Houses of Laymen of the two Provinces) decided by a large majority of clergy and a small one of laymen to give women votes in the elections of Church Councils and enable them to sit on parochial councils; and on June 17 deputations from societies connected with the protection of women and children obtained from the Home Office a promise of favourable consideration of the appointment, for special duties, of women police.

While all these causes seemed tending to set up a great crisis, the King and Queen, with Princess Mary, had been spending a busy week in Scotland (July 6-13). Making Holyrood Palace their headquarters, they paid a state visit to Glasgow (July 7) where the King laid the foundation-stone of the new Municipal Buildings, opened a new block at the Royal Infirmary, and were received at the University; next day they visited the Fairfield shipbuilding yard at Govan, where His Majesty walked underneath the hull of the super-Dreadnought Valiant, in course of construction, and visited H.M.S, Benbow, completing; the day[Pg 152] following they witnessed the stages of manufacture of the 15-inch gun at Parkhead Steel Works, visited Lord Newlands (who marked the occasion by giving 25,000l. to the Western Infirmary) and the Duke of Hamilton; next day they visited Dundee and Perth, and on the Saturday Dunblane Cathedral, Stirling Castle, and the ruined ancient palace of Linlithgow. On the Sunday they attended service at St. Giles's Cathedral, Edinburgh, and on Monday returned to London. Everywhere they were enthusiastically welcomed, and, save for the few futile militant interruptions, the visit was an entire success. The King, as the Spectator remarked, was enabled by these visits to know his own country better than the best informed of his subjects.

However, less pleasant matters were soon to engage His Majesty's attention. The "historic Twelfth" was approaching, in Ulster; the Ulster Unionist Council was to take the opportunity of meeting (July 10); and on the previous day Captain Craig, M.P., made a statement, in the course of which he read the preamble to the Constitution of the Ulster Provisional Government. This document declared that, trusting to Divine aid, the signatories, "the people of the counties and places of Ulster represented in the Ulster Unionist Council," undertook to resist to the utmost the claims of an Irish Nationalist Government to exercise powers over them hitherto exercised by the Crown and the Imperial Parliament, and resolved to ignore the Irish Parliament, and to assume and exercise within the Ulster area, pending the restoration of direct Imperial Government, all powers rendered necessary by the withdrawal of such Government for the maintenance of peace and order and the protection of the rights and liberties of His Majesty's subjects; but such powers were to be exercised in allegiance to the King and in trust for the Constitution, to the intent that the Ulster area should continue an integral portion thereof. The laws in force, other than the Home Rule Act, would be maintained and all judges and others acting under the direct authority of the King protected. After contrasting the aims of the Nationalist and of the Ulster leaders, Captain Craig added that the outlook was as dark as it could be. This view was emphasised by the landing of machine guns for the Ulstermen, and of consignments of arms for both sides, and by the announcement that "rest stations" were being arranged in England for Ulster refugee women and children, at Eaton Hall and elsewhere; while the National Volunteers were stated to number 200,000. On July 10 Sir Edward Carson had an enthusiastic welcome at Belfast, and he and Mr. Long, addressing a meeting of Ulster delegates, left the impression that the moment of supreme crisis was at hand. Possibly through the confidence of the rank and file in their leaders, the celebrations of the Boyne anniversary on Monday, July 13, though more numerously attended than ever, passed off without disturbance. Seventy thousand men marched from Belfast[Pg 153] to Drumbeg, where Sir Edward Carson again emphasised Ulster's determination to resist; "Give us a clean cut," he said, "or come and fight us."

Liberal journals stated that Lord Northcliffe's newspapers, in particular The Times and the Daily Mail, were making the most of these demonstrations by means of a host of special correspondents and photographers, and an important Unionist paper, the Birmingham Daily Post, also thought the alarm exaggerated. But the House of Lords increased the impression already produced by its treatment of the Amending Bill. The Report Stage was disposed of on July 13. An amendment was negatived which was proposed by Lord Weardale, modifying the provision for the exclusion of Ulster by enabling a poll to be taken on the question upon a requisition from 10 per cent. of the electors in any four counties; and then Lord Macdonnell renewed in a simplified form his proposal for proportional representation, by moving that each constituency in the Irish Parliament should return not less than three members. He advocated this in the interest of the Unionists outside Ulster. Viscount St. Aldwyn supported this scheme; Viscount Bryce held that it was a corollary to the exclusion of Ulster; but the Marquess of Crewe objected to making the Irish Parliament a corpus vile for experiment, and Viscount Morley of Blackburn doubted if Irish peasants would understand the "single transferable vote." On a division being challenged, the leaders on both sides abstained; and no "Not Contents" appeared. The amendment, therefore, was declared carried.

On the third reading next day, the Marquess of Crewe pointed out that the exclusion of Ulster raised, in a new form, the difficulty of governing Irish Nationalists from Great Britain, which had been somewhat masked by the concessions of certain Unionist Ministers in the past to Irish ideas. He reminded the House that the Irish Councils Bill of 1907 was accepted reluctantly by the Nationalist leaders, but rejected by their followers, and hinted that legislation could not depend solely on the legislators; politics were not a game of chess. The Marquess of Lansdowne, reviewing the Bill as amended, declared that the coercion of Ulster was dead. Lord Joicey, as a Liberal Peer, protested against the refusal of the Government to assist in altering the Bill. But the interest of the debate lay mainly in a new clause moved by the Earl of Dunraven, after the Bill had been read a third time without a division, providing that the Home Rule Act might be suspended by Order in Council until a Commission had reported on the relation of Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom. He desired, he said, to avoid "the horror of the dismemberment of Ireland," ensure a stable peace, and indicate the line of a future final and satisfactory settlement. Viscount Morley opposed the amendment as against the whole spirit of the Constitution, and treated, the action of the Peers[Pg 154] as only an elaborate way of rejecting the Home Rule Bill. The Archbishop of York and Lord Ribblesdale supported the amendment; Earl Beauchamp indicated that, while the Government could not accept a Statutory Commission, they would, if there were any desire for it, agree to a voluntary conference. The Marquess of Lansdowne held it undesirable to put the Constitution in the melting-pot on the chance of getting Ministers out of a purely domestic difficulty in Ireland, and refused to accept the amendment as a substitute for the Unionist demands; were they conceded, an inquiry might be of advantage. The clause was then added to the Bill without a division.

Thus the main changes in the Home Rule scheme effected by the Bill were as follows: Ulster was entirely and permanently excluded from the Home Rule scheme, and was to be administered by a Secretary of State through offices and departments different from those exercising authority under the Home Rule Bill, and set up by Order in Council, subject to the acquiescence of both Houses of the Imperial Parliament. Ulster would continue to send members to the Imperial Parliament, in which Irish representation would be reduced to twenty-seven. Judges would be appointed as under the existing system, and the appeal from Irish courts to the House of Lords would continue. Land purchase would be reserved, so would the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the Lord-Lieutenant would control the Dublin metropolitan police.

The House of Lords next day continued its protest against the Parliament Act by rejecting (July 15) the Plural Voting Bill. The debate was, however, languid. The Marquess of Crewe, in moving the second reading, hoped that the inherent impropriety of plural voting would have in any case led Ministers to introduce the measure; the party advantage it gave was, in fact, only occasional, and unknown before 1884. He repeated the promise (p. 84) of a Redistribution Commission. Lord St. Audries said that such promises were idle; the general election would come as a thief in the night, and would find the Redistribution Bill in bed. In fact, most plural voters had but two votes, one for their residence and one for their place of business or their University, and agriculture, commerce, and industry should be adequately represented. Lord Newton traced indirectly to the Bill the militants' agitation, stimulated by the juggling over the Franchise Bill in 1913, and the Irish crisis, as the general election was being postponed till the plural voter was abolished. Earl Grey held that the Bill aggravated the existing inequality of representation. The Marquess of Lansdowne said that the debate was unreal. The authority of the Government in the country was waning, and they hoped the Bill would save something out of the wreck. The second reading was postponed by 119 to 49.

This division, of course, meant little; and it was clear that the Government and the majority of the Commons would not accept[Pg 155] the Lords' transformation of the Amending Bill. But the division on the guillotining of the Finance Act had left the Government weaker, and they had been compelled to strain their supporters' patience by announcing a new session "in the early winter" after a Prorogation in August, to enable the essential provisions of the Revenue Bill to be carried in time for the insertion of the grants to the local authorities in the next Estimates. Before the Prorogation they would take the Amending Bill, the Indian Budget, and the resolutions on the Reform of the House of Lords.

For the moment, they proceeded with the Committee stage of the Finance Bill (July 13, 14, 15, 16), but only a brief notice of a few features of it is possible here. An amendment moved by Mr. Worthington Evans (U., Colchester) to allow a payer of supertax to deduct the duties on mineral rights and undeveloped land from his sources of income, on the ground that he would otherwise be paying part of his tax twice over, was defeated by 257 to 115, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rejecting his arguments; and he was also unsuccessful in his opposition to the provisions regarding income tax in respect of property abroad, which he contended would be ineffective as well as unfair. He outlined, indeed, an ingenious method of evasion, and contended that it was unjust to tax income which never reached Great Britain, but was reinvested abroad, as also income already taxed in the country of its origin. From both sides of the House the unfairness of the provisions was insisted on; and an amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, intended to afford some relief to insurance companies and others who had habitually invested abroad the proceeds of their foreign investments, was carried by 280 to 190. Next day (July 14) on the clause altering the estate duties (p. 95) the usual complaints were made of the incidence of the death duties on large estates, especially agricultural estates; and Sir A. Henderson (U., St. George's, Hanover Square) declared that the necessity of selling stock to meet them was one cause of the fall in Stock Exchange securities, which he estimated as aggregating over 1,000,000,000l. since 1909. The critics were reinforced by Mr. Balfour (U.) who contended that the tax came out of capital, and might thus decrease employment suddenly where the estate was that of a great landlord or manufacturer; besides, it was diminishing the national emergency reserve. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that the money had to be found, and savings were diminished whether it was raised by death duties or by income tax; if expenditure on defence, education, or public health were inadequate, securities would then depreciate also. The fall in them had been heavier abroad, and also at home before 1905. Some of the burden must come out of capital; Germany got it thus, but from the living. The clause was passed by 301 to 207. On the clause abolishing settlement duty and relief in respect of settled property (p. 95), an attempt was made by Mr. Cassel (U., St. Pancras) to prevent[Pg 156] its retrospective application where estate duty had been paid before the passing of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, invoking the example of Pitt, contended that each generation had a right to adjust its own taxation. Members on both sides strongly condemned the clause, Mr. Bonar Law citing as a parallel Mr. Larkin's "To hell with contracts" (A.R., 1913, p. 208). The Solicitor-General said that the Government proposed, first, that the full settlement estate duty that had been paid should be repaid; next, that during the whole of the period over which that duty failed to frank the estate interest should be allowed on the amount. He contended that it was a fair equivalent. The amendment was rejected by 297 to 208, and the clause passed by 295 to 204.

The following day (July 15) attempts were vainly made to extend the relief in cases of quick succession to property where it consisted of land or a business, first, by removing this limitation so as to take in personalty, next, by extending the five years' interval allowed between payments of the entire estate duty to fifteen. The former the Chancellor of the Exchequer found too costly; the latter was rejected on a division by 297 to 175. An attempt by Sir F. Banbury (U.) to prevent the reduction of the annual charge for diminution of the National Debt from 24,500,000l. to 23,500,000l. (p. 95) was rejected, after a long discussion, by 281 to 176. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, while the greatest previous reduction of the Debt—Mr. Goschen's—had been 39,000,000l. in six years the Liberal Government had effected a reduction of 103,000,000l. The retort was made, of course, that it had also increased expenditure permanently by 40,000,000l. annually, and some of the money, it was contended, was wasted—on the land valuation and payment of members, for instance. Next, the relief to be given to married persons in respect of income tax was challenged as inadequate by Mr. Cassel (U.) and other members. A new clause in the Bill provided that income tax and supertax should be assessed, charged, and recovered on the incomes of husband and wife separately, as if they were not married. This met two grievances—that the husband was called on to pay tax on his wife's income, but could not recover it from her (A.R., 1913, p. 224), and that the wife could not make a return or claim abatement; but it did not meet a third and far more general grievance—that their two incomes were still added together and treated as one, so that they paid more than two persons with equal incomes living together unmarried. The Chancellor of the Exchequer argued against any concession on this head, but agreed that there should be special exemption for married people, and the clause was adopted. Next day, however, attempts were made so to amend it as to modify or relieve this grievance. An amendment providing that the separate incomes of husband and wife should be treated as one for purposes of exemption or abatement[Pg 157] only when they together exceeded 500l. was rejected by 267 to 139, partly as involving too great a sacrifice of revenue; another, preventing a husband's goods from being liable for distraint for his wife's income, was also rejected by 271 to 166. A new clause providing that private firms, like companies, should not be taxed on profits made abroad, was criticised as enabling such firms to escape taxation by transferring their business abroad. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted this was done already, but not often enough to make it worth while to stop it, and the clause was adopted by 225 to 95. Another amendment, providing for deductions in respect of inherently wasting assets, was rejected by 208 to 113, and, after the rejection of other amendments, the Committee stage was completed under the guillotine.

Next day the usual "Massacre of the Innocents" took place, but subsequent events so increased the numbers that the list need hardly be given here. In the evening the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with the situation at the annual Lord Mayor's dinner to bankers and merchants at the Mansion House. A quieter period of trade, he said, was opening; but in twenty years the international commerce of the country had doubled, the clearances of the London banks had trebled; in 1914, 160,000,000l. of new capital had been issued in London, as against 125,000,000l. in 1913. Trade depressions were now shorter, and there were healthy signs. He referred to the great progress set up by British capital, comparing its effect to irrigation in the Sudan; and he mentioned that in fifty years 3,700,000,000l. of British capital had been advanced for development, though in war and war preparations the world's expenditure during the past ten years had been 4,500,000,000l. He looked to finance to arrest this "creeping catastrophe." But peace was needed at home also; there was the industrial crisis, as to which he was hopeful, and the Irish crisis, and the two together would set up the gravest situation Great Britain had had to face for centuries. It was, the duty, therefore, of responsible men of all parties to work for peace.

But the Irish crisis was approaching a climax. The Amending Bill, as transformed by the Lords, was to be taken in the Commons on Monday, July 20; it was certain that it would be accepted neither by the Nationalists nor by Ministers; but a minority in the Cabinet, said to number four out of nineteen, were alleged to favour concessions to Ulster beyond those originally embodied in the Bill. Conferences between the different leaders were held informally, and on July 17 the Cabinet met twice, A great naval display had been arranged at Spithead on the occasion of the test mobilisation; the King was to leave London to review the Fleet at 9.30 A.M. on Saturday, July 18; but he was detained till the afternoon, and various communications passed in the morning between him and the Prime Minister. The two, however, travelled together to Portsmouth, where the most powerful Fleet[Pg 158] ever assembled, numbering some 200 vessels in all, was drawn up in eight lines, extending over some twenty-two miles altogether, and manned by some 70,000 officers and men. The forces afloat were supplemented by five squadrons of four seaplanes each, with a squadron of eight aeroplanes, and four airships. The King was able to witness the illumination of the Fleet on Saturday evening; on Sunday he visited some of the ships informally; on Monday the ships moved to sea past the Royal yacht, as did a procession of aircraft, and, after witnessing tactical exercises, the King returned to London late on Monday evening. The display and assemblage proved to have an unforeseen value.

The curtailment of the King's visit was explained by the momentous revelation made by The Times on Monday morning, July 20, that His Majesty had issued invitations for the following day to a Conference on the Ulster question at Buckingham Palace, consisting of two members each from the Government, the Opposition, the Nationalists and the Ulster Covenanters. This step was believed to have been initiated by the King, but taken with the knowledge and consent of the Ministry, though without previous consultation with the leaders of the Nationalists or of either the British or Ulster section of the Opposition. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would represent the Ministry; the Marquess of Lansdowne and Mr. Bonar Law the Unionists of Great Britain; Mr. John Redmond and Mr. Dillon the Nationalists; Sir Edward Carson and Captain Craig the Ulstermen. It was rumoured that the Government, though not prepared to accept the transformed Amending Bill, had virtually abandoned the time-limit, and were ready to exclude from the operation of the Home Rule Act not only Armagh, Down, Derry, and Monaghan, but parts of Fermanagh and Tyrone. The dispute now centred, therefore, on the question whether parts of these latter counties should be excluded or the whole.

The Amending Bill was postponed pending the Conferences; and the Prime Minister in announcing the postponement (July 20) repeated the statement of The Times, adding that the Speaker would preside. Mr. Bonar Law announced that the Opposition leaders had "loyally accepted" the King's command; Mr. Redmond, while disclaiming responsibility for the calling of the Conference, said that he had "of course accepted" likewise. Mr. Ginnell (I.N., Westmeath, N.) asked, as an independent Irish Nationalist, what authority the Prime Minister had to advise the King to place himself at the head of a conspiracy to defeat the decision of the House; but Mr. Asquith and the Speaker ignored the question. In the House of Lords, Lord Courtney of Penwith asked for assurances that the Government took the responsibility for the Conference, and that the final decision would rest with Parliament; and the Marquess of Crewe made a satisfactory reply.

[Pg 159]

The action of The Times was severely criticised, as tending to jeopardise the success of the Conference; but its information, as the Prime Minister assured the House, was not derived from official quarters, and seemed to have been obtained by inference from the movements of Ministers and of the King. The Conference itself was received with misgiving by the Nationalists, the Labour party, and a section of the Liberals, the first named feeling that they could not go much further in concession, the two others suspecting that the King had initiated it, and in so doing had exceeded the limits set by constitutional usage to the powers of the Crown. It had been rumoured that the King had intimated that he would not sign the Home Rule Bill except in conjunction with an Amending Bill; so that the Unionists need only make the Amending Bill impossible to ensure a crisis, ending probably in the dismissal of Ministers and a general election. The Daily News called the Conference "a Royal coup d'état"; the Labour party's views were expressed by Mr. J. H. Thomas (Derby) in his constituency on July 21. He objected to it as a deliberate attempt to defeat the Parliament Act, and also because two rebels had been invited to take part; Labour leaders who had used such language would have been arraigned at the Old Bailey. Liberal feeling was manifested at a meeting of members on that day, summoned in order to express anxiety for the supremacy of Parliament; but a more moderate resolution was passed, declaring that the party was determined to stand by the Nationalists, and that the Government should not appeal to the constituencies before completing the whole of its programme under the Parliament Act.

The misgivings of the Liberals were heightened by the speech with which the King opened the Conference at Buckingham Palace at 11.30 A.M. on Tuesday, July 21. It was as follows:—

[Pg 160]

Unfortunately, the "responsible and sober-minded persons" referred to were taken by the Westminster Gazette (and many readers) to be the Ulstermen and their aiders and abetters; and the Manchester Guardian feared that the King had been "unduly alarmed by the reports of certain of his unofficial counsellors," with consequences that might be serious (for the Constitution) unless he henceforth listened to his official advisers only. Unionist papers pointed out that a host of prominent people, independent of party politics, had talked of civil war, and the Prime Minister, in reply to questions, expressly took the responsibility for the speech, and interpreted His Majesty's words as meaning merely that apprehension of civil strife had been widely entertained and expressed by responsible and sober-minded persons, "among whom I may, perhaps, include myself." The House laughed, but the Liberal objectors were not wholly satisfied. There was some resentment felt, too, at the selection of Buckingham Palace for the Conference. But this, at least, protected the members from journalistic enterprise.

While the Conference was sitting the House of Commons took, among other business, the Report stage of the Finance Bill; but the minds of members were mainly elsewhere. Among the unsuccessful attempts made to obtain alleviations of the income-tax law we may mention proposals (a) to exempt lands and property occupied by any charity, which was asked for especially in the interest of residential hostels at the newer Universities; (b) treating income arising from capital earned by the recipient as unearned income; (c) providing that income from British Colonial investments should be assessed to income-tax and supertax after deduction of any Colonial income-tax; (d) providing for deduction from the taxed income of sums spent in the education of children; making provision for the case of insurance against death duties; (e) exempting income neither taxed nor received in the United Kingdom. Some slight concessions, however, were made by the Government; but a fresh attempt to avert the abolition of the settled estate duty was also unsuccessful. On the first day, complaints were made of the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but, on his arrival, he explained that he was detained by a duty not of his own seeking, but which he had no option but to accept.

The debates were cut short by the guillotine, and the third reading followed on July 23. Mr. Austen Chamberlain remarked on the change in the character of the Bill, and regretted the increase of the death duties, the treatment of settled estates, and the raiding of the Sinking Fund. As to the effect, welcomed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in breaking up landed estates, he desired to see many more small estates, especially occupying ownerships, but he thought the effect would be felt rather by those of moderate size than by the great ones; estates would be[Pg 161] starved, and the taxpayers would feel themselves unjustly treated, and attempt evasion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was eminently fair when doing business, but, when convinced that he could not afford to give way, he mis-stated his opponent's case, and showed himself a master in irrelevancy. The new arrangements affecting the Finance Bill deprived the House of its control of finance, and took away its opportunity of reviewing the whole field of taxation. He laid stress on the growth of expenditure, and predicted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would himself convert the country to fiscal reform. The President of the Local Government Board replied that the Bill had set up a better graduation of the income-tax system, including supertax; out of 1,215,000 income-tax payers 214,000 still paid virtually less than 1d. in the pound, and 750,000 less than 6d. As to the provision for reduction of debt, he doubted whether the taxpayer was not being asked for too much. The Liberal Budgets marked a new departure in finance—a march against preventable poverty. After other speeches, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the new proposals had been fully discussed, and the Opposition had had difficulty in finding speakers. The changes in the Bill were a proof that the Commons still controlled finance. He defended the death duties, and thought that the financial interests of the world were feeling alarm at the total expenditure of 350,000,000l. a year on armaments; he saw signs of reaction, but the movement must be cosmopolitan. It was a duty to raise money for social reform. After further debate, the Bill was passed without a division.

The Conference meanwhile had failed. It met on four successive days (July 21-24), beginning at 11.30 A.M., and closing at 12.30 or 1 P.M.; and there were latterly frequent consultations between various political leaders. A large and attentive crowd, mainly, however, of idlers, and kept by the police at a convenient distance from the Palace, watched the arrival and departure of its members, and cheered them all impartially; and Mr. Redmond and Mr. Dillon, who walked back on the second day through Birdcage Walk, were enthusiastically cheered at the Barracks by the Irish Guards, whose honorary Colonel, it was noticed, was Earl Roberts, a decided Unionist. Two suffragists, Lady Barclay and the Hon. Edith Fitzgerald, attempted in vain to enter the Palace during the Conference, in order to submit the claims of women to the King. As was expected from the first, no solution was reached. After the final meeting on July 24 there was a Cabinet Council, and the Prime Minister announced the failure at the close of the sitting of the House of Commons. He read the official report, signed by the Speaker, stating that the possibility was considered of finding an area to be excluded from the operation of the Home Rule Bill, and that the Conference, "being unable to agree, either in principle or in detail, on such an area,[Pg 162] brought its sittings to a conclusion." Mr. Asquith added that the Amending Bill would be taken on July 28.

It was stated that the deadlock arose over the exclusion of Fermanagh and Tyrone, and especially as to whether Tyrone, in which the Nationalist voters were slightly the more numerous, should be allowed to vote itself out by "a bare majority." The personal relations of all the members it was stated, had been excellent, and each set had genuinely attempted to appreciate the difficulties of the others. It was thought that the Ministerialists, and even the Cabinet, might split. The First Lord of the Admiralty and four other Ministers were said to favour further concessions to Ulster, and the situation was described as almost desperate.

It was made even worse, however, two days later by a daring act of gun-running, leading to an affray in Dublin between the populace and British troops. On Sunday morning, July 26, about a thousand National Volunteers, some unarmed, others armed with long staves, assembled at Fairview, two miles from Dublin on the Howth road, and started, apparently on a route march, to Howth. Arriving there at midday, they marched to the pier, where a white yacht, steered (it was said) by a lady, had just arrived. Those with staves guarded the entrance to the pier; the rest, assisted by Boy Scouts, unloaded 2,500 Lee-Enfield rifles and 125,000 rounds of ammunition. Each Volunteer shouldered a rifle; the balance was loaded into motor cars and distributed to hiding-places throughout the county. A policeman and some coastguardmen were prevented from interfering, and the latter telephoned to Dublin. Mr. Harrel, the Assistant Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, after sending out a large force of constables, telephoned the facts to the Under-Secretary at 2 P.M., and was directed to meet him at the Castle at 2.45; but he did not do so, having gone to the barracks, where he requisitioned, on his own responsibility, two companies of the King's Own Scottish Borderers, who were sent to Fairview by tram. The Volunteers on their return were met at Clontarf by a body of police and 160 soldiers; the police were ordered to disarm the Volunteers; some refused, and were arrested by the soldiers; others succeeded in disarming the Volunteers in front, after a scuffle in which two soldiers were wounded by pistol-shots, as well as three Volunteers and a policeman; hereupon the Volunteer leaders ordered a parley, during which the rear ranks of their own body dispersed, taking their rifles with them. Meanwhile the Under-Secretary, not finding Mr. Harrel, had left a Minute directing him that forcible disarmament of the Volunteers should not be attempted, but that their names should be taken and the destination of the arms traced. Later the troops, on their way back to Dublin, were stoned in Bachelors' Walk by a mob; their commanding officer expostulated, and some of the rear-rank men,[Pg 163] losing patience, fired without orders; three of the crowd were killed (including one woman) and thirty-two wounded, and a number of the soldiers were severely injured with stones. At 10.30 P.M. a crowd attacked the gate of the barracks, but were driven off by the police.

Statements on these events were made in both Houses on Monday, July 27. In the Commons the Chief Secretary, replying to a question from Mr. Redmond, read the Minute left by the Under-Secretary for Mr. Harrel, and stated that the latter had been suspended, and that an inquiry into the conduct of the military would be held at once; and, in answer to Mr. Devlin, he stated that on the previous Saturday 5,000 men, with five machine guns, had marched through Belfast, that General Macready, the military magistrate, was then in the city, and that the police had not been ordered to interfere. The subject was debated as a matter of urgent public importance that night, after a statement by the Foreign Secretary on the European situation (post, p. 167) which was rapidly becoming graver, and an announcement by the Prime Minister of the further postponement of the Amending Bill, since the Nationalist party, which had arranged a conference for that day to consider it, had had its attention taken up by the events in Dublin. A brief and non-party discussion on minor naval votes also preceded the debate.

In moving the adjournment, Mr. John Redmond condemned the Arms Proclamation, and stated that on June 30 he had written to the Chief Secretary, declaring it a failure and likely to lead to collision between the Nationalists and police. He went on to refer to the march of the previous Saturday through Belfast, and asked who was responsible for this monstrous attempt to discriminate in the administration of the law. Where was Mr. Harrell's chief, Sir John Ross of Bladensburg, who had proved himself thoroughly incompetent during the strikes of 1913? After referring, in impartial terms, to the shooting, he demanded from the Government—the suspension and trial of Sir John Ross, an immediate inquiry into all the facts, a judicial and military inquiry into the action of the troops, with (if they were found guilty) proper punishment; removal of the regiment from Ireland; revocation of the Arms Proclamation; and finally, and very emphatically, an impartial administration of the law.

The Chief Secretary agreed that no distinction could be made in the treatment of the Ulster and Nationalist Volunteers, and spoke of Mr. Harrel's "act of extraordinary indiscretion." Mr. Harrel had taken the whole responsibility, but if Sir John Ross were associated with the act, he ought to be suspended also. He dissociated the Volunteers wholly from the shooting and from the attack by the mob, and referred the question of the removal of the regiment to the Prime Minister as Secretary for War.

Mr. Bonar Law declared that the question put to Sir John[Pg 164] Ross was most improper; he could not now say it was wrong to suspend Mr. Harrel, but why did not the Under-Secretary send after him? The Government in Ireland had hunted out a scapegoat to save their own skin. The incident was only possible because the Government had abrogated authority in Ireland and had ceased to govern. He did not blame the Nationalist Volunteers, but the Government, for the first time in history, refused to carry out the law and yet continued to hold office. They did not vindicate the law because Mr. Redmond would not let them. The Government had never been able to make up their minds as to their proper policy and risk their fate on the consequences.

The Prime Minister replied. He was not going to follow the example of the Opposition leader, who was "a past master of vituperation," but, as Secretary for War, he put in a plea for the troops. They were exposed to great provocation, and what happened, much as it was to be lamented, was not a fitting subject for condemnation. After promising a full inquiry, he refused to see that it was unfair to ask Sir John Ross whether he associated himself with his subordinate. "It is a question put to me once a week." When Mr. Harrel acted, the proclamation against the importation of arms had already exhausted itself. He denounced the attacks on the Under-Secretary, and said that the importation of arms was relatively of minor importance. If the proclamation was maintained, it should be impartially applied. The real crux of the question was in the attitude of the Government and the Opposition to the maintenance of the authority of the law. The Opposition had greatly increased the inherent difficulty of governing Ireland by proclaiming that violation of the law was a cardinal virtue. Till an agreement was reached as to respect for law, the Unionists, when they came in, would find the government of Ireland an impossible task.

Mr. Balfour shared Mr. Bonar Law's suspicions as to the Minute, and thought the whole story had not been told. The Government had been persistently blind to the feelings of Ulster, and now were up against facts. They had taken and kept power, and had allowed the whole system of law, order, and government to crumble. Every one knew that Ireland had been brought into a condition from which it seemed almost impossible for any courage, statesmanship, or heroism to extricate it.

After other speeches, Lord R. Cecil (U.) moved the closure, which was defeated by 249 to 217. The motion was thus talked out, and a division averted on the main question. It might have imperilled the Government.

It was elicited next day that, as Mr. Balfour apparently had divined, Sir James Dougherty's Minute had in fact been written at 5 P.M., after the affray was over, but that it contained the instructions which Mr. Harrel, had he waited, would have received three hours before. But the occurrence was already ob[Pg 165]scured by events of greater moment. The Commission, appointed a week later, consisted of Lord Shaw, Mr. Justice Molony, and the Rt. Hon. W. D. Andrews, a retired Irish judge; and the story may be ended here by stating that its Report (published Oct. 1) declared that the employment of the police and military was illegal, that General Cuthbert, who allowed the military to be used, was wrong in doing so, that they were not justified in firing, and that the twenty-one soldiers who fired did so without orders, but believing that they had them.

At the time, however, it seemed possible that this affray, coupled with the dispute over the Amending Bill, might bring about complications delaying the establishment of Home Rule; and an enthusiastic demonstration of Liberals, Labour men, and Nationalists, held at the London Opera House on July 29, demanded that the Government should complete their legislative programme and thus secure the effective operation of the Parliament Act. Sir James H. Dalziel (Kirkcaldy) presided; Mr. Neil Primrose (Cambs, Wisbech), Mr. Rowlands (Dartford), and Mr. Devlin (Belfast, W.) were among the speakers, and there were 50,000 applications for admission. Incidentally the Chairman mentioned—what soon became obvious—the very grave effect produced on the international situation by the reports that civil war was impending in Ireland.

In the interval before the resumption of the debate on the Amending Bill, the House dealt, more briefly than usual, with the Colonial Office Vote and the Education Vote (July 28) as well as with other non-contentious subjects needing no special notice here. On the Colonial Office Vote the points raised were dealt with by the Colonial Secretary in his reply as follows: He must decline to give information as to future policy in Somaliland which would be useful to the Mullah; but they were getting 450 camel constabulary and 400 of the Indian contingent, of whom 150 would be mounted and would strengthen the camel corps. Burao would be occupied by the new commandant early in September, and they would then enable the friendlies to reoccupy their grazing at the mouth of the Ain Valley. He would not decrease the existing native reserve lands in East Africa. As to Tasmania, he had only laid down the rules generally regarded as binding on a Governor, and Sir W. Ellison-Macartney's appointment was based on his work as a Civil Servant and irrespective of politics. The incident, he thought, was closed. The South African Native Lands Act was the outcome of a commission appointed by Viscount Milner, and was temporary; Parliament ought not to intervene except on proof of gross injustice to natives, and there had been none. The Malaya Dreadnought was not a tribute, but a voluntary gift from allies; the taxation of the Malay people was practically nil. He gave encouraging figures as to the decreasing consumption of opium in the British[Pg 166] possessions in the Far East, but it was ominous that large quantities of cocaine and morphia had been seized. As to the Ceylon excise, the Government proposed to put up an experimental distillery in each district to get rid of the existing distilleries, but they might be directed by private enterprise, though not at the cost of creating vested interests. The supposed increase in the consumption of arrack was due to the gradual cessation of illicit drinking. He suspended his decision as to the Chartered Company's Charter pending consultation with Lord Gladstone.—The Vote was agreed to.

On the Education Vote, after criticisms and comments had been passed on various points in the Board's policy by several members, the President of the Board of Education paid a tribute to the memory of Sir William Anson, and bore testimony to the efficiency of the staff of the Department. Among other matters of interest, he touched on school hygiene, mentioning that 317 education authorities had established medical inspection, in which 1097 medical men, eighty-four women, and 300 specialists were engaged. Half the children needed dental treatment, and the expenditure on the medical service had increased from 47,000l. in 1912-13 to 175,000l. in 1914-15. For mental and physical defectives there were 365 schools, and the grants were increased. They had 945 places in open-air schools for ailing children, but 500,000 children needed them. Provision was made for feeding 358,000 children, but they hoped to be able to contribute half the cost to local authorities by a supplementary grant of 77,000l. Physical training was invariably part of the course, and England was behind no nation in providing for it. He mentioned also schools for mothers, play-grounds, and a projected grant in 1915-16 of 50,000l. to aid local authorities to deal with epidemics. There was no evidence that the teaching of the three R's had generally deteriorated; the children were more alert and responsive, and happier at school than ever. The wastage of teachers could only be met by making the career more attractive. Lodgings for women teachers were a difficulty, and hostels for teachers were the only solution. The State would find two-fifths of the cost. Children left school just when a good teacher could do most for them, but he thought the prosperity of the country from the point of view of education was assured.

Amid all the prevalent excitement, little attention could be paid to the Report of the Welsh Land Inquiry Committee (July 27). This body, of which Sir A. Mond (L., Swansea) was chairman, had been appointed at the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inquire into and report on the special circumstances of Wales in respect to land tenure and agricultural conditions, and the Report, which claimed, fairly enough, to be judicial and dispassionate, contained some 350 pages of documents and comment, leading up to the following main conclusions. Legislation was[Pg 167] urgently needed in the interests of agriculture; the crops, except in roots, were much poorer than in England, partly from the inferior productiveness of the soil, but largely through insecurity of tenure, and also because of high rents, fear that rent would be charged on tenants' improvements, inadequate compensation, and onerous conditions of tenants' agreements. The Committee recommended absolute fixity of tenure, and the establishment of a Land Court with power to fix fair rents and settle reasonable conditions of tenancy. The rural housing conditions were deplorable; there were often not enough cottages, and in no district was there an ample supply of suitable cottages large enough for an average family. The effect was bad for health and morals. The administration of the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts was unsatisfactory and varied greatly in different counties, and the machinery was too cumbersome. At the end of 1912, 1,100 approved applicants were still waiting for land.

The Amending Bill was to be taken on July 30; and its prospects had been perhaps improved by the remarkable pamphlet published a week earlier by Sir Horace Plunkett, announcing his conversion to Home Rule (post, Chap. VI.). But all domestic difficulties were rapidly being obscured and effaced by the rapid gathering of war-clouds in Central Europe. The news of the Dublin shooting was published the same day as that of the rejection by Austria-Hungary of the Serbian reply to her ultimatum; and between question time in the House of Commons and the excited debate on the affray later on that day (July 27) party strife was visibly suspended in both Houses, while substantially identical statements on the European situation were made respectively by Sir Edward Grey and the Marquess of Crewe. The former, replying to a question by the leader of the Opposition, stated that, after hearing of the Austro-Serbian rupture, he had asked the French, German and Italian Governments, through the respective British Ambassadors in their capitals, if their Ambassadors might meet in Conference in London; he had also asked the Austro-Hungarian and Serbian Governments to suspend operations meanwhile. It appeared next day that Italy and France accepted at once; but Germany refused the British invitation, alleging that negotiations between the several Governments would be preferable; Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and seized Serb vessels at Orsova; and Russia prepared (July 28) to mobilise fourteen Army Corps. Under these circumstances The Times (July 29) urged British parties to "close ranks" and suspend their strife, that the Government might devote all its energies to limiting the area of the war. Sir Edward Grey, it declared, was indispensable as Foreign Minister; and the Ulster question might be provisionally settled by the exclusion of Fermanagh and Tyrone from the Home Rule area. That day, however, the situation became graver; seven Stock Exchange firms failed; and the[Pg 168] Prime Minister could only tell the Commons that the Government were doing their best to "circumscribe the area of possible conflict." But on the day following (July 31) he announced that the Amending Bill must be postponed. In an impressive speech to a profoundly attentive House, he stated that the issues of peace and war were hanging in the balance, and with them the risk of a catastrophe of which it was impossible to measure either the dimensions or the effects. It was, therefore, of vital importance in the interest of the whole world, that Great Britain, who had no interests directly at stake, should present a united front and be able to speak and act with the authority of an undivided nation. Hence they would deal with necessary non-controversial business. Mr. Bonar Law agreed, saying that it should be made clear that British domestic differences did not prevent members from presenting a united front in the councils of the world; and that he spoke not only for the Unionists, but for the Ulstermen.

Next day, however (Aug. 1), the situation became worse. German troops were preparing to invade France; Russia had proclaimed a general mobilisation; martial law was consequently proclaimed in Germany; in Great Britain steps were taken to guard magazines, railway bridges and tunnels, and dockyards; the booms defending British naval ports were placed in position; and telegrams from the Dominions exhibited their eagerness to aid the mother country by sending troops. In London, the Stock Exchange, an hour after its opening, was closed sine die; business was active at Lloyd's in insurances against war risks; the Cabinet met in the morning, and the Prime Minister in the afternoon was received by the King. Ministers cancelled their week-end engagements, and, just before the House rose, the Prime Minister stated that the news from Germany indicated that she would follow Russia in mobilisation. Next day the bank rate was advanced to 10 per cent.—its highest point since the Overend-Gurney crisis in May, 1866; the Cabinet met twice, and a conference was held between some of its members, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the financial situation; and the King, as a last effort to preserve peace, sent a direct personal telegram to the Tsar, offering mediation, which arrived, however, after Germany had declared war on Russia.

Unwonted and varied excitement characterised Sunday, August 2. Throughout the country prayers for the preservation of peace were offered in the churches, in accordance with a suggestion made some days earlier by the Archbishops, and also in Nonconformist places of worship. In Trafalgar Square a "war protest meeting" organised by Mr. Hyndman, Mr. Ben Tillett, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Barnes, M.P., and other prominent representatives of Socialism or Labour, passed a resolution calling on the Government to take every step to secure peace, and on the workers of the world to use their industrial and political power to avert war;[Pg 169] but it was interrupted by a large dissentient element, which, however, ultimately seceded peacefully and held a "patriotic" meeting at the Admiralty Arch. During the day the Cabinet met twice, and frequent informal conferences were held between Ministers; and it was stated that the divisions of opinion previously existing among them disappeared in the course of the day almost entirely. The King held a Council at 4.30 P.M., and it was announced, first, that the Government had taken control of all wireless telegraphy, next that a "moratorium" of a month was established for certain bills of exchange; and the Admiralty called out the Naval Reserves, including naval and marine pensioners under the age of fifty-five, and the Royal Volunteer Reserve. On the announcement of this last step, through the medium of special late Sunday editions of various newspapers, a crowd of some 6,000 people marched up the Mall to Buckingham Palace, where it sang the national anthems of Great Britain and France. The King and Queen were called for, and came out to acknowledge the greetings of their enthusiastic subjects.

Next morning London awoke to a new kind of Bank Holiday. The morning papers announced the Germans' violation of the neutrality of Luxemburg and their invasion of France and their ultimatum to Belgium; many of the railway excursion arrangements had perforce been cancelled; and the streets were thronged by disappointed excursionists, reinforced by others who had come in from the country for further news. Miniature British and French flags found a ready sale in the streets; special editions were issued of the evening papers; crowds gathered outside Buckingham Palace and Whitehall, impartially cheering Ministers and Unionist leaders. In the City a conference of bankers and merchants invited the Government to extend the Bank Holiday for three days by proclamation; the House of Lords had been hastily summoned; but interest centred in the Commons.

Here, indeed, as in the country, the attitude of a large section of the Liberals was still uncertain. Many of them condemned all wars, or almost all, as criminal; many more held that the Foreign Office was prejudiced against Germany, and abhorred the notion of fighting to preserve the balance of power in Europe, or to strengthen Russia, reputed a far less civilised Power than Germany, and the historic foe of the British Empire in India. Protests against any departure by Great Britain from neutrality were specially noticeable in the Manchester Guardian and the Daily News; and manifestoes in a similar sense were issued by various groups of important personages; the Bishops of Lincoln and Hereford, the British Neutrality Committee, and others. A group of learned men, chiefly belonging to Cambridge University, declared that war against Germany in the interest of Russia and Servia would be "a sin against civilisation"; and the Labour Leader appealed to "the organised workers" to demonstrate[Pg 170] everywhere that the war must be stopped. But these views were greatly modified, not only by the news of German action in Luxemburg and Belgium, but by a statement published on the Monday afternoon with the authority of the German Embassy, intimating that, if Great Britain remained neutral, Germany would undertake not to attack France in the north by sea, nor to make warlike use of the Dutch or Belgian coasts. Thus, it was contended, Great Britain, as a neutral, could aid France as well as by going to war. This offer was felt to be ridiculous; and the conversion of the vast majority of those Liberals who were still adverse to war was completed by the speech delivered in the House of Commons by Sir Edward Grey. It was described by Lord Lansdowne as "of rare courage," and The Times declared that it would remain memorable in the history of the world.

The centre of interest lay in the Commons, and Sir Edward Grey's speech practically served for both Houses. All questions to Ministers were postponed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced, without notice, a Postponement of Payments Bill, supplementing the Moratorium proclamation (p. 169) by empowering the Government to declare a general moratorium on occasion. By agreement, it was passed through all its stages at once; indeed, but for a protest from Mr. McCallum Scott (L., Glasgow, Bridgeton) it would not even have been read. The Bank holiday was prolonged for three days; but the stoppage was not to involve a general suspension of work and wages.

Then Sir Edward Grey spoke. He said that Ministers, then as always, had worked for peace, but in vain. As to British obligations he had told the Russian Foreign Minister in 1908 that he could promise no more than diplomatic support, and in the existing crisis, till the day before, he had promised nothing more. During the general election of 1906, at the crisis which led to the Algeciras Conference, he had been asked if, should a Franco-German war break out, Great Britain would give armed support; he had replied that he could promise nothing which would not be fully supported by public opinion, but, if war were forced on France through the Anglo-French entente regarding Morocco, British public opinion would rally to her support. The French Government had then suggested conversations on this support between military and naval experts; and he had agreed, after consulting Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Lord Haldane, and Mr. Asquith—since he could not, owing to the general election, consult the Cabinet—on the understanding that such conversations should in no way bind the Government. In the Agadir crisis he took the same line, and on November 22, 1912, he exchanged letters with the French Ambassador to this effect, but agreeing that if either Great Britain or France had grave reason to expect an attack by a third Power or a menace to the general peace, both Governments should consult whether they should co[Pg 171]-operate and what measures they should take in common. But the British Government remained perfectly free to decide whether it should intervene. In the Morocco question, however, it was pledged to diplomatic support; in the existing crisis France was involved because of its obligation of honour to Russia, which did not apply to Great Britain, a Power which did not even know the terms of the Franco-Russian alliance. But in view of the Anglo-French friendship, let every man look into his own heart and construe the extent of the British obligation for himself. In view of that friendship, the French Fleet was concentrated in the Mediterranean, and if, in a war which France had not sought, her unprotected coasts were bombarded, he felt that Great Britain could not stand aside. And, from the point of view of British interests, suppose the French Fleet withdrawn from the Mediterranean and Italy involved in the war, Great Britain, if she now stood aside, might be exposed to appalling risks. He had, therefore, on the previous afternoon given the French Ambassador an authorised assurance that, if a hostile German Fleet came into the Channel or North Sea the British Government would give France all the assistance in its power. He had just heard that the German Government would be prepared, were Great Britain pledged to neutrality, to agree that the German Fleet should not attack the northern coast of France (p. 170); but that was far too narrow an engagement. There was also the question, hourly becoming more serious, of the neutrality of Belgium. In 1870 Prince Bismarck had acknowledged the sanctity of the Treaty of 1839, and the Government could not take a narrower view of its obligations than Mr. Gladstone's Government took in 1870. He had asked in the previous week the French and German Governments whether they were prepared to respect that neutrality; and he quoted the replies: France had promised to do so, Germany had delayed replying. Belgium had promised neutrality. But Germany had sent Belgium an ultimatum; and the British Government had been asked in the past week whether an assurance would satisfy it that Belgian integrity would be preserved after the war. It had replied refusing to barter away its interests or obligations in Belgian neutrality. The King of the Belgians had that day telegraphed to King George, appealing to the British Government to safeguard the integrity of Belgium. Great Britain had great and vital interests in the independence of Belgium, and integrity was the least part of that independence. Compliance with the ultimatum would be fatal to that independence, and that of Holland would then perish also. If Great Britain stood aside, ran away from her obligations, and merely intervened at the end of the war, her material force would be of little value, in view of the respect she would have lost. She would suffer terribly in the war in any case, but if she stood aside, she would be in no position after it to prevent Europe falling under the domination of one[Pg 172] Power, and her moral position would be such as to have lost her all respect. The Fleet was mobilised, the Army was mobilising, but no engagement had yet been taken to send abroad an Expeditionary Force. The one bright spot was Ireland. The feeling there made the Irish question a consideration that need not be taken into account. Unconditional neutrality was precluded by the commitment to France and the consideration of Belgium. To stand aside would be to sacrifice the good name of Great Britain without escaping the most serious economic consequences. The forces of the Crown were never more ready or more efficient; the Government had worked for peace to the last moment, and beyond it; when the country realised the situation, they would have its united support.

Mr. Bonar Law promised emphatically the full and unhesitating support of the Opposition, mentioning also, as another bright spot, the certainty of that of the Dominions. Mr. John Redmond, in a speech that made a profound sensation, declared that the events of recent years had completely altered the Nationalist feeling towards Great Britain. He recalled the support given by Catholics to the Irish Volunteers in the eighteenth century, and said that the Government might withdraw all its troops from Ireland: her coasts would be defended by her armed sons, and the Nationalist Volunteers would gladly join in doing so with their brethren of the north. Mr. Ramsay Macdonald (Lab.) contended that the Foreign Minister had not shown that the country was in danger, the Crimean and South African Wars were fought on the plea of British honour; and the conflict could not be confined to the neutrality of Belgium. The Labour party wanted to know what would happen to Russia, and the annihilation of France was impossible. He admitted that the feeling of the House was against his followers, but they held that Great Britain should have remained neutral.

The sitting was suspended till 7 P.M., when the Royal Assent was given to the Postponement of Payments Bill, and the debate was continued discursively, several Liberal and Labour members condemning, and others supporting, the course taken by the Government. Eventually Mr. Balfour pointed out that all this was "the mere dregs and lees of the debate," and would be misunderstood abroad as representing the opinion of the House. He urged that it should be ended, and after a few words of protest from Colonel Seely (L.) the advice was taken.

Next day the proceedings in the Commons commenced with a momentous statement by the Prime Minister, embodying the earlier telegrams in the series, of which the substance is given below; the outstanding Votes in Supply were then passed, and a Message was read from the King announcing the Proclamation calling out the Army Reserve and embodying the Territorial Force; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined the scheme[Pg 173] of the Government for insurance against war risks, so as to secure the continuance of overseas trade. It had been devised by an expert sub-committee of the Imperial Defence Committee, and conditions in the shipping trade had changed since such insurance had been discountenanced by an expert Committee in 1908. Details cannot here be given; but, substantially, the State took 80 per cent. of the risks on vessels trading oversea (which were mainly insured through three great mutual societies) and received 80 per cent. of the premiums, charging no premium on vessels on a voyage on the outbreak of war, and allowing the cancellation of a policy if a voyage were delayed by the Admiralty. For cargoes a State Bureau was opened, to insure cargoes despatched after the outbreak of war. A flat rate was to be charged, subject to certain variations from time to time, and a strong Advisory Board established. Mr. Austen Chamberlain (U.) and Mr. A. Henderson (Lab.) approved the scheme, the latter urging the Government to consider the organisation of distribution; but here, as it proved, there was no need for alarm.

Meanwhile the Government prepared actively for war in other ways. It assumed the control of the railways, vesting it in a Committee of General Managers under the Board of Trade; it took over the two Dreadnoughts completed and nearly completed in Great Britain for Turkey, and the two destroyer leaders building for Chile; Field-Marshal Sir John French was appointed Inspector-General of the Forces, and it was understood that he was to command the Expeditionary Force; and Admiral Sir John Jellicoe was appointed to the supreme command of the Home Fleets, with Rear-Admiral C. E. Madden as his Chief of Staff. The King, too, issued a Message to the Overseas Dominions expressing the "appreciation and pride" with which he had received the Messages from their respective Governments. "These spontaneous assurances of their fullest-support," the Message continued, "recall to me the generous, self-sacrificing help given by them in the past to the Mother Country. I shall be strengthened in the discharge of the great responsibility which rests upon me by the confident belief that, in this time of trial, my Empire will stand united, calm, resolute, trusting in God."

In the country generally the action of Germany and Sir Edward Grey's statement had driven the great mass of the Liberal and Labour parties to agree that war was inevitable and just. In the Ministry some members were still unconvinced. On Monday, August 3, four members of the Cabinet, it was said, still advocated peace; by next day there were but two, Lord Morley of Blackburn, Lord President of the Council, and Mr. John Burns, President of the Board of Trade. They, however, resigned office; but it was stated that they had decided to do so independently and at different stages of the controversy, and largely to avoid hampering the freedom of the Cabinet in a great[Pg 174] emergency. Their example was followed by Mr. Charles Trevelyan (Yorks, W.R., Elland), the Secretary of the Board of Education. These three were replaced respectively by Earl Beauchamp, Mr. Runciman, and Dr. Addison.

The breach between Germany and Great Britain became definitive on Tuesday, August 4. Following his statement of the previous day in the Commons, Sir E. Grey telegraphed in the morning to the British Ambassador in Berlin, protesting against the violation of Belgian neutrality by Germany, and asking for an immediate reply. Before it came he received official Belgian intimations that the violation had already been announced to Belgium and had taken place. The German Government also telegraphed to the German Ambassador in London, instructing him to repeat most positively the formal assurance that, even in the case of an armed conflict, Germany would under no pretence whatever annex Belgian territory, and that she had disregarded Belgian neutrality to prevent what was to her a question of life or death, the French advance through Belgium. Thereupon the British Government sent an ultimatum to Berlin, asking for an unequivocal assurance that Germany would respect the neutrality of Belgium identical with that given the week before by France both to Belgium and to Great Britain, and for a satisfactory reply by midnight to it, and to Sir E. Grey's telegram of the morning; otherwise, the British Ambassador was instructed to make what was, substantially, a declaration of war. Late that night this request was refused: and on Wednesday morning, August 5, Great Britain found herself called to be once more the saviour of Europe.

CHAPTER V.
GREAT BRITAIN AT WAR.

The war had come suddenly upon Great Britain, but it found a Government well prepared to withstand the enemy and a Parliament and a people whose divisions—on which the Germans had staked their hopes—were rapidly closing, and whose determination to carry on the contest to a victorious issue was being quickly perfected by a growing knowledge of the real position. Promises of help began to pour in from all parts of the Empire; at home steps were at once taken to detain Austrian and German reservists, and to seize or capture enemy ships within reach of British or French cruisers or lying in British ports. Twenty such vessels were taken on the first day of the war; the following days added many others and German oceanic trade was stopped at once. The British Fleets, brought together at Spithead (p. 158) had taken up their stations in the North Sea, and cruisers had been sent to protect the great trade routes from German warships,[Pg 175] or from "auxiliary cruisers" in the shape of fast German liners, armed, and partly coaled, at sea. Horses and motor-lorries were hastily requisitioned for war purposes, and even harvesting was impeded by the (illegal) seizure of farm horses by too zealous agents; and preparations, perfectly well known in the ports, were actively made for the despatch to France of the British Expeditionary Force; but it was only by inadvertence that hints of their nature were published in the Press, and most of the papers patriotically suppressed the news. Then began that system of secrecy as to movements and details, loyally observed by all concerned and rigorously enforced by authority, which was kept up throughout the year by all the belligerents. Baffling to the contending commanders, it was still more so to the contemporary historian; and, for the first few days, it obscured the gravity of the contest.

The first day of war was marked in the Commons by the announcements of the resignations of Ministers (p. 173), of the violation of Belgian neutrality, and of an impending Vote of Credit—which was loudly cheered—for 100,000,000l.; and then two war measures were passed almost without debate. The first amended the procedure in Prize Courts in accordance with the findings of a recent Departmental Committee, the second empowered the Crown, in time of war or national emergency, to impose restrictions on aliens, especially with a view to the removal or detention of spies. Next, on the adjournment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement on the financial position. The emergency, he said, was due to temporary causes, largely to the stoppage of remittances from abroad to enable the discount market to meet its liabilities; there was no failure of credit. After conferences at the Treasury it had been decided not to suspend special payments, but to take steps to suspend the Bank Charter Act, in order to economise the supply of gold. After strongly condemning the hoarding of gold as helpful to the enemy, he stated that on August 7 Government notes for 1l. and 10s. would be issued, convertible into gold at the Bank of England, postal orders would also be legal tender, and similarly convertible, and would be issued free of charge. The Bank rate would be reduced to 6 per cent., and the moratorium extended for a month. Bills and cheques would be dealt with as usual, subject to the discretion of the bankers in preventing an abnormal withdrawal of gold. This satisfactory account of the position was fully endorsed by Mr. A. Chamberlain.

Late that evening a White Paper was officially published (Cd. 1467) containing correspondence respecting the European Crisis. It embodied nearly 160 documents, and could not be rapidly grasped; but it eventually enabled the British people to form their own opinion as to the responsibility for the war. Later it was republished, with additions, in pamphlet form at the price[Pg 176] of a penny, and German and French translations were circulated abroad.[2]

The course of events, so far as Great Britain was concerned in them, in the fortnight preceding the war, was as follows: The Austrian Note to Serbia, which was in fact an Ultimatum, was delivered at Belgrade on July 23, and a reply was demanded within forty-eight hours. Sir Edward Grey, while earnestly deprecating any time-limit to this Note, had laid stress, before knowing its contents, on the appalling consequences that would follow should it lead to a European war between four Powers—a complete collapse of European credit and industry which, in great industrial States, would mean "a state of things worse than that of 1848." But he declined to express an opinion on the merits of the Austro-Serbian dispute. Between the presentation of the Note and the expiry of the time-limit, however, Great Britain made three attempts at peace. In conjunction with Russia, whose Foreign Minister described the Note as "provocative and immoral," she urged the extension of the time-limit on Austria, and pleaded with Germany to do the same. Next, she proposed that Germany, France, and Italy should work together at Vienna and St. Petersburg in favour of conciliation. Italy, France, and Russia assented; Germany had no objection, if Austro-Russian relations became threatening. Thirdly, the Russian, French, and British representatives at Belgrade were instructed to advise Serbia to go as far as possible to meet Austria. Serbia, in fact, conceded very nearly all the Austrian demands; but Austria had determined on war, and Germany, when Sir Edward Grey urged her to persuade Austria to accept the reply, merely "passed on" his message to Vienna. The time-limit having expired, Sir Edward Grey proposed (July 26), by telegram to the British representatives at Paris, Berlin, and Rome, a Conference in London between himself and the French, German and Italian Ambassadors, to discuss the best means towards a settlement. France and Italy accepted; Russia agreed, if direct explanations with Vienna should prove impossible; Germany, however, said that the Conference would practically amount to a court of arbitration, but subsequently "accepted in principle" mediation by the four Powers between Austria and Russia. But Austria now declared war against Serbia. On July 28, however, Sir Edward Grey was informed through the German Ambassador that Germany was endeavouring to mediate between Russia and Austria. He then sent word to the German Government asking them, if they did not like the Conference he had proposed, to suggest any other form of mediation.

The German Chancellor's answer was to invite the British

[Pg 177]

Ambassador, Sir E. Goschen, to call on him, late at night, on July 29. He intimated that, should Austria be attacked by Russia, a European conflict would become inevitable; he thought it clear that Great Britain would not allow France to be crushed, but this was not Germany's aim; if Great Britain's neutrality were certain, Germany would promise, if victorious, to make no territorial acquisitions at the expense of France. But he was unable, on being asked, to give a similar undertaking in regard to the French colonies. Germany would promise to respect the integrity and neutrality of the Netherlands so long as her adversaries did likewise. German operations in Belgium, he said, depended on the action of France, but, after the war, Belgian integrity would be respected if Belgium had not sided against Germany. He hoped that these assurances might lead to an Anglo-German understanding, and ultimately to a neutrality agreement. Sir Edward Grey replied (July 30) with an absolute refusal; France, without further territory being taken from her in Europe, could be so crushed as to become merely subordinate to Germany, and it would be an indelible disgrace to Great Britain to make this bargain at the expense of France; nor could she bargain away any obligation or interest she had regarding Belgian neutrality. The one way of maintaining the good relations between Great Britain and Germany was by the co-operation of the two Powers to preserve the peace of Europe. But, if the peace of Europe could be preserved, he would endeavour to promote some arrangement to which Germany would be a party, by which she and her allies could be assured against any aggressive or hostile policy on the part of France, Russia, or Great Britain. He had desired and worked for this as far as possible during the Balkan crisis, and, Germany having a like object, Anglo-German relations sensibly improved. The idea had hitherto been too Utopian for definite proposals, but he hoped for some more definite rapprochement between the Powers when the existing crisis was over.

On the same day, July 30, M. Cambon reminded Sir Edward Grey of a letter written by the latter on November 22, 1912, agreeing that while consultations between military and naval experts of their two nations did not pledge their Governments to co-operate, yet, should either Government have grave reason to expect an unprovoked attack by a third Power, or something that threatened the general peace, it should immediately discuss with the other whether, and by what measures, they should co-operate in opposition. M. Cambon also showed a letter from the French Foreign Minister, indicating that Germany was preparing to invade France. Sir E. Grey answered next day, after a Cabinet Council, that as yet Great Britain could not definitely pledge herself to intervene. The preservation of the neutrality of Belgium might be an important factor in determining the British attitude. Sir E, Grey also asked the French and German Governments,[Pg 178] through their Ambassadors, whether they were prepared to respect Belgian neutrality provided it was not violated; and he asked the Belgian Government whether it would remain neutral. France and Belgium replied affirmatively at once. The German Government temporised, and eventually gave no answer, though Sir Edward Grey had warned the German Ambassador on August 1 of the probable effect of a violation on public feeling in Great Britain.

Meanwhile Russia and Austria were still negotiating (July 30, 31). On the 29th Germany had suggested to Austria that she should content herself with occupying Belgrade. That night Russia offered to stop all military preparations if Austria would recognise that the Austro-Serbian conflict had become a matter of general European interest, and would eliminate from the ultimatum the points involving a violation of the sovereignty of Serbia. Austria now agreed at last to discuss the whole question of her ultimatum, and Russia asked the British Government to assume the direction of these discussions.

But the hope of peace thus held out was wrecked by the German ultimatum requiring Russia to countermand her mobilisation. Germany, meanwhile, had gone further towards mobilisation than Russia; the German Secretary of State refused to discuss a last proposal from Sir Edward Grey for joint action of Great Britain, Germany, France, and Italy, pending a reply from Russia; and on the afternoon of August 1 Germany declared war against France. Next morning the Germans violated the neutrality of Luxemburg. British merchant ships had already been detained at Hamburg—though the detention was temporarily countermanded on representations from the British Ambassador—and the only question now left for the British Government was whether Great Britain should remain neutral. The determining factors proved to be the violation of Belgian neutrality and the danger to France; and the position was fully explained by the Foreign Secretary on August 3 (p. 170) and by the Prime Minister two days later.

The Prime Minister moved the Vote of Credit (Aug. 5) in a speech continuing the noblest traditions of Parliamentary eloquence. After an emphatic tribute to the unremitting efforts of the Foreign Secretary to preserve peace both in the Balkan crisis and to the very last stage of the recent negotiations, he quoted from the German Chancellor's communication to the British Ambassador at Berlin the appeal for British neutrality, the refusal to undertake to respect the integrity of the French colonies, and the treatment of what, to himself personally, had always been a crucial and almost the governing consideration—the position of the small States. The proposal, Mr. Asquith said, amounted to this—as regarded France, free licence to Germany to annex, if successful, the whole of the French possessions out[Pg 179]side Europe; as to Belgium, the British reply to the pathetic appeal of the King of the Belgians would have been that "without her knowledge, we should have bartered away to the Power that was threatening her our obligation to keep our plighted word." He characterised the German proposal as infamous; and in return Great Britain was to get a promise—nothing more—from a Power "which was at that very moment announcing its intention to violate its own treaty obligations and inviting us to do the same. Had we even dallied or temporised with such an offer, we, as a Government, should have covered ourselves with dishonour." He quoted at length from Sir E. Grey's reply, which showed that the Foreign Secretary, who had already earned the title of the peacemaker of Europe, persisted to the last in his efforts for peace. "The war has been forced upon us." Every member of the Government had had before him throughout the vision of the almost unequalled suffering entailed by war, not only to the present generation, but to posterity and the whole prospects of European civilisation. Nevertheless, they had thought it to be the duty as well as the interest of Great Britain to go to war. They were fighting, first, to fulfil a solemn international obligation; secondly, to vindicate the principle that small nationalities were not to be crushed, in defiance of international good faith, by the arbitrary will of a strong and overmastering Power. He believed no nation ever entered into a great struggle—and this was one of the greatest in history—with a clearer conscience and stronger conviction that it was fighting, not for aggression or the maintenance of its own interest, but for principles whose maintenance was vital to the civilised world. "With the full conviction not only of the wisdom and justice, but of the obligation to challenge this great issue," and in order to ensure that the whole resources of the Empire should be thrown into the scale, he asked for a Vote of Credit of 100,000,000l. not only for naval and military operations, but to assist the food supplies, promote the continuance of trade, industry, business, and communications, relieve distress, and generally for all expenses arising out of the state of war. This gave the Government a free hand, and the expenditure would be subject to the approval of the House. He asked also, as War Secretary, for a Supplementary Estimate for men for the Army. He had taken that office in order that the unfortunate conditions existing should be ended and complete confidence re-established; and he believed and knew that it had been. There was no more loyal and united body, none in which the spirit and habit of discipline were more deeply ingrained and cherished, than the British Army. It was unfair that his own attention should be divided, and Lord Kitchener, with great public spirit and patriotism, had undertaken the office. He was not a politician, and his acceptance did not identify him with any set of political opinions. On his behalf, the Prime Minister continued, he him[Pg 180]self was asking for power to increase the Army by 500,000. India was proposing to send two divisions; every one of the Dominions had already tendered unasked the utmost help, in men and in money, that it could afford to the Empire in time of need. The mother country must set the example, while responding to these filial overtures with gratitude and affection. "We have a great duty to perform, a great trust to fulfil, and confidently we believe Parliament and the country will enable us to do it."

Mr. Bonar Law, speaking for the whole Opposition, gave their whole-hearted support to the Government. He had said in his first speech on foreign policy as Opposition leader (Nov. 27, 1911) that an Anglo-German war would be due to human folly; it was due to human folly and wickedness; but neither were in Great Britain. Though she was under no formal obligations to take part, the Triple Entente was understood to mean that, if any of its members were attacked aggressively, the others would be expected to aid. Berlin might have prevented war, but a miscalculation had been made about Russia and Great Britain. He endorsed entirely the Prime Minister's view of the position. The struggle was Napoleonism once again. "Thank Heaven, so far as we know, there is no Napoleon." There was danger, not of a scarcity of food, but of a fear of scarcity, and he warned the country against panic. With the command of the sea Great Britain would have freedom of trade with the colonies and the whole of the American Continent, without the competition of her enemies or her allies. He offered the Government the full services of any member of the Opposition.

After further debate, which exhibited the progress of the Liberal conversion to the necessity of the war, the motion was agreed to, and also the increase of the Army by 500,000 men and the Navy and Coastguard by 67,000.

Subsequently, on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill, the President of the Local Government Board summarised the measures to be taken to prevent or relieve distress. For the prevention of unemployment, manufacturers were making patriotic efforts to keep their businesses going, and working short time instead of discharging employees; additional employment would be provided by the Road Board, the Development Commission, and various Government Departments, while Distress Committees and Local Authorities were invited to plan relief works. As to relief, the Prince of Wales's Fund would, it was hoped, supersede local funds; local authorities were being asked to see to the feeding of school children, local representative committees were to be formed for the distribution of the Prince of Wales's Fund, and a Central Advisory Committee had been formed with himself as Chairman, and including Mr. Long, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald. He invited suggestions. The Poor Law was kept in reserve, as a last line of defence.

[Pg 181]

The Prince of Wales issued his appeal, endorsed by the Queen, on August 6, and the response was immediate. In the first two days the subscriptions amounted to 400,000l.; they ultimately passed 4,000,000l. Queen Alexandra also issued an appeal for soldiers' and sailors' families, and hosts of other appeals followed for Red Cross and hospital work and other matters; to these also response was generous.

Meanwhile the British Navy had achieved its first success and suffered its first disaster. On August 5 the third Destroyer Flotilla, shepherded by H.M.S. Amphion, and patrolling the approaches to the Channel, found the small Hamburg-American converted liner Königin Luise laying mines off the estuary of the Thames. She was chased by a destroyer and sunk by a torpedo, some fifty being saved out of a crew of 130. Early next morning, however, the Amphion herself struck a mine and was sunk, and about 130 of the crew and one officer—a paymaster—were lost, besides twenty German prisoners. In officially announcing the disaster to the House of Commons (Aug. 7) the First Lord of the Admiralty said that this indiscriminate scattering of mines, imperilling even neutral merchantmen, was a new fact calling for the attention of the nations. He added, however, that the strict censorship of the Press permitted the rise of many alarming rumours, and a Press Bureau would therefore be appointed under Mr. F. E. Smith, M.P., which would give out "a steady stream of trustworthy information" from both the War Office and the Admiralty, and he emphatically commended the patriotic reticence as to war preparations shown by the Press. (The Press Bureau, however, hardly fulfilled this forecast.)

The first instalment of emergency war legislation was completed before the adjournment (Aug. 10) of both Houses as follows. The Defence of the Realm Act empowered the King in Council to issue regulations authorising the trial by court-martial and the punishment of persons contravening regulations designed to stop certain specified forms of espionage, such as obtaining information to assist the enemy, tapping wires, or blowing up railway bridges or docks. The Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (Temporary Rules) Act extended the powers of the Board of Trade to make rules under the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, and the Trade Marks Act, 1908. Its object was essentially to enable the Board to allow the rights in patents or trade marks owned by enemies to be ignored in the United Kingdom during the War. An Electoral Disabilities Removal Act prevented members of the Militia, Reserves, Yeomanry, and Territorial Forces from being disqualified by absence on the military or naval service of the Crown, or by the grant of poor-law relief towards their families during such absence. Another Act enabled the Government to requisition food, forage and stores for the Army; another empowered it to requisition foodstuffs withheld "unreason[Pg 182]ably," i.e. in order to raise their price. Finally, a Housing Act revived for one year, in order to reduce unemployment, the powers conferred on the Government by the dropped clause of the new Housing Act (post, p. 209). The Board of Agriculture in rural districts, the Local Government Board in towns, were authorised to acquire land and buildings and to arrange for housing with local authorities or authorised societies. It was explained that they would proceed by lending money to such societies, and use the other powers given them only in the last resort. This Bill was amended, at the instance of certain Unionists, so as to require the concurrence of the Development Commission—an amendment to which some Liberals reluctantly agreed in order to avoid imperilling the Bill. This done, the Houses adjourned for a fortnight, and it was announced that the leaders would attempt to avert controversial debates.

The efforts to compose the Home Rule conflict were not entirely successful (post, p. 203); but less menacing differences were settled or suspended at once. The contest in the London building trade, which had been somewhat mitigated in July by sectional submissions on the part of several of the Trade Unions concerned, was settled on August 6 by the abandonment of the project of a general lock-out by the masters, and the withdrawal on the part of the men of their refusal to work with non-unionists; and settlements were also effected of a dockers' strike at Liverpool, of various sectional railway disputes, and of a coal strike in South Wales, which for a day or two had seemed likely to interfere with the supply of coal for the Fleet. Political propaganda, too, was formally suspended, notably by the Women's National Liberal Association and the Land Union; and the appointment of Earl Kitchener as a non-political War Minister was followed by rumours of the impending establishment of a coalition Government. The only approach made to this, however, consisted in the invitations to Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Mr. Long, Mr. F. E. Smith, and other Unionist leaders, to give their counsel and assistance in various departments to the Government; and they accepted cordially. A general amnesty was announced (Aug. 11) both for suffragist prisoners and for persons convicted of offences in connexion with industrial disturbances; and both the non-militant and the militant groups of the suffrage societies provisionally abandoned their agitation (though a few of the militants made a scene at the Home Office on August 27), and organised themselves for the relief, in various ways, of the women and children sufferers by the war. Admirable work was done in these directions by the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, and by the Women's Emergency Corps; and Miss Christabel Pankhurst, on her return from Paris a little later, repaid the Government by speaking at meetings designed to encourage recruiting for the "new Army."

[Pg 183]

Earnest appeals had already been issued for recruits; the response was immediate; and on August 9 Earl Kitchener, as War Minister, issued a circular to Lord-Lieutenants of Counties and Chairmen of County Territorial Associations, asking for 100,000 men to form a new Army. Recruits came in for it at the rate, at first, of 3,000 daily; most of the members of the Universities' Officers' Training Corps applied for commissions in the Territorials or Special Reserve; those who asked to be appointed to the latter were offered commissions in this "New Army," and sent (if they accepted) to officers' training camps, whence they were despatched by instalments to join their units elsewhere. Retired officers and non-commissioned officers largely returned to the colours and were used in these units, which formed additional "Service Battalions" of the existing infantry regiments, their numbers following those of the Territorial Battalions. This Army was formed into six (territorial) divisions each of three brigades. By the end of the year there were also a second and a third new Army formed, or in process of formation, on the same lines. The officers' training camps, however, had been given up.

The Navy, meanwhile, was active. Cruisers were guarding the great trade routes and patrolling the North Sea; a German submarine attack on the First Cruiser Squadron was repulsed, and it was announced on August 10 that the German submarine U 15 had been sunk by H.M. cruiser Birmingham. The German cruiser Karlsruhe had been surprised (Aug. 7) by H.M.S. Bristol 200 miles south of Bermuda while coaling from the Hamburg-American liner Kronprinz Wilhelm and had escaped after a 200 miles' chase; the German battle cruiser Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau, after the latter had shelled Tunis, escaped from a pursuing Allied Fleet through the Straits of Messina, and proceeded to Constantinople, where they were bought by the Porte. (Rear-Admiral Berkeley Milne, commanding the Mediterranean squadron and Rear-Admiral Troubridge, commanding the pursuing fleet, were exonerated from responsibility for their escape.)

Further events were reassuring for the British public. The German wireless station at Dar-es-Salaam, the only good harbour in German East Africa, was destroyed (Aug. 9) by a British force; another British force occupied Togoland in West Africa (Aug. 7); and Japan (Aug. 5) and Portugal (Aug. 10) formally announced that they recognised the obligations imposed by their respective alliances with Great Britain.

Help was tendered lavishly from the Dominions and Crown Colonies; at home private houses and other buildings were freely offered for hospital purposes, yachts were converted by their owners into hospital ships, and the great London hospitals allotted beds for the wounded. Great activity—sometimes marked by zeal rather than knowledge—was shown in preparing for Red Cross work, and in making clothes for soldiers and others. The Queen[Pg 184] issued an appeal to all needlework guilds throughout the British Isles (Aug. 10) to send in underclothing for soldiers and sailors, and ordinary garments for their wives and children and such of the civil population as might suffer through unemployment; steps were taken locally to consider how distress might be mitigated, and the newspapers were full of suggestions for help. But, after the first shock, the great mass of British citizens kept their heads, responded as far as possible to the call for "business as usual," and prepared to face bravely the prospect of lessened income—already visible in the withholding of many interim dividends—and the huge sacrifices demanded by the contest.

In two respects only there had been at the outset a tendency to panic. Before the Bank Holiday there had been some attempt by private persons to lay in large stores of food, and to draw gold from the banks; when the shops reopened on August 4, there was a rush to buy provisions in many great provincial cities; next day the alarm spread to London; the great stores were besieged; one of them had to close its provision department, another refused to supply customers with more than ordinary quantities; many of the small shops were speedily sold out; in the East End certain wholesale dealers, to encourage a rise in prices, actually provided purchasers with money; and, in the West End and some southern residential towns on that day and for some days afterwards, well-to-do people personally loaded hundredweights of stores into their own motor-cars, and packed their houses to the roof. But there was no real lack of foodstuffs; steps were taken at once by the Government to keep open the foreign sources of supply by a scheme of insurance against war risks; it took over the flour mills; and a Consultative Committee on Food Supplies met the representatives of certain great distributive companies and of the Grocers' Federation, representing some 17,000 shops, and lists of maximum retail prices were issued, as given below. The interruption was mainly in the supply of sugar from the Continent, and in that of butter, bacon, and eggs from Denmark. The following list (given in The Times, Aug. 7) shows the first effect of the war on wholesale prices.

The following lists of maximum retail prices were agreed on by the Advisory Committee:—

[Pg 185]

The prices of sugar were conditional on supplies being obtainable at the prices submitted by wholesale merchants. Sugar had jumped up from 15s. to 38s. per cwt. owing to the war. Of flour and imported meat there was no shortage. A Special Committee, with Sir Ailwyn Fellowes as chairman, was appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Foodstuffs and held its first meeting on August 10. But there proved to be little for it to do. The harvest, too, was promising, and the weather, except for one short spell of cold and some rain early in August, exceptionally fine.

In one other respect there was, for a long time, a considerable alarm. Many stories had been circulated during recent years as to the presence of an army of German spies in Great Britain, and even of the existence of a host of German reservists, for whom arms were said to be stored in London and elsewhere for immediate use at the outbreak of an Anglo-German War (A.R., 1909, p. 117). Some provision against these dangers was made by the posting of Territorial troops (and in some cases Boy Scouts and Scoutmasters) to guard railways, bridges, and waterworks, and by the formation of a force of special constables within the Metropolitan police area. That there was some ground for fear had been shown by the numerous trials for espionage; and the feeling, intensified by jealousy of the Germans as trade rivals, continued to find expression in a portion of the Press. Owing to the necessity of secrecy imposed by pending trials for espionage, it was not till October that the Home Department could defend itself fully against the charge of inaction. But on the outbreak of war the Aliens Restriction Act enabled the Government both to require all enemy alien residents to register, and to restrict their freedom of movement and residence; and an official statement was published later (Oct. 9) of the steps taken to check espionage. In 1909 a special Intelligence Department had been established for that purpose by the Admiralty and War Office, and had since acted in close touch with the police; the law was amended and extended by the Official Secrets Act, 1911, and the ramifications of the German spy system in England were discovered in 1911-14. Despite immense efforts and lavish expenditure, the German Government had got little information of value. The agents were watched and shadowed, and arrested only when plans or documents of value were about to be sent abroad. On August 4 twenty-one known spies were arrested, and 200 suspects noted and mostly interned. Any fresh organisation was impeded by a[Pg 186] postal and cable censorship; certain areas were cleared under the Act above-mentioned; aliens were forbidden to possess wireless or signalling apparatus or homing pigeons; private wireless stations were forbidden, and a special system devised of wireless detection. The Defence of the Realm Act (p. 181) made espionage a military offence. The success of these measures was shown by the ignorance of the German generals on August 21 of the despatch a fortnight earlier of the British Expeditionary Force. The writers of letters to the Press alleging cases of espionage had been unable effectively to assist the police. Owners of homing pigeons had been registered, and the importation of the birds or their conveyance by rail prohibited. No trace had been found of a conspiracy to commit outrage; no bombs, and practically no effective arms had been found after search; and 9,000 Germans and Austrians of military age were held in detention camps as prisoners of war.

The interruption of national intercourse had made itself acutely felt in other ways. Alien enemies not of military age were allowed to leave Great Britain up to August 10 by certain specified ports, but after that date only with special permits; but graver difficulties arose with the hosts of British and American travellers for health or pleasure on the Continent who were cut off by the declaration of war. From Germany and Austria some hurried back at once without much difficulty, others experienced hardships and even brutality from the German officials and populace; those were in worst case who tried to pass from Germany into Belgium after the invasion had begun. But many British subjects, even invalids at health resorts, with their families, were detained in Germany and Austria, while those of military age were treated as prisoners of war. The care of British subjects was confided to the American Embassies and Consulates, but their friends in England were rarely able to communicate with them. By August 8 it appeared that France and Belgium were almost emptied of British tourists. But Switzerland, as usual, contained a host of them, whose letters of credit, cheques, and even British coin, were now refused, and who were unable to return owing to the stoppage of ordinary traffic on the French railways through mobilisation. But the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs was able to state in the Commons on August 11 that funds had been advanced to His Majesty's representatives at Berne, Lausanne, and Paris, to relieve the more pressing necessities of British subjects stranded abroad, and provide for their return. Some of those in Switzerland came by sea from Genoa; most, however, reached England only in the first days of September, by special trains, but after much discomfort and delay. Had war broken out a few days later, however, the numbers would have been far greater.

The case of American tourists for a time seemed even worse.[Pg 187] The number in Europe at the outbreak of the war was estimated at 80,000; and they were impeded, not only on their way to England, but by the irregularity of the services across the Atlantic, and by the interruption of the international exchanges between New York and London. A Committee was formed to deal with them; it sat at the Savoy Hotel, and arrangements were made to cash letters of credit. But the liners leaving for the United States were overcrowded; even the steerage was given up to cabin passengers; berths were sold by holders at a huge premium, and a group of Americans even bought a steamer, the Viking, and charged 100l. to 125l. for passages. The Committee, however, did excellent work both in relieving the needs of the stranded passengers and repatriating them, and by the end of August the worst was over.

Meantime the Churches had done their part in impressing on the people the gravity of the situation, the need for endurance and sacrifice, and the righteousness of the British cause. On August 6 a Form of Public Intercession authorised by the Archbishops and Bishops was circulated to all incumbents in England and Wales for use on August 9, the first Sunday of the war; and on that day crowded and reverent congregations filled the places of worship of all denominations throughout the country, and special sermons were preached emphasising the coming trial and the duty of the nation. Friday, August 21, was appointed as a special Day of Intercession for the soldiers and sailors, frequent services were held at the churches and chapels throughout the kingdom; the King and Queen attended the afternoon service at Westminster Abbey; and the day was observed by the Roman Catholic Church and the Free Churches generally. With very rare exceptions, which included neither the Society of Friends nor the great mass of pacifists, the British people had made up its mind that the war was just and righteous, that it must go on at all costs till the arrogance of Prussian militarism was finally humbled, and that no peace would be acceptable which did not secure a general reduction of armaments and a better method of settling national disputes. It must be in short "a war to end war."

Meanwhile public feeling was encouraged by the checks given to the German invaders at Haelen and Liège, by the French advance in Alsace, and by the announcements (Aug. 12, 13) that twenty-four British and some French cruisers were searching for the five German cruisers known to be in the Atlantic, and that that ocean was clear of enemy warships as far south as Trinidad. On the other hand, the Admiralty warned shipowners that the North Sea had been rendered unsafe by the promiscuous strewing of German mines in it; but the Danish steamers were diverted from Harwich to more northern ports, and one at least of the Dutch regular services to London suffered little interruption.

The area of the war also continued to extend. War had been[Pg 188] declared on August 12 between Great Britain and Austria-Hungary, not from any direct cause of quarrel, but through the menace of the latter towards France; and the Austrian Embassy was sent home by the British Government in a specially chartered liner to Genoa. The breach with a Power long friendly to Great Britain was generally regretted. On the other hand, the Germans had put themselves in the wrong at starting, and their conduct in Belgium exasperated British feeling more and more. The German feeling was expressed in an alleged proclamation—published in England at the end of September, but issued August 16, though its authenticity was denied at Berlin—in which the Kaiser directed his troops to "annihilate the contemptible little English army."

The arrival in France of the British Expeditionary Force was announced officially in England on August 18, though the French papers had published the news of its arrival ten days earlier on the authority of the French War Office. The delay had given rise to disquieting rumours, and it was officially stated that no casualties had as yet taken place among the troops. The route taken was mainly by way of Southampton to Havre and Boulogne; and it was learnt from the naval despatches (Oct. 23) that two destroyers and the eighth submarine flotilla had watched continuously to attack the German fleet had it interfered. The South-Western Railway Company dealt with the huge traffic admirably. At the same time (Aug. 18) there were published a Message from the King and Instructions from Earl Kitchener. The former, delivered before their departure, was as follows:—

The following instructions were issued by Lord Kitchener to every soldier in the Expeditionary Army, to be kept in his active service pay-book:—

The concentration of the Expeditionary Force in France was completed on August 21; but it was not till some days later that its location was even approximately known. Meanwhile the hopes set up in England by the earlier accounts from France and Belgium gradually gave place to anxiety as the Germans occupied Liège and advanced to Brussels, and the French retired in Alsace; and the sudden and as yet unexplained fall of Namur (Aug. 25) caused dismay. This event, it was announced, necessitated the retirement of a portion of the Allied troops from the line of the Sambre to their original defensive position on the Franco-Belgian frontier; but the British position was not fully revealed till Sir John French's despatch was published (Sept. 10). On August 22, he stated, he had moved the troops to positions for commencing operations in pursuance of General Joffre's plans (apparently to cover the French left on the Sambre). They occupied a line of about twenty-five miles in length from Condé westwards through Mons to Binche, the Second Corps extending from Condé and Mons, the first from Mons to Binche, the 6th cavalry brigade on the extreme right at Binche. After cavalry reconnaissances on August 22 and 23, the actual engagement began at 3 P.M. on the 23rd; but, having believed himself faced only by one or at most two German Army Corps, he learnt at 6 P.M. from General Joffre that there were at least three—a reserve corps and the 4th and 9th Corps, while a fourth was engaged in a turning movement on his left flank, and the French on his right were retiring before the Germans, who on the 22nd had secured the passages of the Sambre between Charleroi and Namur. He therefore began to retire at daybreak to the line Jeulain-Maubeuge, some ten miles farther back, a position previously surveyed, but difficult to hold, and reached it before nightfall. During this retirement the Second Cavalry Brigade, under General De Lisle, attempted a flank attack on the enemy's infantry, but was stopped by a wire entanglement, and the 9th Lancers and 18th Hussars suffered severely. Supported by the 19th Infantry Brigade, the Second Corps, under General Smith-Dorrien effected a retreat, but with two German corps on its front and one threatening the flank, it suffered great loss. From the new position, however, a retreat was necessitated by the efforts of the enemy to outflank the British force and drive it on Maubeuge, and on the 25th a further retirement was effected to a line some sixteen miles to the S.S.W., running from Cambrai by Le Câteau to Landrecies.[Pg 190] The 4th Infantry Division now came up to assist; and the First Corps reached Landrecies at about 10 P.M. But the enemy, though much exhausted, came on, and the 4th Guards Brigade in Landrecies were heavily attacked by the 9th German Army Corps, which itself suffered tremendous loss in the narrow streets. Meanwhile the First Corps, under Sir Douglas Haig, was heavily engaged south and east of Maroilles; but, mainly through his skill, and with the assistance of two French reserve divisions, it was extricated in the night and resumed its march at dawn. The next day, August 26th, was the most critical. At daybreak it became apparent that the enemy was throwing his main strength against the left of the position occupied by the Second Corps and the 4th Division; General Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien could not continue to retire, and no support could be sent him, nor had there been time properly to entrench the position; but the troops showed a magnificent front to a terrible fire, the Artillery, outnumbered by four to one, making a splendid fight; and at 3.30 a retirement was commenced, of necessity, and heroically covered by the Artillery and protected by the Cavalry. The left wing was saved by General Sir H. Smith-Dorrien's skill, to which Sir John French paid a very high tribute. The retreat was continued till the 28th, when the troops halted on the line Noyon-Chauny-La Fère, along the Oise some twelve to twenty miles south of St. Quentin. The British losses were very serious, but inevitable, inasmuch as the British Army, only two days after a concentration by rail, had had to withstand the attack of five German Army Corps. The enemy, however, was too exhausted by the 26th to pursue effectively. The services of officers and men were acknowledged by the Commander-in-Chief in the highest terms, and special note was taken of the gallantry of the Flying Corps, both in reconnaissance and in aerial combat.

But as yet only part of the truth was allowed to emerge in Great Britain. When Parliament reassembled on August 26th, Earl Kitchener made a statement in the House of Lords—his maiden speech, though he had been a Peer since 1898. As a soldier, he said, he had no politics, and his term as War Secretary was that of the new Army—for the war, but not for longer than three years, a term selected because others would then be ready to replace them. The Expeditionary Force, having advanced to near Mons, had then been for thirty-six hours in contact with a superior German force, and had maintained the traditions of British soldiers and behaved with the utmost gallantry. Since the beginning of active operations rather more than 2,000 had been placed hors de combat. Mobilisation had taken place without a hitch; the Expeditionary Force proved itself wholly efficient, thoroughly well equipped, and immediately ready to take the field. The Press and the public had aided the Government by a discreet and necessary silence, the civilian population by meeting requisi[Pg 191]tions; the railways had justified the confidence of the War Office, the troops, thanks to the Admiralty, had been conveyed across the Channel without any untoward incident. After laying stress on British moral support to France as "a factor of high military significance," and expressing hearty sympathy with Belgium, he pointed out that Great Britain's military system enabled her still to have a vast reserve from herself and the Dominions. Sixty-nine Territorial battalions had volunteered for service abroad; the hundred thousand recruits asked for had been practically secured; behind these were the Reserves. While the maximum force of the adversary Empires was constantly diminishing, Great Britain's reinforcements would steadily and increasingly flow out till she had an Army in the field not unworthy of the British Empire. The new Field Army might rise in the next six or seven months to a total of thirty divisions, continually maintained in the field. Should the war be protracted and its fortunes varied or adverse, exertions and sacrifices beyond any yet demanded would be required from the whole nation and Empire, and would not be denied by Parliament or the people.

In the Commons that day the chief business was a statement by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the arrangements for repatriating and assisting British subjects stranded on the Continent, the introduction of much emergency legislation—to be summarised later—and the announcement by the Speaker of the receipt and acknowledgment of a congratulatory message from the Russian Duma. Next day (Aug. 27) the Prime Minister, in reply to a question, declared emphatically, in view of Lord Kitchener's statement, that compulsory military service was unnecessary; the sinking of the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse was announced, also the engagement of the British force, and the British occupation of Ostend (p. 193); and in the course of a discussion regarding the Moratorium, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that while bankers, financial houses, and merchants favoured its continuance, manufacturers were two to one in favour of bringing it to an end. But the feature of the day was the speech of the Prime Minister in moving an Address expressing admiration for the heroic resistance offered by Belgium to the invader, and pledging Great Britain's support to her gallant ally. After a reference to the cause of the war he insisted on the binding obligation on Great Britain to intervene. We did so only when confronted with the choice of keeping or breaking solemn obligations, between the discharge of a binding trust and a shameless subservience to naked force. "We do not repent our decision." The issue was one which no great and self-respecting nation, certainly none bred and nurtured like ourselves in this ancient home of liberty, could have declined without undying shame. He recalled the struggles for integrity and national life made by small States, by Athens and Sparta, the Swiss cantons, and the Netherlands; never had the duty of asserting the preser[Pg 192]vation of that life been more clearly and bravely acknowledged and more strenuously and heroically discharged than by the Belgian King and people. The defence of Liège would always be one of the most inspiring chapters in the annals of liberty. The Belgians had won for themselves the immortal glory that belonged to a people who preferred freedom to ease, to security, and even to life itself. "We are proud of their alliance and their friendship." We were with them heart and soul, because we were defending with them the independence of small States and the sanctity of international covenants, and he assured them, in the name of Great Britain and the whole Empire, that they might count on our unfailing support.

Mr. Bonar Law, in seconding the motion, fully endorsed the Prime Minister's eulogies and promises. The events in Belgium confirmed the view that the war was a struggle of the moral influences of civilisation against brute force. Belgium had deserved well of the world and had placed Great Britain under an obligation, which would best be discharged by realising that for both countries the war was a struggle for life and death, and by employing all British resources to bring it to a successful end. Mr. John Redmond eloquently associated Ireland with the motion, eulogising Belgium, and suggesting that the loan contemplated (p. 216) should rather be a gift. The resolution was agreed to nem. con. In the House of Lords a similar Address was moved by the Marquess of Crewe, who said that Germany would have to make full reparation, and seconded by the Marquess of Lansdowne, who said that to Belgium was due the difference between the existing situation and that at the same time in 1870.

Next day (Aug. 28) a message was read in both Houses from Sir John French, describing the British resistance in the Cambria and Le-Câteau district; and Lord Kitchener, after communicating it to the House of Lords, announced that two divisions and a cavalry division, besides other troops, would be sent from India to France. The Marquess of Crewe added that the wonderful wave of enthusiasm and loyalty passing over India was largely based on the desire of the Indian people that Indian soldiers should stand side by side with their British comrades in repelling the invasion of France and Belgium. It was known in India that French African troops had been assisting in France, and "our loyal Indian fellow-subjects" would be disappointed if Indian troops could not assist British. The Indian frontiers would be fully held, and the popular enthusiasm precluded any internal trouble. It pervaded all classes, and found expression, among the princes, in munificent gifts for the service of the troops.

The British people did not yet know the whole story of the fighting in France, and Lord Kitchener's appeal for another 100,000 men did not excite alarm. The public disquiet might have been greater had the newspapers published particulars of the[Pg 193] precautions taken on the East Coast—constant patrolling by destroyers and seaplanes, destruction of houses which might obstruct the line of fire on a hostile fleet or serve the enemy as sea-marks, extinguishing of street lamps on the sea front or in streets visible from it, prohibition or restriction of the lighting of such rooms in private houses as were visible from the sea, and eventually the temporary extinction, for the first time in 100 years, of all lighthouses and lightships. But these things were only revealed in private conversation or correspondence.

Meanwhile the British public was confirmed in its conviction that Great Britain had acted justly by the publication of the despatch from Sir Edward Goschen describing his final interview with the German Foreign Secretary and the Imperial Chancellor.[3] The refusal of the former to refrain from violating Belgian neutrality on the ground that "rapidity of action was the great German asset," and the phrase of the latter, that Great Britain was going to war "just for a scrap of paper," seemed to place Germany hopelessly in the wrong. The naval warfare, too, was encouraging. The Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse had been sunk by H.M.S. Highflyer off the Rio del Oro in West Africa—in neutral waters, according to the German contention; Ostend had been occupied by British marines; and the German cruiser Magdeburg had been blown up in the Gulf of Finland. Still more encouraging news came on the evening of August 28, of a British victory that morning in the Bight of Heligoland. The official account, given in despatches published October 22, was substantially as follows. Information having been received from the submarines patrolling the North Sea of the probable movements of the enemy's ships, an attempt was made to draw them out; on August 26 and 27 the area to be occupied was searched for hostile submarines by the destroyers Lurcher and Firedrake, and, at daylight on August 28, three submarines (E 6, E 7, E 8), followed by these destroyers, headed for Heligoland, the submarines running on the surface, to invite a German attack. Other British submarines were watching, submerged, in the area. Near Heligoland a mist settled on the water, facilitating a German surprise. In rear of these craft was the Arethusa, a new light cruiser just commissioned, with the First and Third Destroyer Flotillas. A German torpedo squadron was sighted making for Heligoland, and was attacked by the Arethusa and the Third Flotilla. Then, at 7.57 A.M. two German cruisers, respectively with four and two funnels, were sighted; the Arethusa engaged the nearest, and was attacked by both, and by several destroyers. All her torpedo tubes were disabled and all but one of her guns, and for a few minutes she was on fire. At 8.25 A.M., however, she shot away the fore bridge of the two-funnelled cruiser, which made off towards Heligoland. The four-funnelled [Pg 194]cruiser had meanwhile turned on the Fearless, but the Germans drew off and retreated into the haze. Before their retreat, the British and German destroyers were engaged; the German commodore's destroyer (V 187) was sunk, and the crews of the British destroyers, having launched their boats to save life, had to retreat under a fire from a German cruiser, abandoning two boats. Thereupon the submarine E 4 (Lt. Com. Leir) proceeded to drive off the cruiser, which escaped her, covered the destroyers' retreat, and then took aboard, at great risk of attack, the British crew of one of the boats, with three Germans, leaving the other Germans, for whom, he had no room, and of whom some were badly wounded in the boats, to proceed to Heligoland. He left a German officer and six men to navigate them, and provided water, biscuit and a compass. Having effected temporary repairs and got all her guns but two in working order, the Arethusa, with the Fearless, proceeded in vain to search for the Lurcher and Firedrake (which, however, escaped the German cruisers), and then, though her speed had been reduced by the damage received, went forward again towards Heligoland. At 10.55 A.M. a four-funnelled German cruiser (possibly the Yorck) fired on her; the Fearless and the First Flotilla came up, and the assailant disappeared in the mist. Ten minuter later she returned, but failed to get the range, and was driven off. A few minutes later three British ships sighted the German light cruiser Mainz, and after twenty-five minutes' action she was on fire, disabled and sinking; the Light Cruiser Squadron came up and finished her destruction, but 220 of her crew were saved by the Lurcher, many of them badly wounded. The Battle Cruiser Squadron under Admiral Beatty had been called up, and at 12.30 the Lion drove off and pursued a four-funnelled cruiser, the Köln, which was engaging the Arethusa; the Lion, after firing two salvoes at the German cruiser Ariadne, which disappeared into the mist, on fire and sinking, returned to the chase of the Köln, and sank her with all hands. Soon afterwards the Queen Mary, battle cruiser, and the Lowestoft, light cruiser, were attacked by submarines, but avoided them, the former narrowly and with great skill. The Laurel and Arethusa were towed into Sheerness and Harwich, the latter being taken in tow by the Hague, with no light but two hand lanterns. Two German destroyers at least were sunk and eighteen or twenty badly damaged. The British vessels Goshawk, Laertes, Ferret, Laurel, Laforey, and Liberty were among those specially distinguished.

This news was accompanied by another stimulant to British action—the announcement of the atrocious and deliberate destruction of Louvain, "the Oxford of Belgium." In Great Britain, as elsewhere, it excited the deepest horror and indignation; and it gave additional force to a letter from the Prime Minister to the Lord Mayors of London, Edinburgh, Dublin, and Cardiff—the[Pg 195] capitals, so to speak, of the four divisions of the United Kingdom—announcing that the time had come for a combined effort to stimulate and organise public opinion and effort in the greatest conflict in British history, and proposing meetings throughout the country at which the justice of the British cause should be made plain, and the duty of every man to do his part should be enforced. He suggested that these four principal cities should lead the way, and offered to address a meeting in each; and he added that he could count on the co-operation of the leaders "of every section of organised public opinion."

But, while hope was encouraged by this movement (which had been previously suggested in the Press) and by the Russian successes in Galicia, London was horrified on August 30, by accounts of the retreat from Mons published in the Daily Mail and Times, the latter speaking of "a retreating and a broken army," the former of a "pitiful story," and of an incessant German advance, and the gaps left by the Censor's editing suggested that the whole truth might be worse. The Daily Mail telegram closed with an appeal for reinforcements at once. For a few hours this news produced something like a panic; but its diffusion was restricted as the day was Sunday, and in the afternoon the War Secretary issued a report of the four days' battle, showing that since the 26th, apart from cavalry fighting, the British Army had rested, reinforcements covering double the loss suffered had already joined, and that the French armies had that day stopped the German advance. A decisive British victory in France, it was added, would probably be fatal to the enemy; the continuance of Anglo-French resistance "on such a scale as to keep in the closest grip the enemy's best troops, could, if prolonged, lead only to one conclusion." Next day, in Parliament, these alarmist accounts were severely condemned by the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister, the latter describing them as a regrettable exception to the patriotic reticence of the Press; but it appeared that the Press Bureau had actually requested their publication, and that the closing paragraph, urging the necessity of reinforcements, was actually due to the head of the Bureau, Mr. F. E. Smith, himself.

This was the last discussion before the House adjourned till September 9. It had been preceded by the rapid passing of another batch of war legislation, and by a somewhat bitter debate on the treatment of the Home Rule and Welsh Church Bills. This instalment of war legislation included, inter alia, Bills authorising the appointment of special constables and making certain provisions regarding them; enabling licensing authorities, and, in London, the Chief Commissioner of Police, to restrict the hours of sale of liquor both in licensed premises and in clubs; empowering the military authorities to exercise control under the Defence of the Realm Act in training areas; extending the[Pg 196] list of articles the importation of which might be prohibited; giving powers to seize goods unreasonably withheld (including farm produce and feeding stuffs); giving powers to deal with all patent licences and registered designs where the benefit accrued to an enemy; extending billeting to include the naval as well as the military force; remitting death duties on the property of those killed in the war, or dying within twelve months after it from wounds or disease contracted in the field; giving emergency powers to the courts (for the protection of debtors) in regard to the recovery of debts; and a War Loan Bill, empowering the Government to raise a loan, the amount and the method of raising it being alike left undefined.

On the adjournment, and before the explanations as to the Press Bureau, a discussion arose which showed that political divisions had by no means been healed by the war. The Prime Minister repeated that the Government wished that no party should gain or lose by the suspension of domestic controversy. Their intention was to put the Home Rule and Welsh Church Bills on the Statute Book, but they would regard it as most unfair to resort to a snap prorogation as though the Amending Bill had never been introduced; and with regard to it he hoped for a settlement. As to the Welsh Church Bill, the war had set up special conditions, in view of which the Government made a proposal. Mr. Bonar Law (U.) concurred; Mr. John Redmond (N.) hoped that the Home Rule Bill would not be prejudiced by the adjournment; whereupon Mr. Balfour protested against dealing with subjects of "acute political discussion" under present conditions, while disclaiming any desire to make party gain from the situation. The discussion was stopped after appeals from Mr. Cave (U.) and the Prime Minister, and the House passed on, before its adjournment, to the discussion of the Press Bureau and The Times. But the old passions reappeared later.

For the moment, however, party feeling was stilled by the imperative need of union and of greater preparation for efforts in the field. The flow of recruits, encouraged by the destruction of Louvain and the retreat from Mons, was further stimulated by the preparations in France to resist a siege of Paris, and by the specific accounts (Sept. 1) of German atrocities given by the Belgian Mission which visited London on its way to the United States, and was cordially welcomed at Buckingham Palace by the King. A Joint Parliamentary Committee of all parties was formed to promote recruiting; Sir Edward Carson advised the Ulster Unionist Council (Sept. 3) that all qualified Ulster Volunteers should at once enlist in Kitchener's Army, and, without receding from its ultimate intentions, it endorsed his recommendation; the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress issued a manifesto welcoming the response of the Labour members to the appeal to aid in recruiting, announcing that it had given assist[Pg 197]ance to the Parliamentary Committee for that end; it urged recruits to come forward to avert compulsory service and maintain democracy, and pressed the claims of their dependants on the State.

In the absence of details about the military operations a strange rumour arose, which for about a fortnight seemed better attested than many accepted facts in ancient history. Towards the end of August people told each other (though the newspapers were studiously silent) that trainloads of Russian troops had been landed at Leith from Archangel, presumably to escape the German cruisers and mines in the North Sea, and were being conveyed, with the blinds of the carriages drawn, on Saturday nights and Sundays, to Dover and other south-coast ports, en route for Belgium or France. Specific details gave the story verisimilitude, and independent testimony came in from all parts of the area supposed to be affected, and was accepted by people likely to be well-informed, while corroborative evidence seemed to be provided by the great number of transports taken up by the Admiralty. At last a Daily News correspondent said he had seen the Russians in Belgium, and a Cardiff paper published a statement from a marine engineer that he had travelled with 2,500 of them from Archangel and in the hundred and ninety-third train of them that had passed through York. Hereupon the Press Bureau (Sept. 15) issued an absolute denial of the rumours; and this was officially confirmed in Parliament on November 18. But for a time many people persisted in believing that the troops had indeed been sent, but had gone not to France or Belgium, but to seize the Kiel Canal. How the rumour arose was a mystery.

To return to solid facts, the Prime Minister opened his "educational campaign" at a crowded and eminently representative meeting of the citizens of London at the Guildhall on September 4. Three years earlier, he said (A.R., 1911, p. 92), he had spoken in the Guildhall on support of the Anglo-American arbitration movement, and its supporters were still confident in the rightness of their position, when reluctantly, but with a clear judgment and clear conscience, the whole strength of the Empire was involved in a bloody arbitrament between might and right. But how if they had stood aside? Sooner than be a silent witness—which meant a willing accomplice—of the intolerable wrongs done in Belgium, he would see Great Britain blotted out of the page of history. The cynical violation of Belgian neutrality was only a first step in a campaign against the autonomy of the free States of Europe, whose free self-development was a capital offence in the eyes of those who had made force their divinity. This was not merely a material but a spiritual conflict. The British Government and the Foreign Secretary had made repeated efforts for peace; the responsibility for the refusal of his offers rested with Germany alone. In the spirit which animated Britain in her struggle against Napoleon,[Pg 198] they must persevere to the end. After reviewing the resources of the Allies and Great Britain, and laying special stress on the offers of the Dominions and India, he said that the response up to that day to Lord Kitchener's call for recruits was between 250,000 and 300,000, 42,000 having been accepted in London. But they wanted more men, men of the best fighting quality, and they would endeavour that men desiring to serve together should be allotted to the same regiment or corps. He asked also for retired non-commissioned officers and officers, to train men for whom no unit could at once be found; and as regarded the war he thought that in every direction there was abundant ground for pride and comfort, and recalled how England responded to Pitt's dying appeal to save Europe by her example. "Let us go and do likewise."

Mr. Bonar Law followed with a speech of notable force. The key of peace had been in Berlin. The head of the German Government had drawn the sword; "may the accursed system for which he stands perish by the sword." Great Britain was fighting for her national existence, and for the moral forces of humanity. After commenting on the German Chancellor's saying, "You are going to war for a scrap of paper," and on the deliberate German outrages in Belgium, he dwelt eloquently on the answer given by the fight of the past week to the German estimate of Britain as decadent, and appealed to those who remained behind to remember the dependants of those who went. Then Mr. Balfour and the First Lord of the Admiralty each made brief, stirring, and confident speeches, expressing the invincible resolve of the nation to persevere and conquer.

Lord Rosebery, as Lord-Lieutenant of Linlithgowshire, spoke in the same sense next day at Broxburn; and British feeling was further roused by the sinking of H.M.S. Pathfinder and the Wilson liner Runo, which struck mines in the North Sea, and by the capture of fifteen British fishing vessels (Chron., Sept. 5). But the tide seemed to be turning. By a declaration signed in London (Sept. 5) the British, French, and Russian Governments agreed that they would not conclude peace separately, and that when terms came to be discussed, none of them would demand terms without the consent of the other two. Moreover, an official sketch of the operations in France was encouraging. It mentioned great, though merely incidental, rearguard battles, singling out that in which the First British Cavalry Brigade and the Guards Brigade had been engaged near Compiègne. The British left, it stated, was now covered by the Seventh (really Sixth) French Army, which, with the Fifth French Army on the British right, relieved the British force of much of the previous strain. After twelve days' continuous marching and fighting, September 2 had at last been a quiet day. Many men were missing, partly because in the course of the retirement in order on a wide front, they had missed their[Pg 199] way and got separated, but a considerable number of them would safely rejoin. The losses were 15,000, not a third of those inflicted on the enemy; but the spirit of the force was not affected, drafts amounting to 19,000 men had arrived or were approaching, and, the interval of quiet since September 1 had been used to fill up the gaps and refit and consolidate the units. The British Army was south of the Marne, in a line with the French forces on its right and left; the enemy was neglecting Paris and marching south-eastwards, having apparently abandoned its flanking movement on the Allies' left. [This change in the German plans was made about Sept. 3.] It was added that the British troops had definitely established their superiority to the Germans alike in rifle fire and in cavalry and artillery work. Striking incidents of the fighting were mentioned; despite the heat, men and horses were in excellent condition; but "we must have more men."

This account must here be supplemented from Sir John French's despatch of September 17, published October 19. On August 28 the British retirement was followed closely by two German cavalry corps, moving south-east from St. Quentin; the Third and Fifth Cavalry Brigades, under General Gough and General Chetwode, respectively repelled the Uhlans of the Guard south of the Somme and routed the eastern German column near Cerizy. Next day the Sixth French Army got into position on the British left; but the German numbers were overwhelming. After a visit from General Joffre, Sir John French agreed to retire towards the line Compiègne-Soissons; and, as his communications with Havre were threatened, the British base was changed to St. Nazaire (on the Atlantic near Nantes) with an advanced base at Le Mans. General Joffre, however, ordered a general retirement to the line of the Marne, until he could reach a position enabling him to assume the offensive. Rearguard actions were frequent, and on September 1 the First Cavalry Brigade, south of Compiègne, were overtaken by German cavalry; they momentarily lost a Horse Artillery battery, but with the help of detachments from the Third Corps they recovered it and captured twelve German guns. The First Corps were also engaged at Villers-Cotterets, the Fourth Guards Brigade suffering considerably. On September 3, when the British forces were in position south of the Marne between Lagny and Signy-Signets, and Sir John French had taken steps to defend the passage of the river, General Joffre invited him to retire twelve miles farther, to a position behind the Seine. The enemy crossed, and there were several outpost actions; on September 5 General Joffre announced his intention of taking the offensive, and, at his request, the British Army changed front to its right, its left coming to rest on the Marne and its right on the Fifth Army. On September 6, the new battle began.

Some further encouragement was given by the announcement (Sept. 10) that the Fleet had swept the North Sea up to and in[Pg 200]cluding the Bight of Heligoland without finding any German ships or being troubled by German interference.

The character, now becoming visible, of the contest as a "war of attrition" was fully recognised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when (Sept. 8) a deputation from the Association of Municipal Corporations invited the Government to raise, as part of the war loan, money to be lent to municipalities at cost price for new works, and to make corporation mortgages and the stock of all boroughs of 20,000 inhabitants or more trustee investments by Act of Parliament. He agreed to their first request, but intimated (in accordance with the declared intention of the deputation) that the money must be spent solely on works undertaken to relieve or avert distress. It was the last few hundred millions, he declared, that would win the war.

In a war of such a character, help was eminently needed from the whole Empire; and when Parliament reassembled (Sept. 9) statements were made in both Houses of the wonderful offers of service and money made from India. In the Commons Mr. Charles Roberts, Under-Secretary for India, read a telegram from the Viceroy telling how the rulers of the Native States, in all nearly seven hundred, had offered their personal services and the resources of their States. A number of Princes and nobles had been selected for active service. The veteran Sir Pertab Singh, Regent of Jodhpur, would not be denied his right to serve the King-Emperor; his nephew, the Maharajah, aged sixteen, accompanied him. Twenty-seven of the Native States maintained Imperial troops, and all these were put at the service of the Government. Contingents had been accepted from twelve States, including a camel corps from Bikaner, and most had already embarked. The Maharajah of Mysore had placed fifty lakhs of rupees (about 330,000l.) at the disposal of the Government for the Expeditionary Force. A hospital ship; thousands of horses for remounts from the Chief of Gwalior and other rulers; camels and drivers from the Punjaub and Baluchistan; large subscriptions to the Indian Relief Fund and Prince of Wales's Fund; loyal messages and offers from the Khyber tribes and Chitral; large donations from the Durbar and Maharajah of Nepaul; and—as a climax—even an offer of 1,000 troops from the Dalai Lama of Tibet, accompanied by a statement that throughout that country thousands of Lamas were praying for British success. The same spirit had prevailed throughout British India; offers of service and money had poured in from religious, political, and social associations of all classes and creeds, Moslem, Hindu, Sikh, or Parsee; meetings had been held to allay panic, keep down prices, and maintain confidence and credit; and generous contributions had poured in from all quarters to the Indian Relief Fund. The message was loudly cheered, and it was promised that it should be circulated throughout the Empire. It was also read in the Upper House by the[Pg 201] Marquess of Crewe, together with an account of the demonstration of loyalty and sympathy made by the Legislative Council, and it was welcomed by the Marquess of Lansdowne, who laid stress on the magnitude and value of this loyally offered aid.

A message from the King to the Governments and peoples of his self-governing Dominions (published Sept. 9) was as follows:—

In a special message to the Princes and Peoples of the Indian Empire His Majesty repeated the first part of the foregoing, and added:—

Next day in Committee of Supply the Prime Minister moved an additional vote for the land forces of 500,000 men for the current year, and it was passed unanimously. At the outbreak of war, he said, Parliament had voted 186,000 men for the Army; the Army Reserve and Special Reserve, which then became available as part of the Regular Forces, brought the number up roughly to 400,000. On August 6, another half million were voted, making 900,000. The recruits since the declaration of war numbered nearly 439,000. On one day, Sept. 3, the total enlisted was 33,204. In the past ten days the daily number of recruits was equal to that of a year in peace time, and no machinery could have met the emergency. The War Office had sent abroad the Expeditionary Force of about 150,000 men without the loss of a man or a horse, had provided for immediate and future wastage of men and material, and for everything except this enormous increase in the Regular Forces. The Territorial County Associations had been appealed to, the training centres multiplied; there had been congestion and consequent discomfort, and municipal buildings might have been used more fully for the men. But the first necessity was to get the men, and he was sure they would come forward. Men would now be allowed to go home after attestation until called on for training, and, while waiting, would be paid 3s. a day. With this half million, the Army in the field would number some 1,200,000, exclusive of the Territorials, the National Reserve, and the Indian and Dominion troops. It must now be made clear to recruits that every possible provision would be made for their comfort and well-being, and that they would take their place in the magnificent Army which had never shown itself more worthy of long centuries of splendid tradition than in the past fortnight. Mr. Bonar Law assured the Government of the support[Pg 203] of his party, and insisted that the sacrifice must not come exclusively from the men who were coming forward with splendid spirit to risk their lives.

Parliament did not sit again till September 14; but on September 11 a great demonstration to aid recruiting was held at the London Opera House, under the joint auspices of the National Liberal and Constitutional Clubs. The First Lord of the Admiralty, while warning his audience that the war would be long and sombre, declared that the situation was far better than could have been expected at this early stage, and he was certain that it could be brought to a victorious conclusion. We were building on a sure foundation. The Navy had searched the so-called German Ocean without discovering the German flag; the attrition on which the Germans had counted had been only on their side; the health of the Fleet was better than during peace; and our naval control and sea power might be kept up indefinitely. "By one of those dispensations of Providence which appeal so strongly to the German Emperor, the nose of the bulldog has been slanted backward so that he can breathe in comfort without letting go." In the next twelve months more than twice as many great ships and three or four times as many cruisers would be completed for Great Britain as for Germany. It was now necessary to make a great Army, an Army of a million men. The Army in the field could be raised to 250,000, by the new year to 500,000, and by the early summer of 1915 to twenty-five Army Corps. An Army so formed would be the finest in the world. Germany could draw on no corresponding reserve of manhood. This would decide the issue. Let the British people concentrate their warlike feeling on fighting the enemy in the field, and let it be said, after the war was over, that "they fought like gentlemen." Germany in her three great wars had been the terror and bully of Europe. Let Great Britain fight for great and sound principles for Europe, the first being nationality. The British people and Empire were at last united, and while they remained so no forces were strong enough to beat them down or break them up. Mr. F. E. Smith declared that Great Britain was fighting for treaty obligations, for self-preservation, and for the existence of international law. Terms of peace would be arranged in London or Berlin, and we were encouraged to believe it would be in Berlin by the extraordinary spontaneity with which the whole Empire was springing to arms. There had never been anything like it in history. Mr. Crooks said that the fight was for liberty and home. "He would rather see every living soul blotted off the face of the earth than see the Kaiser supreme anywhere."

Unfortunately the patriotic unity of parties was presently marred by a sharp difference as to the treatment to be given to the Home Rule and Welsh Church Bills. Negotiations for a settlement between the leaders had failed, and it was announced in the[Pg 204] Press on September 14 that the session would be wound up at once, and these Bills would become law automatically under the Parliament Act, but that the Government would introduce a Bill postponing their operation till after the war; and it was understood that it would also pledge itself to introduce an Amending Bill dealing with the Ulster question before the Home Rule Bill should become operative. On the other hand, the Marquess of Lansdowne would introduce a Bill providing that the Home Rule and Welsh Church Bills should be taken up after the war at the stages they had reached on July 30, 1914, so that their advantages under the Parliament Act would not be lost. The Opposition held that the Government plan violated the pledge that no party should be prejudiced by the cessation of party controversy; but at a meeting of Unionist members of Parliament at the Carlton Club (Sept. 14) it was agreed (Lord Hugh Cecil dissenting) that the party must maintain the national unity; they would support Ulster after the war, but for the present would merely protest and withdraw from the debate.

The Prime Minister briefly made his announcement that afternoon in the Commons, mentioning that the new Bill would provide that neither the Welsh Church Act nor the Home Rule Act should be put into operation for twelve months in any event, or, if the war were not then terminated, to such further date not later than its termination as might be fixed by Order in Council; and the Marquess of Crewe stated the views of the Government in the House of Lords. Failure to pass the Bills would mean an Opposition triumph; an Amending Bill would involve an undesirable platform campaign in Ireland to induce the two parties to accept it, and this was not the moment to bring Home Rule into operation. No responsible Government could contemplate imposing Home Rule on Ulster by force; but a Government might come in at the end of the war on some novel issue, and Ireland might thereby lose its chance of Home Rule. He gave, at greater length, the same pledges as the Prime Minister, promising an Amending Bill within the next twelve months, not necessarily excluding Ulster or part of Ulster; he claimed that no unfair advantage was being taken, and predicted that, when the Home Rule Bill became law, the whole of Ireland would rush to enlist. The Marquess of Lansdowne complained that the Ministerial decision must shatter the hope of a change in party relations. But the Unionists would not sulk. It was not a moment to rekindle controversy. The undertaking as to the Amending Bill was vague; the Welsh Church Bill had been referred to a Committee (p. 136) and it would be hard to raise an endowment fund after the war. The controversy on the last Amending Bill had established that the exclusion of Ulster was hateful and offered an almost insoluble problem; and he noted that Ulster was not to be coerced—though he was not quite satisfied with the assurance[Pg 205] given on that point. He defended and introduced his own measure, the Legislation (Suspension during War) Bill (p. 204), but stated that his party was ready to meet the fear that the rise of new issues might shut out Home Rule by extending for the current Parliament the five years' time limit in the Parliament Act to six.

After further debate this Bill was read a first time.

Next day (Sept. 15) the Prime Minister introduced his Bill in the Commons. He said that the Opposition proposal would place the Bills at the mercy of a chapter of accidents. If the term of this Parliament were extended by a year, as had been suggested, the war might not be over, and the postponement of Home Rule would have damped the patriotic feeling of Irishmen not only in Ireland, but in the Dominions and the United States. He stated the Government proposal, promised an Amending Bill for the following session, and repudiated as unthinkable the idea of coercing Ulster in the existing patriotic atmosphere. As to the Welsh Bill, disendowment would necessitate a voluntary Sustentation Fund, which would be hampered by the war burdens and by new taxation. But disendowment was necessarily connected with disestablishment, and, subject to relatively formal matters, this Bill would be delayed like the Irish Bill. He was not troubled by the charge of breach of faith. He would leave his honour in the hands of his countrymen.

Mr. Bonar Law declared regretfully that the Government had taken advantage of the patriotism of the Unionists to betray them. As to the Welsh Bill there was no breach of faith, though the time-limit was inadequate, and it would have been better to await the report of the Select Committee (p. 136), but it was wrong to shock the consciences of its opponents at such a time. But the Government held that the Home Rule Bill and the Amending Bill hung together, and they were breaking solemn pledges in dealing with the former alone. On the morning of August 4 he and Sir Edward Carson had suggested to the Prime Minister that an acrimonious debate should be avoided, and the Prime Minister had promised that until the discussion of the Amending Bill was resumed, no controversial legislation should be taken—on which the Ulster Unionists drew up a resolution agreeing to the adjournment of that Bill—and also that by the postponement of controversial legislation no party to the controversy should be placed in a worse position. The Prime Minister had also told the House that the Home Rule Bill would not be presented for the King's assent till the Amending Bill had been disposed of in the Commons. He had said that circumstances made it inconvenient to fulfil this pledge, but was his new pledge stronger? Amid protests from the Ministerialists, some of whom, headed by the First Lord of the Admiralty, ostentatiously left the House, Mr. Bonar Law likened it to the German promise which the Prime Minister[Pg 206] had contemptuously dismissed as valueless (p. 179). He stated that in the negotiations of some ten days earlier the Prime Minister offered the Unionists two alternatives: (1) his present course, which they refused to consider; (2) another suggestion which they accepted. [What this was did not transpire, but the Prime Minister, intervening, made clear that it was put forward only as a basis for criticism and further suggestion by the Opposition.] The Unionists, Mr. Bonar Law continued, had been prepared to agree to a Bill extending the operation of the Parliament Act to the succeeding session, and to the postponement of a general election till after Home Rule was settled. Mr. Redmond's speech (p. 172) was a promise of conditional loyalty; but he blamed him less than the Government. Ulster and the Unionists, in spite of all, would help the Government to preserve the country till the war was over; but they would withdraw from a debate which, under present circumstances, was indecent.

Mr. John Redmond (N.) said he would not waste time by replying to Mr. Bonar Law's speech. But the settlement was not a party triumph, but a severe disadvantage for the Nationalists, owing to the delay of the Home Rule Bill. But the moratorium was necessary, and he hoped it would lead to a very different Amending Bill. The two things he cared for most were, (1) that autonomy for Ireland should extend to the whole country, (2) that no county should be coerced into Home Rule. These things were then incompatible, but when Nationalists and Irishmen had fought side by side on the Continent and drilled together for home defence, he believed a real Amending Bill would be offered to the Government by agreement. Meanwhile the Nationalists must cultivate a spirit of conciliation. His speech (Aug. 3; p. 173) was not an offer of conditional loyalty, but an appeal to the Ulster Volunteers to allow the Nationalist Volunteers to fight by their side in defence of their country, and to the Government and the War Office to enable the Nationalists to do their duty. He regretted that it had found no response. Ireland had furnished proportionately a larger quota to the Army than Great Britain. In 1885 the numbers per thousand of the male population were Irish born 76, British born 42; in 1893 75 to 47, in 1903 69 to 44, in 1913 42 to 32. That was the record when Irish sentiment was completely out of touch with British; what would it be now, when Irish sentiment was wholly with Great Britain in the war? The little groups of Irishmen who were opposing enlistment were the bitterest enemies of the Nationalists. Ireland felt now that the British democracy had kept faith with her; she was specially moved by the fact that the war was undertaken in defence of small nations and oppressed peoples. Like South Africa, Ireland had been transformed from "the broken arm of England" into one of the strongest bulwarks of the Empire.

After other speeches, the Bill was brought in amid cheers.

[Pg 207]

In the House of Lords, meanwhile, the second reading of the Home Rule Bill was moved, but ultimately adjourned by 93 votes to 29. Violent attacks were made on the Government by Viscount Midleton and the Marquess of Londonderry, and its course was defended by the Lord Chancellor and the Marquess of Crewe. The latter said that any expectation on the Continent of civil war in Ireland had been encouraged quite as much by the threats from Ulster as by any action of the Government. What was important was that the Home Rule Bill and the Amending Bill should come into operation at the same time. The Marquess of Lansdowne said that the Unionist complaint was that the Government were enabling the Nationalists to obtain without a struggle what would otherwise have cost them a very serious struggle. They desired adjournment, partly because prolonged and minute discussion of Irish questions would just then be futile or mischievous, partly because they had no security that there would be an Amending Bill.

A similar motion adjourning the Welsh Church Bill was also carried by 89 to 27. The Archbishop of Canterbury said that there was no need for haste, save on purely political lines. The Bill now would be devastating to the Church. The Government were taking advantage of the war to do them an intolerable wrong. Other Peers also spoke. Lord Lansdowne's Legislation (Suspension during War) Bill was then passed through all its stages.

Sir Edward Carson issued an indignant manifesto to the Ulster loyalists, attacking the Government for taking advantage of the war to pass the Home Rule Bill, but reminding them that their motto, now as always, was "Our Country First," and that they must go on with their preparations to assist it to victory. But they would never have Home Rule—never!

Next day, however, the Commons, on the motion of the Home Secretary, disagreed with the Lords' amendments to the Suspensory Bill. He described that relating to the Welsh Church as "essentially absurd"; and the Lords gave way.

But interest that day centred in Earl Kitchener's second statement on the military situation. After paying an emphatic tribute to Sir John French's "consummate skill and calm courage," to the ability of his generals, and to the bravery and endurance of the officers and men, he said that the tide had turned, and there were good reasons for confidence. There were in the field rather more than six divisions of British troops and two cavalry divisions, which were being maintained at full strength; further Regular divisions and additional cavalry were being organised from units withdrawn from oversea garrisons and replaced where necessary by Territorials who had patriotically volunteered for service abroad. Troops were coming from India and the Dominions, and the response at home to the call for recruits had afforded a remarkable demonstration of the energy and patriotism of the young men. The[Pg 208] difficulties in accommodating the recruits had been overcome; the War Office had had to deal with an ordinary year's supply of troops in a day. This "splendid material" was to be organised into four new armies, of which the first two were collected at training centres, the third was being formed at new camping grounds, the fourth formed by adding to the establishment of the reserve battalions, from which the units would be detached and organised like the other three. The Special Reserve and extra Special Reserve Units would be maintained as feeders to the Expeditionary Force. He referred also to the various local battalions being raised outside these Armies, to the progress of the Territorial Force and its volunteering for foreign service, and to the division of marines and bluejackets then being organised by the First Lord of the Admiralty. He spoke also of the means of providing officers, but said the chief difficulty was in material rather than personnel, but it was being overcome. By the spring the new armies would be well trained and formidable opponents to the enemy. He added details, also given by the Prime Minister in the Commons, of the increased allowances to wives of soldiers (wife 12s. 6d. with additions of 2s. 6d. for each child up to three and 2s. for the fourth. Provision was also foreshadowed for dependants of unmarried soldiers and naval men, and other matters.) The Marquess of Lansdowne said a few words expressing the "profound admiration and gratitude" of the House for the feat of arms of the Expeditionary Force, and its full concurrence in Earl Kitchener's praise of Sir John French.

Parliament was prorogued next day (Sept. 19) by Commission, after wholly unprecedented proceedings. The House of Lords was nearly empty; the Commons' and other galleries were crowded. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to a number of Bills, and then, in a new formula, to the Government of Ireland and Established Church (Wales) Act, "duly passed under the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911." Loud cheers followed from the galleries, and no attempt was made to suppress them. Then the Lord Chancellor read the King's Speech as follows:—

[Pg 209]

In the Commons, after one or two questions, members were summoned to the House of Lords as usual, and, on the return of the Deputy Speaker, loud cheers greeted his announcement of the passing of the Home Rule Bill, as also the last clause but one of the Royal Speech. Then, before the customary leave-taking, Mr. Crooks (Lab., Woolwich) asked if it would be in order to sing "God Save the King," and, after a moment's pause, began to do so. Every member rose and joined; so did the strangers in the galleries; Mr. Crooks, after calling for three cheers, which were heartily given, exclaimed "God save Ireland," to which Mr. J. Redmond responded "God save England." Members then took leave of the Deputy-Speaker, and thus this most exciting and astonishing session came to its close.

The war had produced much "emergency legislation," of which the most important items have been noticed; it had also increased the "massacre of the innocents," besides eliminating the debate on the Indian Budget. Of Government Bills passed and not previously noticed at length we may mention the Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill (tending to make this status uniform throughout the Empire), the Criminal Justice Administration Bill (extending the time for the payment of fines in lieu of imprisonment, and extending the probationary treatment of youthful offenders on the "Borstal system"); the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Bill, facilitating the establishment of residential schools for such children by local education authorities, the Board of Education finding half the cost; a Merchant Shipping Bill, giving effect to the chief recommendations of the International Conference (p. 9), the National Insurance Act, Part II., Amendment Bill (p. 115), the Milk and Dairies Bills (p. 115), and a Housing Bill. This originally empowered the Board of Agriculture to build cottages in rural districts at a cost of 3,000,000l. and to house workmen at Rosyth (where the lack of houses was a scandal, at a cost of 2,000,000l.), but it was eventually cut down to apply to Rosyth only, and subsequently extended again to provide employment during the war (p. 182). An Importation of Plumage Bill, prohibiting such importation in the case of certain foreign birds mercilessly destroyed—often during the breeding season—was strongly supported by zoologists and humanitarians, but opposed by the trade and by a very few members as destroying British industry, and was drastically amended in Committee and finally crowded out.

Among private members' Bills which became law, we may mention the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill, extending the existing provision (A.R., 1906, pp. 41, 252) to vacations and instituting it everywhere in England and Wales; a non-party Agricultural Holdings Bill, giving compensation to tenants for unreasonable disturbance with a view to the sale of their holdings; a Grey Seals Protection Bill (saving a species threatened with ex[Pg 210]tinction), and a Bill prohibiting the exportation of worn-out horses (in which there had been an extensive and very cruel traffic to Belgium), unless they were certified not to be permanently incapacitated for work, and requiring horses not so certified to be slaughtered at the ports.

Among private members' Bills discussed and dropped were two Bills restricting the sale of intoxicants on Sunday; a Weekly Rest Day Bill, which the Commons rejected (May 21) by 117 to 105, mainly because it was badly drafted; a Bill facilitating the further creation of small holdings in Scotland; a Children's Employment and School Attendance Bill, raising the age of leaving school to fifteen, enabling local authorities to compel attendance at continuation schools, abolishing half-time, and forbidding street trading to boys under fifteen and girls under eighteen; this was strongly opposed by a small minority, and dropped for want of time. A Unionist Housing Bill, setting up a Housing Department of the Local Government Board and providing a Government grant, preceded the first Government Housing Bill above mentioned and failed through Ministerial refusal to provide the grant. A Health Resorts and Watering Places Bill would have allowed local authorities to advertise the attractions of their borough or urban district to an extent limited by the yield of 1d. rate. It passed its second reading in the Commons by 109 to 28. Four unsuccessful essays at legislation in the House of Lords must also be mentioned—the Criminal Law Amendment Bill for the better protection of young girls, presented by the Bishop of London, greatly amended, and eventually withdrawn; a Moneylenders Bill; Lord Newton's Betting Inducements Bill, modified from that of 1913 (A.R., 1913, p. 196), which passed the House of Lords; and Lord Gorell's Matrimonial Causes Bill, based on his experience as Judge of the Probate and Divorce Division. This made the grounds for divorce the same for both sexes, and allowed a marriage to be nullified on account of insanity, incipient mental unsoundness, and epilepsy; but after a debate of the usual character (July 28), it was withdrawn to be reintroduced in 1915.

The Prime Minister had not waited for the prorogation to leave for Edinburgh, where he spoke at a meeting of 3,500 persons, primarily consisting of those eligible for the new Army, on September 18. Great crowds were unable to enter, and were addressed either by him at an overflow meeting or by speakers outside. Lord Provost Inches, who presided, mentioned that Edinburgh had enlisted 11,000 men in the new Army. Mr. Asquith began by referring to the origin of the war, and to Sir Maurice de Bunsen's despatch (p. 215), as showing that, largely through Sir Edward Grey's efforts, a peaceful settlement was already in sight when, on July 31, Germany deliberately made war a certainty. The only attempt to controvert the facts was by circulating such wanton falsehoods as that France was beginning to violate Belgian terri[Pg 211]tory. England was at war (1) to vindicate the sanctity of treaty obligations and the public law of Europe; (2) to assert the independence of small States; (3) to withstand in the interest of civilisation the claim of a single Power to dominate Europe. Rebutting the German charge that England had never cared for treaties save in her own interest, he quoted Pitt's speech in 1793 on the French annulment of the treaties guaranteeing to Holland the navigation of the Scheldt, and cited Mr. Gladstone's action regarding Belgium in 1870 and his vindication of it at Edinburgh in 1880. The Germans practically did not contest the British statement that their aim was to dominate Europe. They avowedly believed that the supremacy of German culture was best for the world. Mankind owed much to Germany, but her specific share in the movement of the past thirty years had been intellectually the development of the doctrine of the prerogative of material forces, and, practically, primacy in the fabrication and multiplication of means of destruction. To those accepting this gospel treaties were merely pieces of parchment, and talk about the rights of the weak and the obligations of the strong merely threadbare and nauseating cant. Their creed had proved a purblind philosophy; they had miscalculated the strength of the British Empire, the feelings of the Colonies and India, the state of Great Britain. The fruits of this culture were seen in their action in Belgium and France—Louvain, Malines, Termonde, their proclamation at Reims. The British task might take months or years, but the economic, monetary, and military and naval position was encouraging; but more men were needed, and he eloquently appealed for them, reminding them of their hardships and dangers, and of their noble opportunity.

Next day the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke for a similar purpose at a meeting of Welshmen at the Queen's Hall, London. He said that no man detested war more than himself, but it could not have been avoided without national dishonour. France had respected Belgian neutrality at Sedan at the cost of her own ruin; Prussia's interest was to break the treaty, and she had done it. The German Chancellor called treaties "scraps of paper." Then let them burn their bank-notes; they were only scraps of paper. "What are they made of? Rags. What are they worth? The whole credit of the British Empire." The machinery of the world's commerce had stopped; it was moved by bills of exchange—wretched little scraps of paper, which yet moved great ships with precious cargoes across the world. What was the motive power behind them? The honour of commercial men. Treaties were the currency of international statesmanship. German merchants were as honourable as any, but if the currency of German commerce was to be debased to that of her statesmanship no trader would ever look at a German signature again. The German doctrine was the straight road to barbarism. It was as[Pg 212] if one removed the magnetic pole whenever it was in the way of a German cruiser. The tales about conspiracy of France and Belgium had been vamped up afterwards. He dwelt on the outrages in Belgium, and on the Austrian treatment of Servia; and he remarked that, the greatest art, the most enduring literature, even the salvation of mankind had come through little nations. He contrasted the Russian action to free Bulgaria with Bismarck's saying that "Bulgaria was not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier." German civilisation was hard and material; the Emperor claimed to be God's Viceregent; "there has been nothing like it since the days of Mahomet." He did not mean all his speeches, but the men around him did. They meant to destroy Christianity; the new diet of the world they held was to be blood and iron. Britain was not fighting the German people, who were under the heel of the military caste. The Prussian Junker was "the road hog of Europe." If the old British spirit was alive, that bully would be torn from his seat. It would not be easy to beat them, but in the end we should march through terror to triumph. It was a great opportunity, and a greater blessing was emerging—a new patriotism, richer, nobler, more exalted than the old. We had been living in a sheltered valley; the stern hand of fate had scourged us to an elevation whence they could see the great peaks of honour—Duty, Patriotism, Sacrifice. We should descend again, but this generation would carry in their hearts "the image of those great mountain peaks whose foundations are not shaken, though Europe rock and sway in the convulsions of a great war."

Speaking at a recruiting meeting at Nottingham (Sept. 21) the Marquess of Lansdowne attributed to Germany a design to establish a great military despotism from the North Sea to the Adriatic, and described the action of the Dominions and India as unparalleled in history. The response to Lord Kitchener's appeal was magnificent, but two men in training were needed for every one in the field. The First Lord of the Admiralty on the same evening at Liverpool said that circumstances had so far been unexpectedly favourable to the Allied cause; if the British Empire had the time—and the Navy would give it—he thought, if its resolution did not fail, it could finally settle the fight as it chose. Without a battle, Great Britain was enjoying the advantages of a battle in which the German Navy had been destroyed. If the German ships did not come out, "they would be dug out like rats in a hole." Mr. F. E. Smith and Mr. T. P. O'Connor spoke also, and it was announced that the former was leaving for the front.

Mr. Churchill's speech, unfortunately, was promptly followed by the sinking of three British cruisers in the North Sea, with a heavy loss of officers and men; but encouragement was given by the news of the daring British air raid on Cologne and Düsseldorf, by the indignation roused throughout the civilised world by the Ger[Pg 213]man bombardment of Reims Cathedral (post, Chron., Sept. 20, 22), and still more by the announcement that, on the eleventh day of the Battle of the Aisne, the Allies were gaining ground. No full account, however, was given of the doings of the British Army in France till Sir John French's despatch was published, October 19; and we may here continue the story (p. 199) by summarising his account of the movement from the Marne to the Aisne.

The battle on September 6, he said, began on a front running from Ermenonville through Lizy, Mauperthuis, Cortecon, Esternay, Charleville, to a point north of Verdun. About noon a German retreat began, and a series of battles followed till, on the evening of September 10, the enemy, driven back to a line running from Compiègne to Soissons, were preparing to dispute the passage of the Aisne. He specially mentioned the forcing of the passage of the Petit Morin River (Sept. 8) by the First British Corps, and of the Marne by the First and Second Corps, and of the battle on September 10, when these Corps, assisted by the Cavalry division on the right and the Third and Fifth Cavalry Brigades on the left, drove the enemy northwards, capturing thirteen guns, seven machine guns, some 2,000 prisoners, and much transport.

A further despatch, dated October 8, but published with the first, practically completed the history of the fighting on the Aisne. On September 12, Sir John French stated, the enemy made a stand, and prepared to dispute the passage of the river (somewhat to the east of Soissons). The river valley, he explained, ran east and west; the bottom was flat, the hills bordering it were about 400 feet high, with numerous spurs and re-entrants; they were backed on the north by a high plateau with patches of wood, admirably adapted for concealing troops. The enemy held a very strong position on the north of the Aisne (a winding stream, 170 feet wide, and unfordable), commanding all the bridges, and with great facilities for concealment. On September 13 the British forces were ordered to advance and make good the Aisne. Portions of them that day crossed at various points a distance of about twelve miles from Bourg to Venizel (the latter some three miles east of Soissons), with comparative ease on their right, with great difficulty on their left, the Fifth Infantry Brigade, in particular, crossing in single file under heavy fire on the broken and only remaining girder of a bridge. The crossing was not completed till the evening of the 13th, when the enemy (though still holding some points on the Aisne) effected a general retirement and entrenched on the high ground two miles north of the river, leaving, however, detachments of infantry supported by powerful artillery, in commanding points on the slopes of the spurs of the high ground. The river was further bridged, under heavy artillery fire, by the Royal Engineers, and on the 15th there was a general advance, to ascertain whether the enemy intended to hold his position[Pg 214] or was only halting. This cannot here be described in detail; a few points must suffice. The First Corps, under Sir Douglas Haig, gained positions on that day by "skilful, bold, and decisive" action which alone enabled the British forces to maintain their foothold on the north bank during three weeks' severe fighting; the most difficult part of this work was achieved, round Vendresse and Troyon, by the Loyal North Lancashires, the Royal Sussex, the King's Royal Rifles, and the Northamptons, reinforced by the Coldstream Guards. The enemy was found to be making a determined stand against the Allies in a strongly entrenched position along the whole line from Compiègne to Reims, supported by heavy artillery set free by the fall of Maubeuge. The British troops, therefore, had to entrench thoroughly, and eventually to establish a regular system of relief in the trenches, the cavalry men taking their turn, and also to obtain heavy howitzer batteries from England, which were first used September 24. On the 16th the Army was reinforced by the 6th Division. On the 17th, 18th, 19th, the Germans heavily bombarded the trenches and the First Corps was heavily engaged; on the 17th the Northamptons crept in mist to within 100 yards of the enemy's trenches, and then cleared them with the bayonet; on the night of the 18th the Gloucesters advanced near Chivy, filled in the German trenches and took two Maxim guns. From the 23rd to the 26th the enemy was less active; but on the 26th, and especially on the night of the 27th-28th, there were renewed German attacks, which were beaten off, and were the last great German effort in the battle. Sir John French eulogised the conduct alike of officers and men; the total casualties in four weeks were 561 officers and 12,980 men, and the heavy rain and cold during most of the battle imposed a severe tax on the endurance of the troops. The German losses, it must be noted, were far heavier; and after the end of September the German resistance died down and permitted the removal of the British troops to Ypres.

All this was as yet only known vaguely; but a possible danger to London had been impressed afresh on the public by the issue through the police authorities of an Admiralty statement of the measures taken to protect the capital against an air raid. More searchlights had been mounted, as well as special guns; at Hendon aerodrome men and machines of the Naval Air Service were held ready to pursue the raiders. Naval airships were to pay surprise visits, to test the effectiveness of the diminution of lighting; and for many months the darkness of the London streets, the consequent reduction in evening performances at the theatres, and (after the middle of November) the regulation that suburban trains must have their blinds drawn after nightfall, served as a reminder of the newest peril of modern war.

Besides all this, the conviction that Germany was essentially responsible for the war had been, if that were possible, intensified;[Pg 215] first, by Sir Edward Grey's effective reply to a bungling attack on the sincerity of Great Britain made through the Danish Press by the German Chancellor (Sept. 15, 16), and next by the issue of two important diplomatic publications: (1) Sir Maurice de Bunsen's lengthy despatch (Sept. 16) which showed that the Austro-Hungarian Government had pressed on the war against Serbia in harmony with the wishes of the population of Vienna and other leading cities, and that Germany had by her intervention destroyed the last hopes of a peaceful solution; (2) the Russian Orange Book (Sept. 21; see post, For. Hist., Chap. II., III.).

It was amid these impressions that the Prime Minister addressed a great meeting at the Round Room of the Dublin Mansion House on September 25, the Lord Mayor in the chair. A small section of the National Volunteers had issued an anti-recruiting manifesto in the morning, and police and National Volunteers were ready to avert a disturbance, but these precautions were not needed. Mr. Asquith, who had an enthusiastic reception, said that he could base his title to speak on such service as he had tried throughout his political life to render Ireland. The Empire, as a family of nations, was united in defending principles vital to it and to civilisation and the progress of mankind. The proofs that Germany was responsible for the war were patent, manifold, and overwhelming; Germany had been preparing for a generation past, and had seized the opportunity of the Austro-Serbian dispute. But she made two profound miscalculations; as to the resistance of Belgium—to which he paid an eloquent tribute—and as to the attitude of England. She believed England to be paralysed by domestic disaffection and without interest in the conflict. But England had at stake her plighted word and the maintenance of the whole system of international goodwill. In 1870 Mr. Gladstone had said that "the greatest triumph of our time would be the enthronement of public right as the governing idea of European politics." That meant that the small nations must have as good a title as the large ones to a place in the sun, and finally the establishment of a real European partnership, based on the recognition of equal right and established and enforced by a common will. The victory of the Allies would bring this within the range of European statesmanship. The cause of the small nations specially appealed to Ireland. Let her take her share in the war. The British Empire had always been proud of its Irish regiments and their leaders; and he specially appealed to the National Volunteers (after a brief reference to the contests which had become unthinkable) to form an Irish Brigade, or, better still, an Irish Army Corps. Local associations would be maintained as far as possible, and officers of the Volunteers might receive commissions. He was certain that the Volunteers would become an integral part of the defensive forces of the Crown. Old animosities were dead; what was needed was the free-will offering of a free people.

[Pg 216]

The Earl of Meath, the Unionist Lord-Lieutenant of co. Dublin, also spoke; and Mr. John Redmond said that Ireland would feel bound in honour to take her place beside the other autonomous portions of the King's Dominions. She had been profoundly moved by the sufferings of Belgium, and he had promised Cardinal Mercier that Irishmen would avenge Louvain. Ireland's highest material interests were at stake in the war. After referring to the high proportion of Irishmen in the Army from the Peninsular War onwards he said that Ireland wanted an Irish Army Corps, and at the same time the Irish National Volunteers would be kept intact, and would be an inexhaustible source of strength to the new Army Corps and Army. Speaking for an overwhelming majority of the Nationalists, he said to the Prime Minister and Great Britain: "You have kept faith with Ireland; Ireland will keep faith with you." The Lord-Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, Mr. Dillon, and Mr. Devlin spoke also, and the meeting closed with the singing of "God Save the King," "God Save Ireland," and "A Nation Once Again."

A day earlier the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in an impromptu speech at Criccieth, had mentioned that France and England had agreed that each should lend Belgium 10,000,000l. without interest, and that the Bank of England had been ready to let him have 40,000,000l. or more; and he urged Wales to be forward in recruiting for this eminently righteous war. He repeated this appeal at a great meeting in Cardiff (Sept. 29) called to promote the raising of a separate Welsh Army Corps. Wales, he said, would have under compulsory service to raise 250,000 men; it ought to provide 40,000 to 50,000 volunteers for the new Army. The war must be national, and conviction was essential to confidence. It was no picnic; but their war memories would compensate them. The Welsh were not a martial race; but neither were the men who composed Cromwell's Ironsides. If they failed through timidity, ignorance or indolence Welshmen would be unable to live down their evil repute for generations. In two months 36,000 men had joined the Army from Wales. If Welshmen came out manfully, the sons of Wales would have laid up for their native land treasures of honour and glory.

On the previous day, September 28, Belfast had celebrated the second anniversary of Ulster Day, which had not been dropped owing to the alleged breach by the Government of the "truce" (p. 204). But the proceedings were very largely a demonstration of a broader patriotism. Sir Edward Carson, indeed, announced that after the war he proposed to summon the Provisional Government, which would repeal the Home Rule Act as affecting Ulster and enact simultaneously that the Volunteers should carry out this decision; meanwhile, let them throw themselves whole-heartedly into the patriotic action demanded by the time. And Mr. Bonar Law, at a great demonstration that evening, after giv[Pg 217]ing a formal pledge that the whole Unionist party would support Ulster unconditionally; repeated that Ulstermen had no ill-will to their Catholic fellow-countrymen, and went on to deal with the war. The meeting was called to stimulate Ulstermen to join the Army; such hesitation as there had been at first was due to the suddenness of the war, and it had not lasted long. The pressure put on individuals to join seemed to him detestable, and was utterly unnecessary. The Germans had been shown that we were not a decadent nation. We had reason to be proud of the Army, the Volunteers, and the spirit shown throughout the Empire. After urging the need of better allowances for dependants of soldiers, Mr. Bonar Law described the war as one of the greatest of crimes, due to one nation and largely to one man. The Germans had pulled down their spiritual altars and erected a temple to naked Force. It was Napoleonism without Napoleon. Apart from their Army they had made every possible mistake—with Italy, with Belgium, in neutral countries, as regarded the Dominions and India. The British people had no desire to humiliate the German people, but they were determined that the dread spectre that had haunted them should not do so again, and that the law of right, not of might, should govern the world.

Meanwhile the moral strength of the British case was emphasised by the elaborate reply of British theologians (Sept. 30) to an appeal issued by German theologians to Evangelical Christians abroad. This appeal described Germany as "confronted in other lands by a systematic network of lies." It attributed the war to the interference of Russia in the Servian dispute, complained that Russia had been joined by those who "by blood and history and faith are our brothers," and said that against a world in arms, Germans had to defend their existence, individuality, culture, and honour. "Unnameable horrors" had been committed against Germans living peaceably abroad, women and children, wounded and physicians; heathen Japan had been called in under pretext of an alliance; the mission fields indicated as most important by the World Missionary Conference, mid-Africa and Eastern Asia, were now the scenes of bitter rivalry between the peoples specially responsible for their Christianisation; the signatories, for the sake, not of Germany, but of the world-task of the Christian peoples in the decisive hour of the world-mission, addressed themselves to Evangelical Christians abroad, and repudiated German responsibility for the war and its consequences to the development of God's kingdom on earth. The British reply, signed by the two English Archbishops, the Primates of Ireland and Scotland, the Bishops of London, Winchester, and Ossory, the Chairman of the World Missionary Conference, and a host of other Anglican and Free Church divines and University dignitaries, began by a calm review of the origin of the war, and the violation of Belgian neutrality. It went on to note the absence of reference to the[Pg 218] teachings of Treitschke and Bernhardi, questioned the allegation of atrocities, deplored the signatories' severance from German Christians and the effects of the war in the mission field, and declared that, dear to them as was the cause of peace, the principles of truth and honour were yet more dear. They took their stand for international good faith, the safeguarding of smaller nationalities, and the upholding of the essential conditions of brotherhood among the nations of the world.

But, though the British people supported the war with practical unanimity, it was found necessary to stimulate recruiting by a platform campaign. A more effective method would doubtless have been to give news from the front; but few details were given of the great battle on the Aisne, and the feats of particular corps were not mentioned for fear that the enemy should find out what troops it had to face. War correspondents, again, were not allowed at the front, and arrangements to permit them were vetoed, after long waiting, by the War Office. An official account, by an "eye-witness," was supplied to the Press; but it contained little that was definite. Popular feeling was encouraged by the surrender of Duala and the investment of Tsingtau, and exasperated by the Emden's raid on Madras; but recruiting was encouraged only by advertisement and by speech-making, following the Ministerial lead.

The Prime Minister concluded his part in this campaign at Cardiff, where he addressed a thoroughly representative meeting of 9,000 persons (Oct. 2). He began by laying stress on the unparalleled unity of the British Empire in the war, which was due neither to ambition nor to ill-will. In regard to Germany in particular, British policy had aimed at establishing a firm basis for cordial relations; Ministers had repeatedly said that friendships with certain Powers did not imply coldness or hostility to others; but, as the Foreign Secretary had said (Nov. 27, 1911), "One does not make new friendships worth having by deserting old ones." Mr. Asquith then made an important disclosure. In 1912 the Cabinet had formally notified the German Government that Britain would "neither make nor join in any unprovoked attack on Germany." "Aggression upon Germany is not the subject and forms no part of any treaty, understanding, or combination to which Britain is now a party, nor will she become a party to anything that has such an object." But the German Government asked Britain for an absolute pledge of neutrality if Germany were engaged in war, and this at a time when Germany was enormously increasing both her aggressive and defensive forces, especially at sea. Only one answer was possible, but the British Government had continued, especially during the Balkan crisis, to work for peace. Both from a domestic and an international point of view the war could only be regarded as among the worst of catastrophes for Britain, but not the worst. In the four weeks since his Guildhall speech (p. 197)[Pg 219] every day had increased the sombre and repulsive features of the German invasion—"worthy of the blackest annals in the history of barbarism." Had not Great Britain shown herself ready to strike with all her forces at the common enemy of civilisation and freedom she could only have gone down dishonoured to her grave. The world was as ready as ever to respond to moral issues. The new school of German ethics had taught for a generation that force alone was the test of right. But in the British Empire they still believed in the sanctity of treaties, the rights of small nationalities, and the worth of freedom; and they looked forward at the end of the war to a Europe in which those simple and venerable truths would be guarded for ever against the recrudescence of the era of blood and iron. Britain was confronted by the greatest emergency in her history. There was no ground for apprehension that the new Army would interfere with the Territorials, who were fit, according to the considered opinion of one of the most eminent generals, for any part either in home defence, in garrison, or in the battle lines at the front. He asked Welshmen to fill up the ranks of the Welsh Army Corps. Let them remember their past and leave to their children the richest of all inheritances—the memory of fathers who in a great cause put self-sacrifice before ease, and honour before life itself.

The recruiting campaign was now energetically carried on throughout the country; and in Ireland the Nationalist leaders took a prominent part in it. Mr. Redmond at Wexford (Oct. 4) did his best to secure the aid of the Irish National Volunteers, and to promote a general reconciliation on Home Rule; and he intimated that the Prime Minister had promised that there should be an Irish Brigade. Mr. Dillon the same day at Ballaghadareen, Mayo, condemned the efforts to check recruiting made by Sinn Fein and the Gaelic League; but these, unfortunately, were not ineffective. Complaints were made of the inadequate accommodation at the camps (which was mitigated by billeting, or even by allowing the recruits to live at home while under instruction), of the drunkenness caused by indiscreet treating by civilian sympathisers, and, in some cases, of immorality (Chron., Oct. 13), but voluntary effort did much to counteract these evils and to provide recreation for the men.

But the character of the war was being brought home to England by other means than the recruiting campaign. On the day the Premier spoke at Cardiff the Admiralty announced that the German mine-laying and submarine activities had constrained Great Britain to establish a minefield in the North Sea south of the German field (which extended to lat. 52°), and that it was now dangerous for ships to cross the area between lat. 51° 15' and 51° 40' and long. 1° 35' and 3°, but that navigation must not be supposed safe in any part of the south of that sea. This new minefield extended the danger area a line drawn from the mouth of[Pg 220] the Eastern Scheldt to the Thames. On the other hand, it was encouraging that the Germans were failing to make any impression on the Allies on the Aisne, and that the German destroyer S 167 had been sunk off Schiermonnikoog by the British submarine E9 (Oct. 6) which had recently sunk the Hela (Chron., Sept. 3); still more that Canada had decided to double her contribution in men and material; that British airmen had damaged a Zeppelin shed, and perhaps a Zeppelin, at Düsseldorf (Chron., Oct. 9); that the Home Office had taken effective measures against espionage (p. 185), though here the reassurance was only temporarily effective; and that alien enemy residents had been prohibited from changing their names, or continuing to use names changed since the outbreak of the war (Oct. 5).

But British confidence was shaken by the unexpected fall of Antwerp, where the Royal Naval Division, formed in September and consisting of two Naval Brigades and a Marine Brigade, in all 8,000 men, had reinforced the Belgian troops. The Marine Brigade of 2,200 men had arrived on the night of October 3-4, and relieved the Belgians in the trenches near Lierre, with an advanced post on the Nethe. Through the exhaustion of the Belgians—coupled with the superior numbers of the enemy, and the defenders' lack of heavy guns—they were driven back by several stages on the second line of defence, the Germans on the 5th forcing the passage of the Nethe, which was not under fire from the trenches. The two Naval Brigades reached Antwerp on the night of October 5-6; the first assisted in the withdrawal of the Marine Brigade (under a violent bombardment) on the following night from a position temporarily occupied to the second main line of defence, and the Naval Division occupied the intervals between the forts on this second line. The German heavy guns bombarded the town, forts, and trenches from midnight on October 7-8, the inability of the Belgians to hold the forts became evident during the 8th, and a retirement of the Division was decided on at 5:30 P.M., chivalrously facilitated by the Belgian commander, and carried out that evening under very difficult conditions. A large German force was in the rear, the roads were blocked by refugees, vehicles, and cattle, and for these and other reasons, partly fatigue, many of the First Naval Brigade were taken prisoners or crossed the border into Holland, where they were interned. The remainder entrained after an all-night march at St. Gillies-Waes, and completed their retreat; but the rearguard, a battalion of the Marine Brigade, entraining later with many refugees, found its journey interrupted by the enemy at Morbeke, and fought its way through with great difficulty, losing half its numbers; it then marched ten miles more to Selzaate and entrained there. The casualties altogether exceeded 2,500.

The full account was given in a report from Major-General Paris, published Dec, 4, and a covering despatch from Sir John[Pg 221] French stated that General Paris had handled the force with great skill and boldness; its action had considerably delayed the enemy and enabled the Belgian Army to be withdrawn and regain its value as a fighting force, and had also facilitated the destruction of war material which would have been of great value to the enemy; moreover, the moral effect of this "necessarily desperate attempt" to succour the Belgian Army had greatly conduced to their efficiency as a fighting force.

This latter despatch was virtually a reply to Press strictures on a step regarded as essentially the enterprise of the First Lord of the Admiralty, who had, in fact, visited the city during the British occupation; and the Morning Post of October 13 described it as "a costly blunder, for which Mr. Winston Churchill was primarily responsible"; the relief had come too late, and kept the Belgian Army there too long. In other quarters, however, it was pointed out that the despatch of the force must have been the act of the whole Cabinet, and that it had a moral value as a demonstration of sympathy with Belgium. Meanwhile, the Germans occupied Bruges and Thielt, bombarded Arras, and were evidently making a desperate effort to reach the coast at Dunkirk and Calais, hoping to interfere at least with British shipping in the Channel.

The capture of Antwerp, too, seemed to increase their means of interference. The defenders had destroyed the stores of petrol, and sunk or disabled the steamers in the port; and to have used it as a naval base even for submarines would have involved the violation of the neutrality of Holland. But it increased the danger of a Zeppelin raid on London; the Mayor of Gravesend issued a warning against hostile aircraft; and it opened the way for a German advance to the more suitable bases, at Zeebrugge and Ostend, for a naval or aerial attack.

The fall was accompanied by a fresh influx into England of Belgian refugees; in four days (Oct. 7-10) some 10,000 landed in Folkestone from Ostend; on Sunday, October 11, 4,250 landed there from Ostend and 900 from Flushing; by October 17 the total number in England was 100,000. Crowds reached other ports, notably Lowestoft, in sailing craft, amid great suffering. Belief was promptly given by committees at London and Folkestone, and shelter and hospitality was offered throughout Great Britain; while numbers of Belgian wounded were also provided for in improvised hospitals, private houses being frequently lent and fitted up by their owners with other voluntary aid. Many German spies were said to be among the refugees; and for this reason they were withdrawn from Dover and Grimsby.

The fate of Belgium was a powerful factor in the issue of a Labour manifesto (Oct. 15), signed by twenty-five Labour members of Parliament and thirty-five leading trade union officials, declaring that in view of Germany's conduct there must be no peace[Pg 222] till she was beaten, and that during the war combatants and non-combatants must be supported to the utmost, though after the war the party favoured arbitration. With the rarest exceptions, the whole British people was equally convinced that the war must be fought out; and there was no dismay at the news of the Maritz rebellion or the loss of the Hawke, against which indeed might be set the arrival of the first Canadian contingent and the sinking of German destroyers off the Dutch coast (Chron., Oct. 17). Such disquiet as there was showed itself in a revival of the fear of espionage, which was met by the internment of a number of Germans and Austrians (Oct. 21, 22), and in the destruction of German shops in South London (Oct. 17); and complaint was also made of an order (shortly afterwards rescinded) that enemy passengers were not to be taken out of neutral ships and of the permission of transactions with branches of German and Austrian firms outside Germany and Austria. Recruiting, however, was proceeding rapidly; within the British Isles there were already 1,200,000 men "in organised form," and 100,000 troops were available as "a first instalment" from the outer Empire.

Meanwhile a daring attempt, not fully revealed till six weeks later, had been made by Sir John French to outflank the German forces in Northern France. Details must be sought in his lengthy despatch (published Nov. 30); but the general idea was to effect a turning movement north of Lille, and then, with the aid of the cavalry under Sir Henry Rawlinson, who had been covering the Belgian retreat from Antwerp, to advance on Bruges and Ghent. The position on the Aisne (p. 214) permitted the transfer from that region of the British troops; and this delicate operation was carried out (Oct. 3-19) with the full concurrence of General Joffre and the cordial co-operation of the French General Staff. Broadly, the plan arranged with General Foch, in charge of the French operations north of Noyon, was that the Second, Third, and First British Army Corps should successively take up positions on the French right, beginning at a point on the Lille-Bethune road, on a line running thence through Armentières towards, and beyond, Ypres, the British right being directed on Lille, while Sir Henry Rawlinson's cavalry was to co-operate, and the First Corps was to make for Bruges. The great battle of Ypres-Armentières, the result of this attempt, began October 11, and was unfinished at the end of the year. Its first stage closed about October 31. The Second Corps, under Sir H. Smith-Dorrien, reached the line Aire-Bethune on October 11; its cavalry that day came in contact with the enemy, and the corps moved eastward to the line Laventie-Lorges, advancing with difficulty over ground cut up by mines and factory buildings, and endeavoured to wheel to the right to take the Germans in flank at the rear of their position at La Bassée, which defied capture throughout. From the[Pg 223] 13th to the 17th this corps fought its way on, the Dorset Regiment and the Artillery being specially commended, and at dark on the 17th the Lincolns and Royal Fusiliers took Herlies (three or four miles beyond the line) at the point of the bayonet. From the 19th to the 31st October they defended themselves against vigorous counter-attacks from much more numerous German forces, with the help, from the 24th, of Indian troops, but were forced back on to a line crossing their old one, and terminating slightly west of La Bassée. Meanwhile the Third Corps, under General Pulteney, coming through St. Omer and Hazebrouck, had moved forward towards the line Armentières-Wytschaete, and, fighting their way slowly forward amid rain and fog, occupied Bailleul (some six miles behind this line), secured the line of the River Lys from Armentières south-west to Sailly, and, till the 19th, attempted vainly to force the passage of the river, in order to be able to drive the enemy eastwards to Lille. Sir H. Rawlinson's force had already reached a line six miles east of Ypres, running from Zandvoorde to Zonnenboke, and an effort was made (Oct. 18) to capture Ménin (some twelve miles north of Lille), but this proved impracticable. The First Corps, under Sir Douglas Haig, had now arrived at a position between St. Omer and Hazebrouck; but it had to be sent to the north of Ypres to meet a German outflanking movement towards the Channel, which the exhausted Belgian Army could not have stopped without assistance. Sir Douglas Haig was therefore instructed (Oct. 19) to advance through Ypres north-eastwards to Thorout, on the Ypres-Bruges railway, with Bruges and Ghent as its eventual objective, but with the option, after passing Ypres, of attacking either the Germans on the north or those advancing from the east, French cavalry co-operating on his left and General Byng's Third Cavalry Division on his right. The British Army, Sir John French remarked, had a task arduous beyond precedent. "That success has been attained, and all the enemy's desperate attempts to break through our line frustrated, is due entirely to the marvellous fighting power and the indomitable courage and tenacity of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men." Never in all their splendid history had they answered so magnificently the desperate calls which of necessity were made on them.

The First Corps, however, was compelled to turn eastwards from Ypres, and was unable to advance beyond the line Zonnenbeke-St. Julien-Langemarck-Bixschoete, and had to remain on the defensive pending a French movement on its north (Oct. 21). A series of severe engagements took place in this neighbourhood on October 22-31, special mention being made of a recapture of trenches (Oct. 23) by the Queens, Northamptons, and King's Royal Rifles, and of the fighting round Gheluvelt (some six miles east-south-east of Ypres) against vastly superior numbers (Oct. 29-31), the village being retaken, on the 31st by a bayonet charge of[Pg 224] the 2nd Worcesters, during the most critical portion of the whole great battle. It was discovered that three German Army Corps had been charged with the task of breaking the line near Ypres, and that the Emperor regarded the issue of the attack as vital to German success in the war. The Fourth Corps, which had been formed partly out of the troops from Antwerp and had been co-operating with the First, was broken up at the end of October and incorporated in the latter, the Commander proceeding to England to supervise the mobilisation of his 8th division; and the British Army had meanwhile been considerably reinforced, while French troops had been supporting it.

Meanwhile the Third Corps, in the Centre, had been severely pressed, holding as it did an extended front crossing the Lys, with several weak points, while adequate reserves could not be provided. High praise was given to the skill of its commander and the courage, tenacity, endurance and unparalleled cheerfulness of the men; and special mention was made of the frequent repulse of attacks (Oct. 22-24), a German attack on Le Gheir (29th) and its recapture by the Middlesex Regiment, with the aid of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders; of trenches temporarily lost; of a counter-attack by the Somerset Light Infantry, and of much fighting by the Cavalry Corps. In the Third Corps the East Lancashire, Hampshire, and Somersetshire Light Infantry Regiments were specially commended, and the Indian troops were said to have displayed much initiative and resource.

It transpired on December 16 that Sir Henry Rawlinson's troops, the Seventh Infantry and Third Cavalry Divisions, which were landed in Belgium about October 6, to support the British forces at Antwerp, had been compelled to retreat, fighting almost continuously, by Thielt and Roulers to Ypres, and there to keep several German Corps at bay till Sir John French's Army had come up from the Aisne. When they were released, the infantry had only 44 officers left out of 400, and only 2,336 men out of 12,000.

Episodes in Sir John French's movement were revealed soon after it, inter alia the entry of the Indian troops into battle, the gallantry of the London Scottish (Territorials), of the Loyal North Lancashires, and other regiments. But attention at home was directed mainly to the struggle of the Belgians on the Yser, assisted by a British squadron, including the river monitors Severn, Mersey, and Humber, taken over at the beginning of the war from Brazil; their light draught and howitzer batteries enabled them to render effective aid. They left Dover on October 17, began to bombard the German forces at daybreak on the 19th, and landed detachments with machine guns; and the bombardment continued, with slight intermissions, for over a fortnight, H.M.S. Attentive, Wildfire, Brilliant, Rinaldo, the destroyer[Pg 225] Falcon, the battleship Venerable, and other vessels (some almost obsolete), taking part, and inflicting heavy losses on the German troops. The Germans strove to protect themselves by removing the Wielingen and Wandelaar lightships, and by placing mines along the coast.

German methods of warfare had meanwhile been illustrated by the attempt to sink the French steamer Amiral Ganteaume, crowded with refugees from Calais, in the English Channel (Oct. 26), and indirectly by the terrible wreck of the British hospital ship Rohilla off Whitby (Oct. 30), caused mainly by her keeping close inshore to avoid mines in an easterly gale, though she was believed to have struck one before stranding. On November 2 the Admiralty issued a warning that the Germans, through the agency of some merchant vessel under a neutral flag, had scattered mines indiscriminately on the route between America and Liverpool via the north of Ireland; the White Star liner Olympic had escaped them only by pure good luck; and, in view of the German practice, the whole of the North Sea must now be declared a military area; after November 5 any ship passing a line drawn from the north point of the Hebrides through the Faroes to Iceland must do so at its peril. Within the North Sea arrangements were made to prescribe safe routes for vessels trading with neutral countries, but even a slight deviation would be dangerous.

It was afterwards stated that the Olympic's escape was caused by her response to a call on October 27 from one of the newest British battleships, which had struck a mine off Ireland while on patrol duty, and whose crew she had been able to save, though not the ship. The Olympic was detained for some days in Lough Swilly, no one being allowed to land, and was then taken to Belfast. Particulars reached the American papers by mail and were published there with photographs and in neutral papers also, and rumours of the disaster had circulated in England for some time. But the Admiralty gave the story no official confirmation, and the name of the ship in question remained in the Navy List.

Apart from this, however, the naval war was sensibly drawing nearer to Great Britain. On October 27 the Admiralty closed all but one of the approaches to the Thames, and ordered vessels in a specified area of the estuary to anchor during the night and show no lights; H.M.S. Hermes was torpedoed in the Downs, only two miles off Deal, on October 31; and on the morning of November 3 a German squadron fired on H.M.S. Halcyon off Yarmouth, wounding one man, but were driven off by the approach of other British ships, and pursued by light cruisers, which failed to engage them. In retiring the Germans threw out mines promiscuously and the British submarine D 5 and two steam drifters were sunk. Rumour connected this advance with a German attempt at a raid.

[Pg 226]

But Germany had prepared also to attack in other quarters. The Porte entered the war on October 30, doubtless under German influence, by bombarding various Russian towns on the Black Sea; and on November 1 the Foreign Office issued a statement of the British position. At the beginning of the war Great Britain had assured the Porte that, if Turkey remained neutral, her independence and integrity would be respected during the war and in the terms of peace; ever since, the British Government had shown great patience and forbearance; but German officers had been sent in considerable numbers to Constantinople, the Goeben and Breslau had entered the Dardanelles, the Turks had attacked undefended towns, and had prepared to invade Egypt and excite a Holy War in Syria, and probably in India: and telegraphic communication had been interrupted without notice on October 30 with the British Embassy at Constantinople. The British Government, therefore, must take such action as was necessary to protect British interests, British territory, and Egypt. This statement was followed by the news that a British and French squadron had bombarded the Dardanelles, and that H.M.S. Minerva had driven a Turkish force out of Akabah, thus checking a possible invasion of Egypt by sea, by a British declaration of war with Turkey, and by the annexation of Cyprus by Order in Council (Nov. 5)—a step which got rid of the anomalous tenure devised in 1878, which had been one of the objections most strongly felt by British Liberals to Lord Beaconsfield's acquisition of the island.

At home, meanwhile, the campaign against alien enemies had culminated in an attack in the Globe on Prince Louis of Battenberg, the First Sea Lord, who had been popularly (but absurdly) reported for some time to be confined in the Tower on a charge of treason. On October 30 a letter from him was published tendering his resignation on the ground that his birth and parentage in some respects impaired his usefulness; and Mr. Churchill, in accepting his resignation, cordially testified to his great services, notably to his having taken the first step securing the concentration of the Fleet at the outbreak of the war. The attack, it need scarcely be said, was baseless; the Battenberg Princes had every reason to detest the Prussian Court, and Prince Louis had been an Englishman from boyhood, and had strenuously exerted himself to gain naval knowledge and apply it for the advancement of the British Navy. But he was regarded in some quarters as too compliant to the First Lord's demands, and he had not been forgiven for his disavowal of his alleged speech (p. 35). Lord Fisher of Kilverstone, however, proved an entirely satisfactory successor.

The new First Sea Lord was soon confronted with the task of avenging a grave British naval defeat. On November 6 it was announced that on Sunday, November 1, five German warships, the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Leipzig, Dresden, and Nürnberg, had[Pg 227] concentrated off Santa Maria Island, near Coronel, Chile, and engaged a British squadron under Rear-Admiral Cradock, consisting of the cruisers Good Hope and Monmouth, the light cruiser Glasgow, and the armed merchant cruiser Otranto, and that the Good Hope and Monmouth had been sunk and the Glasgow seriously damaged. The details remained obscure for some time, even to the Admiralty; but it was eventually learnt that the British ships had been met near sunset by the German squadron, that the Admiral had determined to engage notwithstanding his inferiority in speed and gun-power, and had warned off the battleship Canopus, which was coming up from the Straits of Magellan, as her speed was insufficient to cope with the Germans, and had ordered the Otranto to keep out of danger; that the Germans forced the British ships into a position where the setting sun interfered with their aim, that the British guns were outranged and that the Monmouth was sunk, and the Good Hope blown up while making for the shore, the Glasgow escaping. The loss of men was heavy; so was the blow to British prestige.

It was tolerably clear, moreover, that the German ships, coming as they did from the Chinese coast, could not have obtained coal or provisions without some violation of neutrality; and it was found that they had been supplied by Kosmos liners from Chilean ports, by an American collier at Juan Fernandez, and by other ships at the Galapagos Islands, belonging to Ecuador. The Chilean Government had not been involved; but Ecuador and Colombia were suspected of breaches of neutrality. And in other quarters there were new dangers. The collapse of Maritz's rebellion at the Cape had been followed by a more serious rising led by Generals de Wet and Beyers; and the British forces had suffered a serious reverse on November 2 in German East Africa.

It was amid these impressions that the Lord Mayor's banquet was held at the Guildhall (Nov. 10). The first toast after the loyal toasts was that of "Our Allies," proposed by Mr. Balfour. He described the capture of Tsingtau as a most dramatic answer to one of the most insulting messages ever sent from one Sovereign to another [in 1897] and as a good omen for those still fighting the arch-enemy in Europe. Russia had shown not only dogged and boundless courage, but unexpected powers of organisation; the war had brought out the military genius not only of a nation, but of a man (the Grand Duke Nicholas). As for the gallant French, never would the time grow dim in which they and the British fought side by side against the common foe of civilisation. Serbia, to preserve the peace of the world, had been prepared to give up everything short of her national existence, but she had gallantly defended it, and there was no chance now that Austria would wrest it from her. The case of Belgium was even more tragic. Cynicism could go no farther than the Germans had carried it, and the memory of the accumulated infamy[Pg 228] of their transaction would be remembered after the crime, great as it was, had been adequately expiated. The Allies were fighting for civilisation and the cause of small States, and whether the war was short or long, they would triumph. They had behind them all the finest moral influences of the civilised world.

M. Cambon, the French Ambassador, in reply, said that Europe had suffered invasions of barbarians in the past, but had never yet seen barbarism raised to dogma and reinforced by science. But its professors had not foreseen that they would come into conflict with the conscience of the civilised world.

The First Lord of the Admiralty, responding to the toast of "The Imperial Forces of the Crown," said that it was thanks to the Navy that they were there. In a recent conversation with Sir John Jellicoe and his chief Admiral they had remarked that Cornwallis was three years off Brest and Nelson more than two off Toulon; they themselves were only just beginning, and their turn would come. The multiplied duties of the Navy arising from the curious and novel conditions of naval warfare forced them to expose a target to the enemy incomparably larger than any target exposed to our own daring and vigilant sailors. The Navy was making good the motto "Business as usual"; the economic stringency resulting from a blockade required time to reach its full effectiveness; but in the sixth, ninth, or twelfth month they would see results gradually and silently achieved which would spell the doom of Germany. The Navy, too, gave Britain and the British Empire the time to realise their vast military power. At the end of a hundred days of war the Navy was actually and relatively stronger than when war was declared, particularly in the branches most influential in the struggle.

Earl Kitchener, who also responded, said that every officer returning from the front said that the men were doing splendidly. He eulogised the Regular, Territorial, and Indian troops, and those of each Ally, remarking that General Joffre was not only a great soldier, but a great man. The British Empire was fighting for its existence; only if that fact were realised could there come the great national and moral impulse without which Governments and armies could do little. He had no complaint to make of the response to his appeal for men, and the progress in military training of those already enlisted was remarkable; but he would want more men, and, still more, till the enemy was crushed. He alluded, briefly, to the inevitable discomforts of the recruits, as having been already greatly diminished, and remarked that the German use of elaborate destructive machinery was facilitated by their having fixed the date of war beforehand. He referred briefly to the gallant conduct of the Army in the trenches, to the Dominion contingents, and to the 1,250,000 soldiers in training in Great Britain eagerly waiting for the call. Every man would, in doing his duty, sustain the credit of the British Army, which had never stood higher.

[Pg 229]

The Prime Minister, in responding to the toast of His Majesty's Ministers, referred to the annexation of Bosnia and the Turkish revolution, the first as the earliest cause of the war, the second as raising vain hopes of the renascence of Turkey. Not the Turkish people, but the Ottoman Government, had sent Turkey to her doom. Great Britain had no quarrel with the Moslem subjects of the Sultan; millions of Mohammedans were among the most loyal subjects of the King; she was prepared, if necessary, to defend their Holy Places against all invaders. The Turkish Empire had committed suicide. Reviewing the financial measures taken by the Government, Mr. Asquith made special mention of the services of the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Reading), and of Mr. Walter Cunliffe, Governor of the Bank of England, on whom a Peerage was conferred. He warned his hearers that, though little was seen of the war save darkened streets and a preponderance of khaki-clad men, it would be a long-drawn out struggle, but there was nothing in the warfare of the past 100 days to damp British hopes or impair British resolve. The enemy had tried in turn three separate objectives—Paris, Warsaw, Calais; from each in turn they had retired balked and frustrated; but that was not enough. We should not sheathe the sword until Belgium recovered all and more than all that she had sacrificed, until France was adequately secured against the menace of aggression, until the rights of the smaller nationalities were placed on an unassailable foundation, until the military dominion of Prussia was fully and finally destroyed. It was a great task, worthy of a great nation. The Primate and the Lord Chief Justice were among the other speakers.

On the same evening the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed a great Nonconformist recruiting meeting at the City Temple. The principle that drew him to resist his own country in the Boer War, he said—defence of small nationalities—had brought him there. One of the greatest French generals, describing his own experience, had said to him that "the man responsible for this war had the soul of a devil." Great Britain was not responsible. We were organised for defence—against all the Powers of the world. We had raised the greatest Volunteer Army on record, and in a few months we should double it. For an aggressive war we could not have raised a tenth of it. At the outbreak of war we were on better terms with Germany than we had been for fifteen years. The vulture had been hanging over Belgium, but it pounced, not on a rabbit, but on a hedgehog, and had been bleeding and sore ever since. We now knew that the counsellors of Germany had planned and organised the murder of peaceful neighbours, and even fixed the date to suit themselves. Peace at any price was not a Christian principle. The surest way of establishing peace on earth was to make the way of the peacebreaker too hard for rulers to tread. After de[Pg 230]nouncing German action in Belgium and coupling the Turks of the East with their fitting comrades the Turks of the West, he referred to the cost of the war—which would not be grudged—and condemned those who approved of the war and left the necessary sacrifices to others. Could Britain, fighting one of the most chivalrous wars the world had ever seen, not rely on her children to rally to her honour?

The encouragement given by these speeches had already been begun by the news that the Königsberg had been shut up in East Africa by H.M.S. Chatham and the Emden destroyed by H.M.A.S. Sydney at the Cocos or Keeling Islands (Chron., Nov. 10); and the sinking of H.M.S. Niger by a submarine next day in the Downs, two miles off Deal, served merely as a salutary reminder that the war was near at hand. And the unity of the nation was further emphasised during the short session of Parliament which now began.

Parliament was opened by the King in person on November 11, with much the usual ceremony, save that the State coach with the famous cream-coloured horses was replaced by a glass coach with black horses. Many of the King's servants trained in Court ceremonial had gone to the front; the dresses of the Queen and most of the Peeresses in the House of Lords were black; and several members of the Commons wore khaki. (The members serving in the Navy, Army, and Auxiliary Forces numbered 126.) The King read his speech, of which only portions can be here given. The salient passage referring to the entry of Turkey into the war was as follows:—

The speech concluded as follows:—

The debates in both Houses, which cannot here be fully summarised, exhibited the unity of all parties regarding the essentials of the war, while there was some Opposition criticism of certain of its incidents. In the Upper House the Address was moved by Lord Methuen, who emphasised the pride of the nation[Pg 231] in its Army, and seconded by Viscount Bryce, who referred to the "streams of letters" from the United States evincing the width and depth of American sympathy, and declared that a conflict of principles like the war could not end till one or other principle triumphed. Earl Curzon, in the absence through illness of the Marquess of Lansdowne, took his place as Opposition leader, reviewing the situation and criticising the scale of allowances and pensions to dependants of soldiers, and the official reticence as to the deeds of the troops in the field. The Marquess of Crewe, replying, promised consideration of these points; the Earl of Selborne asked about the Antwerp expedition and the defeat off Chile, criticised the First Lord's practice of sending messages to foreign Powers and the Fleets in his own name instead of that of the Board of Admiralty, and declared the attack on Prince Louis of Battenberg to be "a national humiliation." The Earl of Crawford, supported subsequently by Lord Leith of Fyvie, made important allegations of official laxity in dealing with alien enemies in Fifeshire, stating that petrol had been exported and dynamite imported illegally, and that a neutral steamer had been found with sawdust in some of her coal-bunkers, indicating that she had been laying mines.[4] The Lord Chancellor said that what was done at Antwerp had to be done quickly, and was done by the First Lord after consulting the War Secretary; the Government took the responsibility, and thought the intervention had been useful. The First Lord of the Admiralty had not, he thought, sent communications in his own name to an inordinate extent, but he was anxious to conform to the best practice on the subject. The Government were grateful for the support given by the Opposition.

In the Commons the Address was moved by Sir R. Price (L., Norfolk, E.) and seconded by Mr. Middlebrook (L., Leeds, S.).

Mr. Bonar Law, after an eloquent reference to the bereavements sustained by members, and a hopeful review of the situation, said that the Opposition would press no amendment to a division, but would raise certain questions. He mentioned the Antwerp expedition and the naval disaster off Chile, the treatment of alien enemies, in which he hoped that the Government was not being influenced by clamouring newspapers, the secrecy as to the doings of the armies, and two special hindrances to recruiting—the fact that the dependants of soldiers did not get what they were promised, and the uncertainty as to the intentions of the Government regarding their future after the war. He suggested the reference of the subject to a small Committee.

The Prime Minister, after expressing confidence in the success of the Allies, declared that the responsibility for the Antwerp expedition rested with the whole Government, and that the [Pg 232]expedition was a material and useful factor in the campaign. The internment of alien enemies was preliminary to a sifting process. A censorship was inevitable in modern warfare, and news could only be published after consultation with our Allies. He defended the scale of allowances to childless widows (7s. 6d. as a weekly minimum) on the ground that a larger grant might depress the labour market. Moreover, the burden imposed by the existing scheme on the country for ten years after the war would be from 10,000,000l. to 15,000,000l. annually. He welcomed Mr. Bonar Law's proposal of a Committee, and mentioned that of the 1,186,000 men voted during the year for the Regular Army less than 100,000 were still lacking. He fully acknowledged the loyal co-operation of the Opposition and the Labour party.

Next day Mr. Henderson (Lab.), after promising the full support of organised Labour in maintaining the "splendid unity" of the nation, complained of the shocking lack of provision for recruits in the camps, the grievances of soldiers, and the ill-judged supervision exercised over their wives. Mr. Long (U.) dealt with the delays of pay and allowances, and the Financial Secretary of the War Office explained the inevitable difficulties set up by the novel conditions and the unprecedented strain on the War Office. Mr. Joynson-Hicks (U.) moved an amendment raising the question of danger from spies. The Home Secretary, after declaring that he ignored the unprecedentedly numerous Press attacks on himself personally, said that the responsibility for internment rested on the military authorities, and the Home Office acted under their direction. At first those interned were selected as being personally suspected, later as being out of employment and therefore possibly dangerous; in October the military question changed in aspect, and more were arrested at the wish of the military authorities, who again slackened their demand. He referred to an allegation unsupported by evidence, that the three cruisers (Chron., Sept. 22) had been sunk through espionage, and defended the Home Office against the charge of inaction. Mr. Bonar Law said that the better man a German was, the more likely he was to take risks for his country when it was at war; Lody (Chron., Nov. 5) was as much a patriot as any soldier killed in action. The Opposition wanted to see that the rounding up of spies was properly done. The enemy aliens most likely to injure England were the best educated and the best off. The Secretary for Scotland dealt with the measures taken in that country, but Sir H. Dalziel (L., Kirkcaldy Burghs) declared that petrol had been supplied from a Scottish port to German submarines through a Danish ship, and that some of the most dangerous spies were not Germans.

Sir W. Bull (U., Fulham) then moved an amendment complaining of the restrictions placed by the Press Bureau on the[Pg 233] publication of war news. The Solicitor-General's reply was regarded on both sides as disquieting. The Bureau, he said, should not stop criticism unless it would destroy confidence in the Government or cause alarm by inducing a belief that the situation was very grave. He mentioned incidentally that the Censors had much news of disasters to British capital ships, all of it false, and that certain articles on foreign policy had impaired British relations with neutral States. His thought was only of British soldiers and sailors. The Press Bureau alone stood between the Press and the untempered severities of martial law.

A revised scheme had been issued earlier in the week of pensions for soldiers and sailors and their dependants. A widow with four children would receive 20s., with three 17s. 6d., with two 15s., with one, 12s. 6d., with none, 7s. 6d. These might be increased on the recommendation of the Old Age Pensions Committee. The separation allowance would be continued for six months after widowhood. The minimum disablement allowances would be 14s. for unmarried men, 16s. 6d. for married men without children, rising to a magnitude of 23s. The estimated burden on the country would range, according to the duration of the war and the percentage of deaths and disablements, from 99,000,000l. to 202,000,000l.

At the opening of the following week—which was saddened by the unexpected news of the death of Earl Roberts—the Prime Minister moved a Vote of Credit for 225,000,000l., and an addition to the Regular Army of 1,000,000 men. He first explained—necessarily without details—that of the 100,000,000l. previously voted the largest portion had been spent on the operations of the war; other outlays were on loans to the Allies, a very large sum to secure the food supplies, especially sugar, wheat, and other necessaries, a considerable sum to obtain control of the railways, and expenditure on succour for refugees and destitute aliens. The bulk of the money now asked for would be spent on the Army and Navy; but loans not for the use of Great Britain would amount to 44,000,000l. This, however, would include a comparatively small sum possibly needed for the relief of local distress at home. The Belgian Government had already received 10,000,000l., the Servian Government 800,000l. The Government would relieve the Dominions of the responsibility of raising loans by advancing them 30,250,000l. The war had cost between 900,000l. and 1,000,000l. a day; the provision asked would last up to March 31, leaving a reasonable margin. The Estimates had been carefully considered and repeatedly revised, and represented the minimum which should be asked for in the greatest emergency in British history.

Mr. Long (U.) expressed satisfaction with the Prime Minister's statement, suggested improvement of the pay and allowances of officers, and urged that recruiting should be stimulated by[Pg 234] war correspondence and that greater power should be given to commanders to confer decorations. Sir H. Dalziel (L.) gave surprising and suggestive figures of the increased exports of coal, cocoa, tea, and other articles to the neutral countries near to Germany; and, among other speakers, Mr. Healy (I.N.) vigorously condemned the Press censorship. There was some divergence of opinion as to the degree of drinking among the troops.

The Prime Minister replied at some length to the points raised. As to war correspondence, the other Allies must have the decisive voice. The increased exports of coal to Scandinavia were caused by the cessation of German supplies; as to tea, there were ways by which the export to Germany might be stopped. Of the new Army not more than 15 per cent. had suffered from disease of any kind, and its average standard of conduct was worthy of the country and of the cause. The Regular Army now numbered 1,100,000; since the beginning of August 700,000 recruits had joined, besides at least 200,000 Territorials. He gave very high praise to the latter Force. But they wanted another million. The votes were agreed to, and the sitting closed with an energetic repudiation by Mr. Edgar Jones (L., Merthyr Tydfil) and the Government of attacks recently made by Mr. Keir Hardie (Lab., Merthyr Tydfil) on the Army.

Next day (Nov. 17) the proceedings in both Houses opened with tributes to the memory of Earl Roberts. In the House of Lords Earl Kitchener, Earl Curzon of Kedleston, and the Marquess of Crewe bore eloquent testimony to the late Field-Marshal's military achievements, his devotion to his country, his comradeship with his men, and his character as a Christian. In the Commons, the Prime Minister gave notice of an Address to the Crown, asking that a monument might be erected at the cost of the State, and spoke of Earl Roberts's consummate strategy, rare powers of leadership, a unique faculty of attracting the devotion of his men, and his mastery of the art of war, and of his eagerness, expressed in their last conversation, to be of use in any capacity in "this latest and greatest of our wars." Mr. Bonar Law found a parallel to his character in Thackeray's Colonel Newcome; Mr. John Redmond (N., Waterford) reminded the House that Earl Roberts was an honorary freeman of that borough, and mentioned that he had desired to speak at Dublin along with the Prime Minister and himself (p. 215); and Sir Ivor Herbert (L.) and Colonel Yate (U.) added their tributes as former officers of Earl Roberts's staff.

Earl Roberts's funeral took place on November 19 with simple but impressive ceremony. The remains, which had been brought back to his house at Ascot, were conveyed thence by special train to Charing Cross, whence they were borne on a gun carriage by the Embankment and Ludgate Hill to St. Paul's Cathedral,[Pg 235] escorted by troops representing the Territorials, the Guards, Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery, a naval detachment, and a mountain battery; and Earl Kitchener, Sir Evelyn Wood, Lord Methuen, and Lord Charles Beresford, were among the pall-bearers, who attended the remains from the Embankment to the Cathedral. At the door the Cathedral choir and clergy met and preceded the coffin, which was followed by the pall-bearers, the Primate, and the King. Many hundreds of the public visited the grave in the afternoon. A memorial monument was to be erected at the public cost.

To return to Parliament: on November 17 the War Budget was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After giving figures (to be found in the appended table) showing that he had to provide for a deficit by March 31 of 339,571,000l., he argued that a substantial part of this must be raised by taxation, justifying this course by the precedents set by Pitt in the French wars and Gladstone in the Crimean War. This war would cost at least 450,000,000l. in the first full year; not to tax heavily for it would be a serious departure from honoured and unbroken national tradition. If Great Britain now rose to the heroic level of 1798, she would be raising a revenue of from 450,000,000l. to 700,000,000l., and no borrowing would be needed. It was wisest to assume that the war would be long; it would be folly to borrow to meet interest on loans and loss of revenue; four-fifths of the money raised would be spent in Great Britain, and during the war and after reconstruction there would be practically no competition in neutral markets, except from America. For four or five years, therefore, British industries would be artificially stimulated; but afterwards our customers' purchasing power would be crippled and much capital would have been exhausted. During the period of inflation, therefore, as much as possible should be raised by taxation. War, too, was a time of sacrifice and self-denial, and readiness to bear taxation would strengthen British credit. No taxes would be levied interfering with productive industries, but all classes would be reached. The income tax would be doubled, but in the current year would be collected on only one-third of the income, so that it would be 1s. 8d. from December 1 on unearned and 1s. on earned income. Arrangements would be made to meet serious cases of loss of income through the war. As to the class that did not pay income tax, Ministers had regretfully abandoned the idea of a tax on wages, owing to the difficulties of dealing with varying rates, casual labour, and half-timers, and of reaching small shopkeepers; and they had to resort to indirect taxation. Beer was taxed very lightly as compared with other alcoholic drinks. The half-pint was the commonest measure of consumption, and an additional duty of 17s. 3d. per barrel would enable an extra halfpenny per half-pint to be charged to the consumer, leaving a fair margin for the[Pg 236] brewer and publican; the lighter the beer, the larger the margin. The licence duty would be reduced proportionately to the curtailment of hours (p. 195), except near camping centres, and the brewer would be given a month's credit for payment of duty. The estimated increase of revenue from the source in 1914-15 would be 2,050,000l. and in 1915-16 17,600,000l. Increased duties on spirits would be unproductive, on wine undesirable, because much of it came from our Allies or the Dominions, and the consumption was diminishing. The "elusive teetotaller" could not be reached, as people supposed, by taxing mineral waters, three-fourths of which were drunk with alcohol; tea must be taxed; a graduated tax was impossible, so the tax would be increased by 3d. all round, to the figure of the Boer War. Finally, 2,750,000l. would be raised, as he showed at length, by partially suspending the Sinking Fund. This would still leave a deficit of 321,321,000l. Of this 91,000,000l. had already been borrowed by Treasury Bills. As he showed at length, it was eminently desirable to borrow enough to carry on beyond the current financial year, and the sum proposed would render a further appeal unnecessary up to July, 1915. After extensive consultation, it had been decided to issue a loan at 3½ per cent., a rate brought up to 4 per cent. by issue below par and the guarantee of early redemption. It would be a 3½ per cent. security issued at 95, to be redeemed by the Government at par on March 1, 1928, or, subject to three months' notice, at any time between March 1, 1925, and March 1, 1928, and the amount would be 350,000,000l., of which 100,000,000l. had already been offered firm. It would not be issued in sums of less than 100l., as that course would deplete the savings banks. After explaining the arrangements, Mr. Lloyd George stated that the Bank of England would be prepared, till March 1, 1918, to make advances against deposits of the loan taken at the issue price without margin at 1 per cent. below the ordinary Bank rate. It was of immense importance that the money should be subscribed, but it would be an excellent investment, because Great Britain's credit was still the best, and it would be a still better investment after the war. There would then be no more màlevolent talk about the decay and downfall of the British Empire.

Mr. Chamberlain, speaking for the Opposition, took no objection to the spirit and principles of the Chancellor's speech, but regretted that the proposals had not been made at the outset of the war, and that revenue was confined to so few fruitful channels. But he made no opposition to the general proposals, and was sure that every income-tax payer would bear his share.

We append a table (taken from The Times) showing "the Budget in brief."

[Pg 237]

THE NEW TAXES.

INCOME TAX.

YIELD OF NEW TAXATION.

The sacrifices demanded by the Budget were patriotically accepted by the nation, but concessions were made in regard to the income tax, supertax, and the beer tax. In the debate (Nov. 19) the Attorney-General explained that payers of income tax would be allowed, as they had been before 1907, to take into account their actual income for the year, and supertax payers would pay on the year's income instead of the three years' average, provided that in both cases their income had been reduced owing solely to the war; Mr. Henderson (Lab.) thought that the tea duty should have been increased by 2d. only, and that the only fair way to treat the working classes was by a graduated wage tax—a proposition which the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted in principle, but declared to be impracticable at that time. Objections made to the increase of the beer tax were met (Nov. 24) by the concession of a rebate of 2s. per barrel up to March 31, 1916, and 1s. from that date to March 31, 1917, to enable the trade to adapt itself. The tax was calculated, it was explained, by gravity,[Pg 238] not by bulk, and the publican would gain most on the lighter beers. The concession, however, was regarded by Mr. A. Chamberlain and others as inadequate. A concession in respect of income tax was made also to members of the Army and Navy and Red Cross ambulance workers, allowing them to pay on actual instead of on average income.

The debates on the following days require little notice. A Committee of the Commons was appointed (Nov. 18) to deal with pensions and allowances to wounded soldiers, and to children and dependants of those killed in the war; and the Reports of Supply and the debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill provided opportunities for raising various questions connected with the war. It may be mentioned that Mr. Wedgwood (L.), who appeared in the House in uniform, asked the Government (Nov. 23) to direct the civil population what they were to do in the event of a German raid, improbable though such a contingency might be. He urged that every one ought to fight the Germans if they came. The Under-Secretary for War, however, replied that emergency committees to deal with the subject were being formed, but for the present it was undesirable to make public any instructions. [Such instructions were, however, issued privately to local authorities, parish clergy, and other prominent persons in certain districts.] We may mention also an emphatic protest by the Opposition leader against the restrictive interpretation put by the Solicitor-General on the powers of the Press Bureau (p. 233); as the result, the Government two days later agreed to qualify considerably the clause in the Defence of the Realm Bill giving them powers "to prevent the spread of reports likely to cause disaffection or alarm," and the Solicitor-General also qualified his previous utterance.

On November 25 the House was informed through the medium of the Under-Secretary for India, that Colombia and Ecuador had failed to observe an attitude of strict neutrality. Colombia, in spite of representations from the British charge d'affaires, had allowed the wireless station at Cartagena to continue working with its German staff, nominally under censorship, really under German influence; and German steamers in Colombian ports, though their wireless installations had ostensibly been dismantled, had continued to use them with the attachment of a muffler. As to Ecuador, its Foreign Minister had informed the British and French representatives at Quito on October 4 that German warships had used the Galapagos Islands as a naval base, and the Ecuadorean Government had not complied with the request of the British and French legations to prevent the use of the wireless station at Guayaquil as an intelligence centre for belligerents. The Government had therefore decided to appeal, in conjunction with that of France, to the good offices of the United States Government. [This was a notable recog[Pg 239]nition of the Monroe doctrine, but both the offending States were likely, from their recent history, to be specially resentful of American interference.]

The day following (Nov. 26) was marked by a grave naval disaster. The battleship Bulwark, lying off Sheerness, blew up at 7.35 A.M., probably through an internal magazine explosion, and only fourteen men were saved out of a crew exceeding 750. No reason was discovered for supposing that the disaster was not due to accident, but its precise cause was not ascertainable. In announcing the disaster to the House, the First Lord said that the mere loss of the ship did not sensibly affect the military position, and expressed, on behalf of the House, its sorrow and its sympathy with the relatives and friends of the victims.

Next, the Under-Secretary for India moved a resolution sanctioning the application of Indian revenues to war expenditure outside India, but not in Europe. He mentioned that the Indian troops, besides their work at Tsingtau, Fao, and Basra, were in force in Egypt, took part in the landing at Sheikh Said and in the attack, against great odds, in East Africa, and had speedily adapted themselves to the novel conditions of fighting in France. Of their record both India and England would be proud. He mentioned again the zeal and munificence of the ruling Chiefs, the reasoned loyalty of the Indian educated classes, as well as the "wave of instructive and emotional loyalty" that had swept over India, and announced the creation of an Executive Council in the United Provinces, and he indicated the hope of increasing friendship throughout the Empire which was encouraged by comradeship in arms.

In the miscellaneous debate which followed on the Consolidated Fund Bill the matter of most general interest was the action of the Government with regard to spies and alien enemies. The Home Secretary explained that while his Department was generally regarded as responsible for public safety throughout the country, he had no real power outside the metropolitan area. In this, since the war began, 120,000 cases of suspicion had been investigated, 342 persons interned, and 6,000 houses ransacked. Complaints had been made of favouritism towards Baron Schroeder and other wealthy Germans, but had the Baron not been naturalised his firm, the largest accepting house in the City, would have closed its doors, and there would have been a great commercial disaster. To lock up all Germans and Austrians, as some people desired, might lead to reprisals, and many of them were only technically foreigners. On the question of internment, the military authority was the decisive authority under the Hague Conventions. The really dangerous spies were those of British nationality.

The spy peril had been dealt with in the other House on the previous day (Nov. 25). The Earl of Crawford then admitted[Pg 240] that much had been done since his last speech (p. 231), but the complaints in it had been substantiated, and a clear statement should be given of the legal responsibilities of the authorities concerned, and the policy of the Government should be codified and simplified. Lord Leith of Fyvie complained that money was coming from German sources to Germans in Great Britain, that favouritism was being shown to rich enemy aliens, and that coal was being supplied to German warships from the West of Scotland and Ireland. The Lord Chancellor asked for concrete instances, stating that there was no evidence of these supplies, explained the distribution of powers between the Home Office, the War Office, and the Admiralty, who were closely co-operating, and said that cases of espionage were being carefully followed up, but the difficulty of defeating it was enormous, and the worst offenders were probably English.

But the most interesting part of the proceedings in the Upper House was the further statement (Nov. 26) by Earl Kitchener on the progress of the war in the past six weeks. He mentioned that the delay caused by the British expedition to Antwerp in the release of its German besiegers just gave Sir John French time to prevent the Germans reaching the northern coast of France; that the British cavalry divisions, extended for seven miles of front in trenches, threw back the fierce attacks of a German Army Corps for more than two days; that Sir John French's position was attacked at one time by eleven army corps, and that on November 11 a supreme—but unsuccessful—effort was made by the Prussian Guard to force its way through the British lines, and carry them at all costs by sheer weight of numbers. The British troops before Ypres, after fourteen days and nights in the trenches, had been relieved by French reinforcements, and several Territorial battalions had joined. The British losses, though heavy, were slight in comparison with the German. He acknowledged the "tenacity and endurance," and the high fighting qualities of the French Army, and the pluck and gallantry of the Belgian Army and the King, and he mentioned that on the Eastern front the Russians had checked and defeated the Germans, inflicting on them heavier losses than they had ever sustained before. After referring to the operations against Turkey, he said that the publication of news must be governed by the needs of the French Army, the larger force, but the Government desired to keep nothing back which could not be utilised by the enemy. The difficulties of providing and equipping the new Army were being successfully met, and he felt confident that further calls on the manhood of England would be responded to in a manner and spirit which would ensure the prosecution of the war to its successful conclusion. Later, Earl Kitchener said that recruits were coming in at the rate of 30,000 weekly besides the regiments then being formed by different localities; and the[Pg 241] Lord Chancellor promised that information should be given in the future as to the action of civilians during invasion.

On the Report of the War Loan Obligations Bill next day (Nov. 27) important statements were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Admiralty, reviewing the financial and naval position respectively. The former said that the Government had taken unprecedented responsibilities in the interest of the mechanism of international trade. In the Napoleonic wars practically all the countries were self-contained; Great Britain's total imports and exports amounted in value to some 86,000,000l.; in 1912 their value exceeded 1,400,000,000l. The international trade in the Napoleonic wars amounted to perhaps 200,000,000l.; in 1913 it was valued at 3,000,000,000l., and Great Britain provided the capital to raise and move the produce, and carried half the produce, of the world. Transactions between merchants in China and the United States, for instance, were paid for by bills of exchange on London. Very little of the business was done with gold; London in 1913 received 50,000,000l. in gold and paid out 45,000,000l. All this delicate paper machinery crashed into a war affecting two-thirds of the world. There was inevitable confusion, and a deadlock, due to a failure of remittances from abroad to cover bills representing 350,000,000l. to 400,000,000l. There was a complete breakdown of the exchanges, as if a shell had broken an aqueduct; Argentina owed Great Britain 400,000,000l., but the latter could not buy a single cargo of frozen meat. Had the machine been left broken, the general distress in Great Britain would have been unutterable. The Government had to save British industry, commerce, and labour. They had invited the assistance of men of great experience, and eventually had set up a permanent advisory Committee. He acknowledged the great assistance rendered by Mr. Chamberlain, Lords St. Aldwyn and Revelstoke, and the Lord Chief Justice, the latter, with Sir John Bradbury, constituting a Court of Appeal. They decided that something must be done at once to avert a run on the banks, and declared a limited moratorium, and then decided to advance to the banks Treasury notes up to 20 per cent. of their deposits. At first the banks availed themselves of this currency facility to the extent of 13,000,000l.; the sum outstanding was only 244,000l. The currency notes of 1l. and 10s. outstanding amounted to 33,892,000l., 25,696,000l. being in 1l. notes. Next, the Government guaranteed the payment of all bills accepted by British houses, giving them a reasonable time to collect them. Great Britain had assets of some 4,000,000,000l. of good foreign securities, and some 13,000,000,000l. worth of collieries, mines, factories, etc., at home; to allow its credit to remain doubtful for some 350,000,000l., all or nearly all owing to British subjects, would have been criminal. By these three steps the unimpeachable character of the British bill of exchange had[Pg 242] been guaranteed, and a financial catastrophe, probably without parallel, avoided. But they had to discriminate between bills, and experts could do so instinctively; and for this reason facilities had been partly refused in the case of Mr. Crisp, of which Sir A. Markham (L., Notts) had complained earlier in the debate. Only one member of an accepting house had been on the Committee of the Bank of England which examined the bills, and his business was with a neutral country. They discounted 57,000l. of Mr. Crisp's bills, but as collateral security for another 200,000l. he tendered only securities worth 72,000l. Only 50,000,000l. of bills, or about one-ninth of the total, would have to be put aside as dealing with belligerent countries or for analogous reasons. The loss would depend on the length and the issue of the war. Before ending the moratorium they had to consider: (1) the business specially affected by the war, such as the Scottish fishing industry, whose case they met by the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill (p. 196); (2) the restoration of the foreign exchanges, which they effected by restoring the old-machinery, releasing the endorsers and drawers of Bills, and retaining simply the liability of the acceptors; (3) the restoration of the Stock Exchange, where the difficulty was that 70,000,000l. or 80,000,000l. of securities were hypothecated in respect of debts incurred before the war began. Had the banks pressed for these debts, the securities would have been placed on the market, their value would have been deplorably reduced, and the State, now the sole borrower, could have raised money only at incredible rates. The Government had left the banks to make their own arrangements with the Stock Exchange, but had agreed to advance 60 per cent. of the value of the securities on July 29 on condition that the banks undertook not to put their securities on the market till six months after the war; and had arranged that the Stock Exchange should only open with the sanction of the Treasury and under conditions to be imposed by it in the public interest. Not one application had been made for Government credit, either in respect of this arrangement or of a similar guarantee through which the Liverpool Cotton Exchange had been reopened. Provincial traders who had been sending goods to the Continent on credit, without receiving bills of exchange, had been promised Government assistance to the extent of 50 per cent. of the credit value of the interest, on condition that the local banks, who knew their men, undertook 25 per cent. Applications amounting to 16,000,000l. had come in in respect of these debts, and the Government hoped to do something at the earliest possible moment. Britain was still supreme in international commerce, its money market was better than any other, the gold at the Bank had risen during the war from 26,000,000l. to 85,500,000l. and they had raised in all 440,000,000l. with the Stock Exchange closed. The loan of 350,000,000l. (p. 236) had been over-sub[Pg 243]scribed, and there had been nearly 100,000 applications for small amounts, so the sum had been raised without any of the German expedients for raising a smaller loan at a higher interest. Unemployment had gone down, confidence had been restored, British credit had stood the strain, the market had been less affected than any in the world. The raising of the loan gave him confidence that British credit was built on foundations that no foreseeable contingency could destroy.

In the subsequent debate Mr. Austen Chamberlain paid special tributes to the services of the Bank of England, its Governor, its ex-Governor (Mr. Cole), and Lord Revelstoke; the President of the Board of Agriculture gave particulars of a proposed scheme for the manufacture of aniline dyes, hitherto made exclusively in Germany—the consumers to subscribe 3,000,000l., the Government, subject to certain conditions as to control, to guarantee debenture interest on another 1,500,000l.; and Mr. Bonar Law endorsed this scheme and criticised, in moderate terms, the recent purchase by the Government of 18,000,000l. worth of sugar, and the total prohibition of the import of sugar in consequence. The Home Secretary explained that the sole aim was to prevent sugar coming from neutral countries and being replaced there by German sugar. The Bill was subsequently read a third time.

On the adjournment, Lord Charles Beresford (U.) commented favourably, on the whole, on the naval position. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in reply, said that it was useless to discuss particular incidents, such as the battle off Chile, the loss of the Aboukir and her consorts, and the expedition to Antwerp, without the disclosure, at present impossible, of all the orders and the entire situation. The only rule as to publishing information was that the publication should not interfere with the operations of the war; and he expressed the gratitude of the Admiralty for the reserve shown by the Press. The incidents seen were a very small part of the work going on all over the world. The British Navy had been confronted in the event of war by four main perils—(1) surprise before it was in its war stations [which had been averted by the assemblage at Spithead]; (2) the escape of fast armed liners of the enemy, but only 1.9 per cent. of the mercantile marine had been lost, against an estimate before the war of 5 per cent.; (3) mines, but the limits of that danger could now be discerned and it was being further restricted and controlled; (4) submarines, a novel and very grave danger, but British power in submarines was far greater than German, and the only reason it could not produce greater results was the rarity of a target for attack. A fifth danger, oversea invasion, he dismissed curtly as an enterprise perilous for the invaders. Of British shipping 97 per cent. was plying, of German shipping less than 11 per cent. was plying or unaccounted for, and only ten German ships, it[Pg 244] was believed, were trading on the seas, while the Germans were becoming deficient in war material. The results of the German policy of attrition so far were not unsatisfactory to Great Britain. The losses of submarines had been equal, but the German loss proportionately was much larger, the British vessels being more numerous; of destroyers, the British loss was nil, the German eight or ten; of the older armoured cruisers, it was six to two, but the British were three or four times more numerous, and therefore more frequently exposed to attack; in fast modern light cruisers,—the most important class of modern vessels,—the proportion had been 36 to 25; Britain had lost one-eighteenth, Germany one-fourth. The British additions, recent and future, would make the British strength beyond comparison greater. In Dreadnoughts British superiority at the start was just under 60 per cent.—36 to 21; by the end of 1915 Germany could not possibly have more than three besides; Great Britain should have fifteen, including two taken over from Turkey, and one from Chile, and could afford to lose a super-Dreadnought a month and yet be in about as good a position as at first. There was no attrition by wear and tear. The health of the Fleet was twice as good as in time of peace, and the conduct of the men almost perfect. There was no reason whatever for nervousness, anxiety, or alarm. We had powerful Allies on the seas, but, even were we single-handed indefinitely, we might go on drawing our supplies and transporting our troops as we pleased.

After a short speech of concurrence from Mr. Bonar Law the House adjourned till February 2.

The war legislation passed in the first instalment of this new Session included Bills to consolidate and amend the Defence of the Realm Acts, based on the experience gained during the war; providing pensions for soldiers and their dependants; enacting that acceptance of a commission in the Army or Navy ["office under the Crown"] by members of the Commons should not vacate their seats; providing that members of local authorities should not be disqualified by absence, if they were on naval or military service; facilitating land drainage (as a means of employment); and, notably, amending the Trading with the Enemy Act. This last measure set up a custodian of enemy property in the person of the Public Trustee (in England and Wales; other arrangements were made in Scotland and Ireland) to whom must now be paid all dividends, interest, or share of profits which would otherwise have gone to an alien enemy, for him to hold till after the war, The Bill contained also provisions against the transfer of enemy claims, or stock or shares, to neutrals, and against the transformation of German into British companies; and it made even an offer to trade with the enemy a criminal offence.

About ten days before the adjournment, the work of recruiting for the new armies had been facilitated through the commence[Pg 245]ment of the issue by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee (representing all parties) of a circular to every householder in the United Kingdom, asking for the names of such members of the household as might be able to enlist.

Meanwhile, the war had been going well for Great Britain. The Germans had clearly been foiled in their attempts to break through in Flanders; Zeebrugge was heavily bombarded by a British squadron (Nov. 23) consisting of three small cruisers and some destroyers and torpedo boats, with the effect, it was hoped, of destroying the German preparations for its use as a base for submarines. The British positions before Ypres had been held, and the floods between Dixmude and Nieuport had rendered a German advance there impossible. In the Vosges the French were advancing slightly, elsewhere they were holding their own. A daring air raid on the Zeppelin airship factory at Friedrichshafen had been undertaken from French territory (Nov. 21) by Squadron Commander E. F. Briggs of the Royal Naval Air Service, with Flight Commander J. T. Babington and Flight Lieutenant S. V. Sippe, who dropped bombs on the factory under heavy fire, and, it was believed, did, considerable damage. Commander Briggs was wounded and captured; the others returned safely. (This startling raid of 250 miles, 120 of which were in enemy territory, caused a complaint from the Swiss Government that Swiss territory had been violated, a contention which the British Government denied.) Even more encouraging was the news from the Persian Gulf that the British and Indian troops which had landed at the mouth of the Shatt-el-Arab, after defeating the Turks on November 15 and 17, had occupied Basra on the 21st, only seventeen days from the declaration of war. At sea the large German submarine U 18 was rammed by a British patrol vessel, surrendered, and sank (Nov. 23). On the other hand, it was disquieting that a German submarine should have sunk two merchant vessels near Havre at three days' interval; and the terrible explosion of the Bulwark (p. 239), though the ship was almost obsolete, reduced the personnel of the Navy by some 750 men.

The confidence of the British military authorities was exhibited by the visit paid to the troops at the front by the King—the first such visit by a British monarch since George II fought at Dettingen in 1743. On Sunday, November 29, His Majesty crossed to France in a warship; he was met by the Prince of Wales on landing, and next day, after inspecting some of the base hospitals (including one for Indian troops) he reached the British general headquarters. During the three ensuing days (Dec. 1-3) he made a tour of the Army Corps, visiting their headquarters, meeting the generals and staffs, and inspecting all the troops not in the trenches, who were lined up, in large or small bodies, to greet him as he motored past. On December 1 he[Pg 246] visited the Fourth Army Corps, and met President Poincaré, M. Viviani (the French Premier), and General Joffre, who accompanied him in his inspection; the last named he invested with the G.C.B., the two former dined with him. On December 2 he visited a Cavalry Corps and the Third Army Corps, and invested several French officers with British orders; on December 3 he invested Sir John French with the Order of Merit, inspected the First and Second Corps and some cavalry, and obtained a view of the battlefield, including Lille, Roubaix, and Ypres, where shells were bursting. On December 4 he made himself acquainted with the work of various departments of the Staff and of the auxiliary services; and he visited the Belgian headquarters and met King Albert on the last fragment of Belgian territory still unoccupied by the invader. On December 5 he saw the work of other auxiliary services, and visited the headquarters of the Royal Flying Corps. Throughout his visit this corps had "carried out a continuous aerial patrol" above him. That night he returned to England.

Before leaving, His Majesty issued a special order to the Army as follows:—

The Prince of Wales, it must here be noted, had gone to the front at his own earnest desire six weeks earlier, and had proved himself, according to The Times military correspondent, "one of the keenest and hardest soldiers of the army." He was aide-de-camp to Sir John French; but he had had a varied experience, had visited the trenches, including those occupied by the Indian troops, and had been several times under fire.

Though few details as to the military operations were published, it seemed clear that the Germans would be dislodged only by much larger numbers; and enlistment was supposed to be hampered by the continuance of professional (Association) football. The matches attracted thousands, many of them, doubtless, needed by home industries, but these, it was contended, might have been better employed drilling than looking on; and the players were excellent military material, but were bound by contract to their[Pg 247] clubs. Attempts to induce enlistment from among the crowds of spectators in London (Nov. 21) brought only one recruit. An International Football Conference (representing the nations of the United Kingdom) decided at the end of November to drop the "international" matches, but not the cup ties, i.e. the matches determining the competitors for the Association Challenge Cup, decided at the Crystal Palace in the spring. The Scottish delegates, after consulting the War Office, decided to abandon both sets of contests till after the war; but the Council of the Football Association confirmed the decision of the Conference (Dec. 7). Its course was defended, partly because the matches provided recreation for workers who could not be spared, partly in view of the financial needs of the clubs and the players. The Association, it was urged, had done something for recruiting, and had contributed to the various war funds. The formation of a Footballers' Battalion was authorised by the War Office; but the episode provided another argument for the advocates of compulsory service.

The naval element in the war, however, seemed at least as important as the military; and here the signs were promising. It was true that extensive preparations against a raid had been made in the last week of November, though little was said of them in the Press; and also that the Admiralty had notified (Dec. 4) that lighthouses and buoys in the Channel on the east of a line drawn from Selsey Bill to Cape Barfleur, might be altered or withdrawn, and signals in this area changed or discontinued, without notice, and had specified stations where pilots could be obtained for the ports or areas affected—arrangements probably motived by the activity of German submarines off Havre (p. 245); and that the German merchant cruiser Berlin, which had run into Trondhjem short of coal and had been interned there, was believed to have been laying oceanic mines. But these were only temporary inconveniences; and the country was inspirited (Dec. 10) by the news of a great German naval defeat off Port Stanley, Falkland Islands, on December 8. Vice-Admiral Sir F. Sturdee, who had recently been Chief of Staff at the Admiralty, and had been in London at the time of the action off Chile (p. 226), had left Devonport (as afterwards transpired) about November 15, and with a squadron of six cruisers, the Kent, Carnarvon, Cornwall, Glasgow, Bristol and Macedonia, the latter a converted P. and O. liner, and the battle cruisers Inflexible and Invincible, had arrived at Port Stanley (where they met the Canopus) on December 7 to coal, before searching for the German squadron. Next day this squadron approached Port Stanley, intending, it was said, to occupy it as a coaling station. It consisted of the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and three small cruisers, the Leipzig, Dresden, and Nürnberg, with a merchant cruiser, the Prinz Eitel Fritz, and two transports. On their approach the Canopus opened[Pg 248] fire; the other British ships at once came out, chased the Germans for nearly six hours, and then engaged them. The battle cruisers, assisted by the Carnarvon, concentrated their fire, first on Admiral von Spee's ship, the Scharnhorst, which sank, refusing to cease firing, about 4 P.M.; next on the Gneisenau, which sank two hours afterwards. The German cruisers had meanwhile diverged southwards; but the Glasgow overtook the Leipzig, and, with the Cornwall, sank her, after some hours' fighting, at 9.15 P.M.; the Kent, meanwhile, came up with the Nürnberg, and sank her about 7.30 P.M.; while her crew were being picked up, the Dresden and Prinz Eitel Fritz got away. The Bristol and the Macedonia sank the two transports or supply ships, the Baden and Santa Ysabel, which had gone off to the west. The Dresden was reported shortly afterwards at Punta Arenas, Straits of Magellan, but had not been heard of again by the end of the year. Some 2,000 Germans were lost, and less than a dozen British.

Two days after this news was published, a daring feat was achieved at the mouth of the Dardanelles. The British submarine B 11, Lieut.-Commander Norman Holbrook, dived under five rows of mines, sank the Turkish battleship Messudiyeh, which was guarding a minefield, and returned in safety—a feat which seemed to indicate that the entrance was not quite impregnable. For this feat Lieut.-Commander Holbrook received the V.C.

But now it was the Germans' turn. At 8 A.M. on the morning of December 16 three German warships appeared off Hartlepool, and bombarded it from 8.15 to 8.50, killing seven and wounding fourteen of the Durham Light Infantry who were stationed there, and also killing or wounding many of the civil population, who crowded into the streets. About the same time a battle cruiser and an armoured cruiser bombarded Scarborough, damaging several churches, the Grand Hotel, and many smaller buildings, and, rather later, two ships—probably the same—fired a few shots at Whitby, aiming at the signal station, but damaging the famous ruined Abbey and several buildings, though the casualties here were few. The ships, at any rate off Hartlepool, were attacked by British patrol vessels, and a mist facilitated their escape. Five British seamen were killed, fifteen wounded; the rest of the injured were civilians, including many women and children. At Hartlepool the total of deaths eventually mounted to 119, though a few victims lingered for some weeks; at Scarborough seventeen were killed and about twenty seriously injured; at Whitby two were killed and two injured. People were killed in the streets, while dressing, or at breakfast; and several of the dead were young children.

The raid was hailed with delight in Germany, where it was defended on the ground that the three towns were "fortified places"—which was hardly true even of Hartlepool; but in England it stimulated recruiting, and excited no panic. Prob[Pg 249]ably all the five German battle cruisers were engaged; and, if so, only British battle cruisers could have overtaken them. British opinion was expressed by the First Lord of the Admiralty in a letter of sympathy to the Mayor of Scarborough, pointing out that the effectiveness of British naval pressure was proved by the frenzy of hatred it aroused in the enemy. The letter closed as follows:—

Only a small proportion of the property injured was insured against war risk; but it was announced that the Government would compensate the sufferers.

A few days earlier (Dec. 12) Mr. Balfour, at a recruiting meeting at Bristol, had denounced the German effort at world-dominion as a crime against civilisation, which would not succeed while there was one cartridge or one stout heart left in Great Britain. The superman, if he appeared, might be left to the police; the super-State was absolutely inconsistent with the true notion of a great community of nations. The whole international future of the world, in his judgment, was hanging in the balance.

Such disregard of the ordinary usages of civilised warfare as was evinced by this bombardment tended to strengthen this attitude, and with it the national unity achieved at the outset of the war; and on its achievement Mr. Bonar Law threw fresh light in a speech at an informal meeting of Unionist chairmen and agents of Parliamentary constituencies held at the Hotel Cecil to consider the means of co-operation as to the war and other matters. He stated that on Sunday, August 2, he had sent the following letter to the Prime Minister:—

The Opposition, he claimed, had kept this pledge in letter and spirit; and it was the first time in the history of English Parliamentary government that an Opposition had refrained from harassing Ministers. They had determined to make no criticism which might injure the country; perhaps, indeed, they had not criticised the Government enough. But he preferred this mistake to that of criticising too much. After referring to the patriotic reserve of the Press in publishing news, he said that the country[Pg 250] could gain from the war only peace, and security for that peace in the future; and for this they must have a united nation. They could look forward to the future with complete confidence; never before had British soldiers shown such devotion and heroism, and the statements as to the insufficiency of recruiting were entirely unjustified. Great Britain had got, and would get, all the men she needed without resorting to compulsion.

For a short time this unity seemed again in danger through the refusal of a section of Liberals at Swansea to accept the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (pp. 27, 33, 109) as the successor of Sir D. Brynmor Jones, who had vacated his seat on appointment as Commissioner in Lunacy. A three-cornered contest was expected; but the Chancellor declined the nomination.

The unity of the Empire was not less notable. Gifts and offers of money or local produce had poured in since the war began from the Dominions, Crown Colonies, and Protectorates, for the use of the troops or for the relief funds; and the donors comprised not only the Governments, but local groups or associations, private firms, and the population as a whole. From the Dominions came flour and meat; Rhodesia sent tobacco; Jamaica cigarettes; Montserrat guava jelly; Mauritius sugar; South African farmers fruit and eggs; the Emirs of Nigeria gave 38,000l. which was applied to the military expenditure of the Protectorate; a body of Masai sent bullocks, the Kavirondo chiefs 3,000 goats; Niue, in the Cook Islands, sent 164l. to the Empire Defence Fund and offered 200 men, the chiefs describing their island as "a small child that stands up to help the Kingdom of George V." The Somali chiefs and those of Uganda expressed their strong desire to fight for the King.

While the Empire thus drew together, two notable developments occurred in its foreign relations. The first was the formal change in the legal status of Egypt, which was declared to be—what it had long been in fact—a British Protectorate (Dec. 18). The Khedive Abbas, who had become an open enemy, and was in Constantinople, was deposed; his successor, Prince Kamel Pasha, received the title of Sultan; and a British Resident—Colonel Sir Arthur MacMahon—was appointed with the title of High Commissioner instead of, as formerly, Consul-General.

A more novel change was the despatch of a British envoy to the Vatican in the person of Sir Henry Howard, whose mission was to last till the end of the war. Its exact scope was not stated; but it seemed probable that the Pope, whose attempt to effect a truce at the front for Christmas had been frustrated by the opposition of Russia, intended in due time to offer his mediation; if so, the mission was easily intelligible. But it caused some misgiving, and not only among extreme Protestants; for it might conceivably be interpreted abroad as implying some sort of recognition of the temporal power of the Papacy.

[Pg 251]

It was commonly felt that one of the conditions of peace, whenever it might come, must be the punishment of the persons responsible for the outrages and breaches of the laws of war committed by German soldiers in Belgium and France. Much evidence of these had been collected and sifted, and on December 16 it was announced that a Committee had been appointed to consider this evidence. It was a very strong one: Viscount Bryce was the Chairman; the other members were Sir Frederick Pollock, Sir Edward Clarke, K.C., Sir Alfred Hopkinson, K.C., Prof. A. L. Fisher, an eminent historian, and Mr. Harold Cox, sometime M.P. for Bath, and editor of the Edinburgh Review.

Meanwhile it was clear that the end of the war could only be hastened by sending more men into the fighting line; and Mr. Bonar Law again spoke at recruiting demonstrations in his constituency of Bootle on December 21. He said that it had been evident for years that Germany was preparing for war with Great Britain as her final objective; because he knew it, he had said (A.R., 1911, p. 262) in the Commons that he did not believe in inevitable wars; if war came, it would be due to the want of human wisdom, and the best and perhaps the sole guarantee of peace was that one country should realise the strength of the other. He had thought that the rapid growth of Russian resources would deter Germany, but she had struck precisely because of its rapidity. Like Napoleon, she had aroused against herself the moral forces of the world. She had not merely ignored these moral forces, but despised them; hence her mistakes. The coast raid had made the British people realise that they were fighting, not a superman, but a wild beast. He eulogised the British Army; no army equal in size to the new Army had ever been raised by voluntary enlistment, nor could it have been so raised anywhere but in Great Britain. We should get all the men we needed, but, if not, compulsion would be demanded by the nation. The Earl of Derby, who also spoke, remarked that Prince Henry of Prussia, one of the heads of the German Navy, knew that Scarborough was defenceless, having visited it in 1912 as a guest.

It was unfortunate that, while so many efforts were being made to stimulate recruiting, the military authorities should have issued a circular implying that soldiers' wives would be under the special supervision of the police. This called forth indignant protests from local authorities and trade unions; but it was explained to mean that the police desired lists of the wives of soldiers, in order to treat them leniently should they be charged with drunkenness. Their increased leisure and their Government allowances tended to increase their temptations to this offence.

A fresh stimulus to patriotic feeling, however, was provided by the group of air raids which marred Christmas peace in this amazing year. On Christmas Eve a British naval airman dropped twelve[Pg 252] bombs on an airship shed in Brussels, inflicting, it was hoped, considerable damage on the Parseval airship it was believed to contain. On the same day a German aeroplane attempted to drop a bomb on Dover Castle, but missed its mark by some 400 yards, and, beyond a hole in a bed of cabbages and some broken windows, no damage was done. On Christmas Day another German aeroplane was sighted over Sheerness at 12.35 midday; aided by fog, it went up the Thames as far as Erith, probably to drop bombs on Woolwich Arsenal; but it was chased by three British aeroplanes and fired at by aircraft guns, and an exciting conflict took place within sight of Southend about 1.30; but it escaped, though probably the airman was mortally wounded. Earlier on that day a British raid of considerable significance had been made on Cuxhaven and the German warships lying off that port. Seven naval seaplanes, starting from a point near Heligoland, and escorted by H.M.S. Arethusa and Undaunted, two of the newest light cruisers, and by a destroyer flotilla and several submarines, dropped bombs on the warships and on "points of military significance." The escort was attacked by two Zeppelins and several hostile seaplanes and submarines, but the Zeppelins were easily put to flight, the seaplanes missed the British ships, and the submarines were avoided. None of the other German warships came out; the British ships remained three hours, and re-embarked three of the seven British airmen with their machines, three without them; the seventh, Flight-Commander Hewlett, disabled his machine, which had met with an accident, and was picked up by a Dutch trawler, and allowed some days later to return to England. It was believed that a Zeppelin had been hit, and that the raid, which caused great delight in England, had set up a corresponding degree of disquiet in Germany.

But these exciting episodes had no direct bearing on the fortunes of the war. Its ultimate outcome was likely to depend partly on the cohesive and combative power of the British Empire, partly on the attitude of the greater neutral nations, partly on the economic pressure exercised on Germany by the British Navy, and partly on the ability of Great Britain to adjust her trade to the new conditions imposed by the loss of her best customer and of the sources of supply of the components of many of her manufactured goods. On all these the outlook as the year closed was encouraging. The unity of the Empire had never been more conspicuously manifested, and, as the year closed, it was seen to extend even to the Sudan. Recruiting at home, in spite of the pessimists, was not officially regarded as unsatisfactory, and the difficulties in the equipment of the three (or more) new Armies were apparently being overcome. Meanwhile numbers of men past the military age or unable to enlist for other reasons were serving as special constables or organising themselves into bodies of auxiliary troops. There were signs that Italy and Roumania[Pg 253] might soon be fighting on the side of the Allies in order to share in the heritage of the tottering Dual Monarchy; the sympathy of the great mass of the neutral nations was estranged from Germany, and the complaints of British interference with their trade were not regarded as giving ground for apprehending serious friction, even in the case of the American Note (post, For. Hist., Chap. VII.). At home, serious crime had become rare, and the economic outlook was unexpectedly hopeful. The sufferings predicted by Sir Edward Grey (p. 171) had not as yet been experienced; and unemployment, owing to the demands set up by the provision of the new Armies, was far less than it had commonly been in time of peace. It was seriously felt only in the cotton trade, in a few luxury trades, and in some of the fishing ports, owing to the interruption caused by the war and the loss of the German market for herrings. Pauperism in England and Wales had risen rapidly at the outset of the war; it had subsequently declined to a point only a little above the exceptionally low figures of a year earlier; in London it was actually below them. Doubtless this temporary prosperity was mainly due to an essentially unproductive consumption which would bring its own penalties; but it seemed probable that some compensation might be found for war losses in the capture of certain branches of German trade. A movement for the production in Great Britain of goods for which British consumers had hitherto been dependent on German or Austrian industry had been favoured by the Patents and Designs Act, through which British consumers were enabled to ignore the patent rights of alien enemies, and was energetically aided by the Board of Trade, which collected and supplied the fullest possible information as to the means of carrying out the processes, and providing the components, which had hitherto been left to German or Austrian industry alone. Business had begun to adapt itself to the new conditions, and the Stock Exchange was about to reopen. Finally, the Government had carried out a number of daring measures, which had collectively averted a colossal economic disaster. Some of these, notably its huge purchases of sugar and the subsequent prohibition of the importation of that commodity (Oct. 24, p. 243) in order to prevent the sale of the German surplus, were severely criticised by orthodox economists, and set up speculation as to the possibility of a complete change after the war in the financial and commercial policy of Great Britain. But as war measures they were generally received with acquiescence. On all grounds, therefore, the British nation felt itself entitled to look forward to the issue of the struggle with quiet confidence, and to possess its soul in patience until a vigorous offensive should become possible in the spring.

[Pg 254]

CHAPTER VI.
SCOTLAND AND IRELAND.

I. SCOTLAND.

The history of Scotland during this eventful year was even more interwoven than usual with that of Great Britain in general. The war and the land and suffragist agitation affected the whole country alike, though no general scheme of agrarian reform for Scotland was yet put forth by semi-official Liberalism. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, stimulated the controversy by his attacks on the Duke of Sutherland and others (p. 14), and drew from Mr. Munro Ferguson, M.P., the notable declaration (at Inverness, Jan. 3) that if the 250,000l. spent on reclamation by the third Duke of Sutherland had been devoted to afforestation, the land would now be worth millions. The Chancellor also managed to placate the "single taxers" (p. 13), who were strong north of the Tweed. As in England, it was complained that the creation of small holdings did not proceed with sufficient rapidity, and a Bill promoted by unofficial Liberals and designed to improve the machinery of the Act of 1911, which passed its second reading in the Commons on March 13 and got through a Standing Committee, was eventually dropped for want of time. The debate on the Government of Scotland Bill (May 15, p. 104) was notable for the marked difference of opinion among its supporters regarding women's suffrage. The serious deficiency of housing accommodation for the workmen employed by the Government at Rosyth excited severe comment in both Houses and was a factor in the introduction of the first Housing Bill (p. 209). Two minor legal reforms affecting land should perhaps be mentioned: the Entails (Scotland) Act and the Feudal Casualties (Scotland) Act, making highly technical, but important, changes in the Scottish law of real property.

The movement for reunion of the two great Presbyterian Churches made further progress. Early in May the Union Committee of the Established Church issued a draft constitution as a basis for discussion. It consisted of nine articles, and it specifically defined the creed of the Church of Scotland, and declared that that Church adhered to the principles of the Protestant Reformation and of the Westminster Confession of Faith, but reserved the right to modify the expression of the Confession and to interpret the constitution of the Church, subject always to agreement with the Word of God and the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. It claimed continuity with the historical Church of Scotland recognised in the Act of Union, and it explicitly declared that the Presbyterian form of Church government was the only form for that Church.[Pg 255] It recognised that the nation as a body should render homage to God and promote His Kingdom; but it expressly claimed liberty for the Church in things spiritual. A minority Report, signed by sixteen members out of 100, proposed to define the doctrine of the Church finally and more precisely, and to insist on the principle of Establishment. In the General Assembly, however (May 26), only about half a dozen members opposed the acceptance of the Report of the majority. The United Free Church Assembly, on the other hand, authorised its Committee to continue conference with the Church of Scotland; and an amendment, in effect postulating Disestablishment as a necessary preliminary to the union of the two Churches, was supported by only fifty or sixty members in an assemblage numbering about a thousand. On both sides, therefore, the extremists were diminishing, and the old cries were losing their force.

In February a Report of the Departmental Committee on Sea Fisheries (Cd. 7221) recommended the abolition or modification of the existing Fishery Board, and the development of the fisheries by various means, including the organisation of a Statistical and Intelligence Department, the employment of a chemist to study fish curing and of representatives in foreign markets, instruction in the habits of fishes and the action of fishing gear, and in motor-boat engineering, with a nautical course for boys in elementary schools. It did not favour State loans for fishermen.

The war, as in England, considerably affected the east coast, partly through the apprehension of naval and air raids and the excitement caused by allegations of espionage and aid rendered by alien residents to the enemy (pp. 231, 239), and, more substantially, by the interference with coasting traffic, with the export of coal, with the fisheries, and, most of all, with the trade in cured herrings, through the total closing of the German market and the difficulties of access to those of the other countries of Northern Europe. The embarrassment of the traders was partly relieved by the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act (p. 196). On the moors shooting was all but suspended; and tourists were few. As in England, labour disputes were hastily composed; the coal-owners abandoned their demand for a reduction of 1s. daily in the miners' wages, and the threat of a general stoppage of work was withdrawn. A pending strike of marine engineers was given up, as were also a host of minor conflicts. "Business as usual" was the popular motto, as in England; and recruiting was active. No figures of its progress were available, but the controversy as to the propriety of a continuance of football—of which there were said to be about 10,000 professional players—arose much earlier than in England, and, under the advice of the War Office, the abandonment of matches was much more extensive (p. 247).

Trade and industry were variously affected by the war. On[Pg 256] the Clyde a decline in the shipbuilding output was inevitable after the enormous production of 1913, but many orders were in hand, and though there was some slackening of work, there was no unemployment during the seven months of peace. On the outbreak of the war, three yards, those of Messrs. John Brown & Co., William Beardmore & Co., and the Fairfield Engineering & Shipbuilding Company, were entirely devoted to naval work, and several other firms were largely engaged in this likewise. Statistics of it were, of course, unattainable, but employment was abundant; and the output of mercantile shipping for the year was 307 vessels, aggregating 460,258 tons against 370, aggregating 756,975 tons in 1913. The most notable vessels were the geared turbine twin-screw Cunarder Transylvania, 14,300 tons, built by Scott's Shipbuilding & Engineering Company, Greenock; the Anchor liner Tuscania, of similar size and engine construction, built by Alex. Stephen & Son, Linthouse; and the P. and O. liner Kaisar-i-Hind, 11,430 tons, built by Laird & Co., Greenock. As soon as the war began to look more hopeful for the Allies, new orders came, the execution of which would only be delayed by want of men. The east coast yards produced about the same tonnage as in 1913.

Of other trades a brief mention must suffice. The export of coal decreased by about 15 per cent., chiefly through the closing of the German, Austrian and Russian markets by the war. The iron and steel trade, on the other hand, was stimulated through the removal of German competition. The mineral oil trade was greatly upset by loss of markets abroad and diminished consumption by reduction of lighting and interruption of fishing, which was largely carried on by motor boats. The jute trade declined from a height previously unattained to an unusually low level, owing to the war and to restrictions on the export of yarns. The linen trade also fell off greatly. The tweed trade found compensation for the loss of the German and Austrian markets in the demand for khaki cloth for the troops.

II. IRELAND.

The first few weeks of the year saw the decay of the Dublin strike, and the conclusion of the inquiries which were its outcome into the conduct of the police and the conditions of housing in the poorest quarters of the Irish capital. The strike itself practically collapsed on January 19, with the return to work of many dockers and the reopening of the works of the Dublin Tramways Company, which had remained closed for nearly five months. The Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of the police held its first sitting on January 5. As it consisted only of two King's Counsel, its composition was regarded as unsatisfactory by trade unionists alike in Ireland and in Great Britain; and there was an angry scene on January 8, when Mr. Handel Booth, M.P. (Ponte[Pg 257]fract), who had seen the riot in August, 1913, and was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses, withdrew altogether, after a dispute with the counsel for the police. But the evidence showed that the riots had been organised, and the Commission reported to that effect, exonerating the police force generally, while admitting that some few constables had been guilty of assault and unjustifiable violence. The subject was debated on the Address (p. 30), but the Labour party declined to risk defeating the Government.

The Report of the Housing Inquiry Committee (A.E., 1913, p. 268) proved to be a very severe condemnation of the condition of the Dublin slums and of the conduct of the Corporation, some of whose members owned tenement property. Existing legislation, it declared, was neglected or abused. It condemned both the actual tenement system and the condition of the small houses, and held that every working-class family should be provided with a self-contained dwelling admitting of the separation of the sexes. It estimated that at least 14,000 new houses or dwellings were required, and it recommended, inter alia, State aid for rebuilding.

Such questions had, of course, to be left to be dealt with by a Home Rule Parliament; and this, when the year closed, was practically assured at the termination of the war, though the position of the Ulster Unionist constituencies and the precise extent of the Home Rule area were still undetermined.

The conflict has been so fully described in previous chapters that only a summary of it is needed here. Though the Nationalists ignored Mr. O'Brien's challenge at Cork (p. 6), the tendency to compromise manifested in such suggestions as those of Mr. F. S. Oliver, Sir Horace Plunkett, and many other individual publicists (p. 18), was further emphasised by the King's Speech and the debate on the Address, and found practical expression in the promise of an Amending Bill (March 9). But the Unionist apprehensions aroused through the postponement of any statement of its details, and the expectation that force would ultimately be used to overcome the resistance of Ulster, combined with the misunderstanding of the military measures contemplated by the Government to set up a grave, though temporary, danger. The debate on the second reading of the Home Rule Bill, however, further exhibited the tendency to compromise and the acceptance by the Unionists of some form of Home Rule as inevitable. The fanatics among the Ulster Unionists, too, were warned against expecting aid from Germany (p. 75), a warning, however, afterwards discredited by the conduct of the war by the German Government. The effect of the allegations as to the plot against Ulster, which were renewed in April, was considerably weakened by the gun-running from the Fanny (p. 84), which was followed by further negotiations, or approaches to negotiations, between the Unionist leaders and the Ministry with a view to the[Pg 258] partial or total exclusion of Ulster from the operation of the Bill. Agitation, meanwhile, was continued by the Unionists—- perhaps mainly as an element in driving the bargain—and roused a counter-agitation among the Liberal rank and file. Meanwhile the Irish Volunteer force had been growing, and the capture of the control of it by the Nationalist leaders converted it into a new and unexpected obstacle to the projected resistance of the Ulster Volunteers to the realisation of the Home Rule scheme. The Amending Bill (June 23, p. 135) provided for the optional and temporary exclusion of such Ulster counties as might desire to avail themselves of its provisions; but this measure was transformed by the House of Lords so as permanently to exclude the whole of Ulster from the operation of the Home Rule Bill—a solution which admittedly satisfied nobody, and which would certainly have been rejected by the House of Commons. Hence the Conference (p. 158) ascribed, rightly or wrongly, to the intervention of the King; but, after greatly narrowing (it was believed) the margin of difference, it reached a deadlock.

Just at this time Sir Horace Plunkett, well known for his promotion of co-operation in Ireland, and hitherto ranking as a moderate Unionist, published a pamphlet entitled "The Better Way; an Appeal to Ulster not to Desert Ireland," in which he declared that Home Rule was inevitable and even desirable, that it would not mean "Rome Rule," and that the exclusion of Ulster was bad in principle and might probably injure the industry and commerce of the province. Let Ulstermen, he urged, give Home Rule a chance. He restated his scheme for the inclusion of Ulster subject to an option of future withdrawal, and suggested a conference of Irishmen on the Home Rule Bill, and a scheme for combining the two sets of Volunteers in a Territorial Force.

Under other conditions, this plea from so high an authority might have proved very powerful; but its appearance was immediately followed by the failure of the Conference, and the situation was made much worse two days later by the Nationalist gun-running (July 26) and the affray in Dublin between the crowd and the police and troops (p. 162).

The situation was saved, however, by the European crisis. Doubtless the German Government counted on civil strife to paralyse British efforts at resistance to its schemes. But directly war became probable the Amending Bill was postponed; the Opposition leaders assured the Government of their support (p. 249); Mr. Redmond promised that the Nationalist Volunteers would co-operate with those of Ulster in defending Ireland, and assured the Government that it had the Nationalists' full confidence; and the contending political parties, with few exceptions, promptly rallied to the defence of the Kingdom and the Empire. The Nationalist and Unionist leaders alike used all their influence to persuade their[Pg 259] followers to join the colours (pp. 216, 229). The Nationalist rank and file were conciliated by the prospect of Home Rule and strengthened in their allegiance by the circumstance that Great Britain was avowedly fighting to protect the small nations, as well as by their traditional sympathy with France; and they were further confirmed in their attitude by the conduct of the Germans in Belgium, especially by the destruction of the great Catholic University of Louvain, with the vast collection of priceless Celtic MSS., which were among the chief sources of early Irish history. The Arms Proclamation was allowed to lapse, and the election contest at Derry, due to the death of Mr. Hogg (L.), which had been regarded with considerable apprehension, was averted by general consent. As in England and Scotland all election contests were avoided, save in one instance, due to a local dispute; in Ulster, as in England, the flow of recruits outran the provision made for them by the War Office, and by about the middle of October the Protestant districts had furnished some 21,000, of which Belfast alone had contributed 7,581 or 305 per 10,000 of the population—the highest proportion of all the towns in the United Kingdom. An Ulster Division appeared in the list of the new Armies at the end of the year.

The vigorous and continued efforts of the Nationalist leaders to promote enlistment were unfortunately opposed by small and virulently hostile bodies of extremists—Sinn Fein (A.R., 1907, p. 266), the Irish Labour party, led by Mr. Larkin, and entirely separate from the Labour party in Great Britain, some of the original promoters of the Irish Volunteer movement (A.R., 1913, p. 267), and other small groups. These bodies published papers, among them Irish Freedom, Sinn Fein, the Irish Volunteer, and the Irish Worker, distributed them and quantities of leaflets gratuitously, posted up seditious placards, sent out emissaries to discourage recruiting, and started or spread a rumour that the Government intended to institute compulsory military service, which caused a considerable emigration of able-bodied men to America in the autumn from certain areas in the West. They attempted a counter-demonstration to the Premier's meeting in Dublin (p. 215); and Sir Roger Casement, an Antrim man and a Liberal Home Ruler, who had honourably served Great Britain as a Consul and had exposed the atrocities on the Putumayo (A.R., 1912, p. 489; 1913, p. 493), was reported in November to have gone to Berlin via the United States, and to have obtained satisfactory assurances from the German Government, particularly with regard to the conduct that might be expected from a German invading force in Ireland. A prominent Irish American even stated that the Kaiser had promised Sir Roger that he would free Ireland if Germany were victorious. Sir Roger had previously tried to dissuade Irishmen from enlisting in the British Army. It was charitably suggested that, if these re[Pg 260]ports were true, his mental balance had suffered from his arduous and perilous work on the Putumayo. The extremists generally argued that the war was England's affair, that Ireland should be neutral, and that its Nationalists should co-operate with those of India and Egypt to exact favourable terms for themselves from Great Britain after her defeat, and join the Irish Volunteers against the day of reckoning.

It was suspected that this propaganda was supported by German money through Irish-American channels, and its real effect was probably not great. In parts of Ireland the "Sinn Feiners" had to retire from the Volunteer corps; many of the rural labourers who enlisted were found to be physically unfit, and it was stated that the maintenance of the Volunteers was hampered through the enlistment of their drill instructors, and that enlistment was further discouraged by the refusal of the War Office to sanction the presentation of Colours to Irish regiments or to encourage the formation of an Irish Brigade. The Government for some months ignored the seditious papers, taking the view that suppression would only advertise their efforts; but at the end of November their publishers were warned, with satisfactory results. The Labour party, however, held a street demonstration of protest in Dublin (Dec. 6) which only numbered about 600. It was overlooked by a body of the "citizen army" equipped with rifles, and stationed in "Liberty Hall," Mr. Larkin's headquarters; and it was stated that these would have been used against police interference. But the Government wisely took no notice. Mr. Larkin himself was in the United States collecting arms and money for his followers; and Professor Kuno Meyer, the eminent Keltic scholar, who had lived much in Wales and Ireland, and whose former friendships with Keltic students in the United Kingdom were repudiated demonstratively on both sides after the outbreak of war, stated in an interview that an Irish (probably Irish-American) regiment was being formed in Germany. But the whole of this seditious movement was probably of slight significance.

It was suggested that Sir Roger Casement's attitude might partly be due to disappointment at the abandonment of the projected call at Queenstown of the Hamburg-American steamers from Hamburg to Boston, which had been arranged, partly at his instance, early in the year, and was alleged to have been discouraged, for political reasons, by the British Government. More probably the reasons were commercial. The Cunard calls were definitely abandoned on February 28. In November a partial resumption was announced, but it was not kept up.

Legislation for Ireland was scanty, and a Land Purchase Bill was introduced, but withdrawn. A Labourers Act, however, was passed increasing the amount which could be expended under the Act of 1906, and an Intermediate Education Act, im[Pg 261]proving the position of teachers in the statutory schools and securing them some degree of fixity of tenure. The statistics of crime showed a considerable decline; but there were some cases of cattle-driving during the year.

The Home Rule controversy and the tension in Ulster did not seem appreciably to interfere with Irish industry and trade. It was stated, indeed, in the spring that the banks were restricting their advances to traders in view of a crisis, and that securities were at one time being transferred to London. But pauperism in March was less than in 1913 and much less than in 1910. In Belfast the huge shipbuilding output of 1913 was actually surpassed. Twenty-three vessels were launched aggregating 246,370 tons, as against twenty-four vessels of 131,916 tons in 1913. Messrs. Harland & Wolff's output from their Belfast and Clyde yards together amounted to 182,759 tons, the largest yet achieved in one year by any firm in the world. The six ships they launched at Belfast comprised the White Star liner Britannic of 50,000 tons, and five others, respectively for the Holland-Amerika, Red Star (Belgian), Aberdeen, Pacific Mail, and Royal Mail lines. Messrs. Workman, Clark & Co. built three Ellerman, two Royal Mail, two Shire and two other liners—in all nine vessels of 75,188 tons. At Londonderry four vessels were launched aggregating 12,225 tons. Among other trades, linen, previously depressed by general and local causes, was gravely interfered with by the stoppage through the war of Russian and Belgian material, and, in the case of white linens, by the loss of the German and Austrian markets; but in this trade, as in rope and twine, Government war orders were some compensation for losses in other ways. The minor industries of Belfast were vigorous. Foot-and-mouth disease again interfered occasionally with the cattle traffic to Great Britain.

SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER.
Finance and Trade in 1914.

From the observer's point of view the second half of 1914 was the most interesting period through which the City has passed. Other times had seemed difficult when the country was in the midst of labour crises, when foreign politics threatened, and when the prices of securities drifted steadily downwards; but the City has never before had to cope with so vast an upheaval as has been caused by the present conflagration in Europe. The City, at any rate, had not been organised to meet the consequences of the clash of arms, and when the blow fell not a market was unmoved. The machinery and functions of the money market and the banks, the Stock Exchange, Lloyd's and the insurance companies, the Baltic and the shipping lines, the Corn Exchange and[Pg 262] the Commercial Sales Rooms had all to be adjusted to meet the unprecedented conditions. Just as the fighting forces had to be mobilised, so had the industrial organisations to be cleared for action, for finance and commerce have been and are destined to play a great part in the mighty struggle. All the British leaders of industry were animated by two objects only: how best to assist the nation to withstand the shock of war, and how to emerge victorious. It will be interesting to consider briefly how the different sections rose to the occasion.

The eventful year opened with money becoming easy and before the end of January the Bank of England minimum rate was 3 per cent. The decline in Bank rate was accompanied by a fall in the open discount market and early in February rates dropped to 1-11/16. Then began a renewal of a demand for gold from the Continent, and the discount rate rose to 2-15/16. In March the position was again easier and with the payments of the dividends in April the rate was as low as 1¾. In May the absorptions by Continental countries were on an abnormally large scale (though their significance was not fully appreciated) and the discount rate rose to 2-15/16 per cent. After the end of the half-year the rate was easier again, but it soon advanced steadily on the reports of strained relations between Austria and Serbia.

On July 28 the fear of war involving this country became definite, and on July 30 the Bank rate was raised from 3 to 4 per cent.; on July 31 it was advanced further to 8 per cent., and on the following day again to 10 per cent. The market discount rates were nominal at from 5¼ to 5½ per cent.

Consultations took place between the Government and financial leaders, and on Sunday, August 2, a proclamation was issued providing that all bills accepted before August 4 should not be payable on their due date but should be deferred for one month. The next day an Act was passed prolonging the Bank Holiday for three more days, and on August 6 a general Moratorium was declared. This extension of the Bank Holiday was considered desirable in order to give the banks and discount houses time to consider their position and to discuss the question of currency. As an emergency measure an issue of Treasury notes in denominations of 1l. and 10s. was offered to the banks up to 20 per cent. of their deposit and current accounts. For these notes interest at Bank rate had to be paid. The first issue was made on August 7, when the banks reopened. On that day large deposits were made by the public and there was little sign of any nervousness. At first the banks took nearly 13,000,000l. in notes, but the bulk of these were soon returned, and by the end of the year the amount held by them had been reduced to only 169,000l. Postal orders, without poundage, were also made legal tender, but were soon withdrawn from circulation. [The arrangement was formally terminated on February 4, 1915.] On August 7 the Bank rate[Pg 263] was reduced to 6 per cent. and on the next day to 5 per cent., at which it remained.

The Government announcement respecting the discounting of bills was made on August 13, and a very large business was transacted, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to announce later that of 120,000,000l. which was sent to the Bank of England less than half was likely to remain in "cold storage" at the end of the year. The case of merchants who had money owing to them abroad, all of which during the war would obviously not be paid, was hard, and, in order to avoid disaster, the Government announced a scheme early in November, providing that in approved cases advances not exceeding 50 per cent. of the amounts outstanding should be made to them by means of six months' bills; 75 per cent. of any loss was to be borne by the State and 25 per cent. by the Banks.

On December 4 the Moratorium came to an end.

At the end of the year the stock of gold shown in the Bank return showed a large increase at nearly 70,000,000l. (exclusive of 18,500,000l. earmarked for the Currency Note Reserve), as compared with 35,000,000l. at the end of 1913. A large proportion of the stock at the end of the year represented gold held in financial centres of Britain beyond the seas on account of the Bank, until arrangements could be made to ship it to this country.

A notable development during the peaceful period of the year was a further series of banking amalgamations, including a fusion between the famous houses of Messrs. Coutts & Co. and Messrs. Robarts, Lubbock & Co.

Immediately after the outbreak of war Parliament voted a credit of 100,000,000l. and between August and November 90,000,000l. in bills were issued. These were mostly in six months' bills, and were placed at average rates ranging from 2l. 18s. 6d. to 3l. 15s. 6d. In November the issue of the great War Loan for 350,000,000l. was successfully made, the issue taking the form of stock at 95 per cent., redeemable in 1925-8, and bearing interest at 3½ per cent. The net yield was 323,000,000l., which sum was intended to include the repayment of the Treasury Bills issued. A notable feature of the terms of the War Loan was that the Bank of England undertook to make advances up to the amount of the issue price at 1 per cent. below the current Bank rate.

Early in January, the Stock Exchange indulged in a little "boom," but towards the end of February a reaction set in and from then until the outbreak of war markets were extremely dull. The Ulster crisis, severe depression in South America, and the failure of the Canadian Agency and the firm of Chaplin, Milne, Grenfell & Co. were depressing influences. Throughout July markets were under the cloud of foreign political complications, and on July 24 the Austrian Note to Serbia caused serious alarm[Pg 264] and an immense number of selling orders. In the end of July the settlement was completed with no more serious consequences than the failure of nine firms, involving twenty members. On July 31 the Committee, in response to many representations, decided to close the House. Minimum prices for Trustee stocks were fixed by the Committee on September 14, based on the quotations current on July 30, the main object being to prevent undue depression. Arrangements were made in consultation with the Treasury for carrying out the mid-August settlement on November 18, special rules being issued. The Banks, in return for the assistance they had received from Government, undertook to continue loans during the war without extra margin, while other lenders were granted advances up to 60 per cent. from the Bank of England.

Consols, which were quoted at 71-5/8 at the end of 1913, were actually higher on July 27 at 72¼ and at the end of 1914 stood at 68½, this, however, being the Stock Exchange minimum price, and nearly all representative securities showed substantial falls.

On December 23 the announcement was made that the Stock Exchange would reopen on January 4, with stringent provisions designed to prevent sales by the enemy.

One notable development following the outbreak of war was the breakdown of the foreign Exchanges. This meant that while it lasted oversea commerce was paralysed. In New York, owing to the large sales of American securities in Europe, sterling exchange rose at first to the extraordinarily high level of $6, and Sir George Paish was deputed to proceed to the United States to discuss measures to relieve the situation. Cargoes of grain and other produce were not bought, and consequently there was almost a complete cessation of chartering. Gradually the position was righted, and early in September business was being done in a quiet way. From then freights, which had been abnormally low during the summer, began to rise and continued to do so.

The rise was, in the main, due to a lack of tonnage in certain routes. The short supply was caused by the acquisition of many hundreds of vessels by the Government for various purposes; the inability of the German mercantile marine to take any share in the world's carrying trade; and the loss of a certain number of British ships sunk by the enemy's vessels or through striking mines. Towards the end of the year the position was very seriously aggravated by congestion at British and continental ports. The enlistment of large numbers of skilled dock labourers in the Army, the reservation of certain ports and docks for military requirements, and the accommodation necessary for the Government's large purchases of sugar, all combined to make the position difficult. Ships were kept for long periods waiting their turn to discharge, and it was not uncommon for vessels to be in port three or four times as long as usual. These delays un[Pg 265]doubtedly detracted somewhat from the extraordinarily high rates which were being secured. The most striking rate was perhaps that of the carriage of grain from Argentina. As compared with a rate of 12s. 6d. per ton quoted just before the war, 50s. was paid by the end of the year, and this figure was far short of the prices that have since been paid. The rate for coal from Newcastle to London which had been as low as 2s. 6d. rose to about 13s. 6d. As some relief for the situation, the Admiralty made arrangements to put a considerable number of enemy steamers which had been detained in this country at the outbreak of war into the coal trade. These vessels, as soon as crews could be found for them, were placed on the market, and did not have any effect in reducing the high rates. A few enemy steamers which had been captured at sea by British warships were sold by auction as prizes. Sums which were considered abnormally high were bid for them, but it is reasoned that while freights continue on the level current at the beginning of this year they should prove satisfactory acquisitions to their owners.

The question of maintaining oversea commerce received the prompt attention of the Government. Many people connected with the shipping industry had fully expected that the outbreak of war would find a large number of fast German cruisers at large and ready to prey upon British commerce. Shipowners had themselves made certain provisions, but only of very limited scope. They had formed certain mutual clubs in which ships were to be insured against war risks only until their arrival in safety in British or neutral ports. This arrangement would obviously not have had the effect of keeping ships at sea and maintaining oversea commerce as in peace times, which, in the Chancellor's opinion, was a vital necessity. The recommendations of the sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence were therefore put into operation at once. The proposals dealt separately with hulls and with cargoes. The State undertook to accept re-insurances from the clubs on ships up to 80 per cent. of the values, receiving in exchange 80 per cent. of the premiums. At first rates of 1¼ and 2½ per cent. were quoted for the single and double voyages respectively, but these after a few weeks were reduced to 1 and 2 per cent. Similarly a premium for a three months' time policy was reduced from 40s. to 30s. per cent.

The recommendation of the sub-committee respecting cargoes was, briefly, that the State should undertake to insure merchandise in British vessels at premiums which should not be below 1 guinea per cent. and should not rise above 5 guineas per cent. A special office was established at the Cannon Street Hotel and began to transact business on the afternoon of Wednesday, August 5. At first the maximum rate of 5 guineas per cent. was quoted; three days later the rate was reduced to 4 guineas per cent., and it was again reduced within short periods, until on[Pg 266] September 1 it stood at 2 guineas per cent. At that level the rate remained until the last day of the year, when it was reduced to 1 guinea per cent.

All this time underwriters and insurance companies had been transacting a very large business at rates which were as a rule below the Government quotation. The Government scheme only applied to cargoes in British vessels, and then only to British vessels which were insured against war risks with associations approved by the Government. The State Office also would not insure vessels which had already left port. A large field was therefore left open to private enterprise, apart from the business which naturally flows to the cheapest market. For several months an enormous business was written on cargo across the Atlantic at only 5s. per cent., which compared with the Government quotation of 1 per cent. Coasting and other short voyages were also written at rates substantially below the Government quotation. It is understood that for the first six months, at any rate, underwriters had no reason to regret their operations in war insurance. Marine casualties were comparatively light and the year for marine underwriters may be regarded as an exceptionally good one.

The magnitude of oversea commerce may in the circumstances be regarded as highly satisfactory. For the twelve months imports showed a decline of 9.2 per cent.; exports of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom a fall of 18 per cent.; and re-exports of foreign and colonial merchandise a drop of 12.8 per cent. If the figures of the last five months alone be taken into account the imports declined by 20 per cent., the exports by 41 per cent., and the re-exports by 32.7 per cent. It should be remembered that the export trade was diminished by the embargo placed on many products, and also that the figures do not show the merchandise exported for the use of the Army and Navy. Taking the import and export trade the total values amounted to 1,223,000,000l., a decrease for the year of 180,000,000l.

All the railways of the country were taken over by the Government on the outbreak of war under powers conferred by the Regulation of Forces Act of 1871, the administration being placed in the hands of an executive committee of railway managers with the President of the Board of Trade as chairman. In return for the immensely important services rendered by the companies in conveying troops and stores throughout the country the Government agreed, if the receipts for 1914 were less than those for 1913, to pay such sums as, together with the net receipts, should bring them up to the level of 1913. On the other hand, if the receipts for the first half of 1914 were below those for the corresponding period, the amount to be paid by the Government was to be reduced accordingly.

Prices of foodstuffs, including wheat, generally were advanced[Pg 267] considerably at first, but declined when trade settled down into more normal conditions and on the regulation of retail prices by boards representative of the different trades which were appointed by the Government. Towards the end of the year prices again advanced, and in many cases closed at the highest points touched. One of the most interesting of the many measures taken by the Government in financial and commercial spheres was the purchase of sugar to replace the million tons of beet sugar which would normally have been imported from Germany and Austria. Roughly, about 900,000 tons were bought for refining and manufacturing purposes and for direct consumption, and, though the Government plan was criticised on the ground inter alia that high prices were paid, it has been widely recognised that but for the prompt action it would have been difficult to obtain adequate supplies, except from tainted sources. A Royal Commission was appointed to determine the selling prices, and a prohibition was placed on importation of all sugars, in order to prevent supplies reaching here from enemy countries through neutrals and indirect payments in return through similar channels. Evidence that Germany was receiving tea through neutral countries led in November to the prohibition of exports from this country, the action being similar to that previously taken in the case of rubber.

Life assurance companies were deeply affected by the war. As a result of joint deliberations they resolved to make no additional charge for war risks to all their policy-holders who had, as civilians, assured and have joined the Active Forces. For new policies it was at first decided to charge an additional rate of 7l. 7s. per cent. This rate was based on the experience of the South African War, but it proved inadequate for the risks of the Continental fighting. Gradually offices began to raise the extra rate, and by the end of the year some were quoting 12l. 12s. per cent. or even more, or were declining to write the business at all. A suggestion that the Government should assume the war risk did not meet with the approval of the Treasury, since it was considered that the Government was doing all that could be expected of it by increasing the payments to widows and other dependants of those who fell in the war.

The most urgent problem facing life offices was that of the heavy depreciation in their securities. This matter is being dealt with by the offices according to their individual views, but it is interesting to note that permission was given to them by the Board of Trade to show in their certificates the prices current as on December 31, 1913. Immense sums have been written off by the Banks for depreciation, and the policy of persistently feeding the reserves in past years will now stand all the great financial institutions in good stead.

Cuthbert Maughan.

[Pg 268]

FOREIGN AND COLONIAL HISTORY.

CHAPTER I.
FRANCE AND ITALY.

I. FRANCE.

Gambetta was fond of expounding to his friends a theory which about the year 1875 appeared sufficiently paradoxical—viz. that of all the European nations, France was the one readiest to submit to discipline and authority. He used to add, however, that she would only do so on one condition—that the leader should inspire confidence among his following. This assertion was definitively and emphatically verified in France in 1914, not only from the military point of view, but from the political.

In the political life of the nation a persistent tendency, remarked in former volumes of this work, was noticeable both before and after the general election towards the organisation of parties in a definite framework and with specific aims. At the beginning of August the war instantly suspended everything not in perfect harmony with what was termed "the sacred union of all Frenchmen in the face of the enemy." The same ardour that had been displayed by all the citizens for the success of their respective sentiments and interests in the sphere of politics was directed to the performance of their duties as patriots. The state of siege, the censorship, and the military dictatorship, were accepted by the whole people without resistance.

At the opening of the year the Republicans of the Left, who did not accept the decisions of the Radical-Socialist Congress of Pau (A.R., 1913, p. 291), succeeded in establishing that Federation of the Left of which the formation had been announced after the advent of the Doumergue-Caillaux Ministry. M. Barthou, M. Briand, and M. Millerand were its principal leaders in the Chamber, M. Ribot and M. Jean Dupuy in the Senate. The most compact group, which formed as it were the centre of gravity in the new association, was the Democratic Alliance, led, for several years past, by M. Carnot, brother of the former President of the Republic. Its framework was sound; it remained to be seen whether it could raise a sufficiently solid body of adherents and candidates to deprive the Radical-Socialists of their majority.[Pg 269] Just as the session began, M. Briand was elected President of the Federation. The election of the officers of the Chamber was awaited with some curiosity as to whether the Radical-Socialist party would claim the Presidency for one of its own members. But it did not do so. M. Paul Deschanel was elected unopposed, receiving 379 votes. For the Vice-Presidencies, M. Étienne, a former War Minister, and a member of the Democratic Left, and M. Dron, a Radical representative of the Department of the Nord, were the only members chosen at the first ballot. At the second the Abbé Lemire was returned, the majority desiring to afford him satisfaction for his persecution by the Clericals of his Department and the Bishop of Lille on the ground of his Republicanism. Finally M. Augagneur, a Republican Socialist, was elected, by a narrow majority, on the third ballot. Thus, in the secret voting, the Radical-Socialists were beaten (Jan. 13). In the Senate, the struggle was much less acute. M. Antonin Dubost was re-elected unopposed to the Presidency, and the posts of Vice-President, Secretaries, and Questors, were apportioned according to the traditions of courtesy customary in that Assembly.

The work of the Legislature was begun by the inconvenient method of breaking up the debates and alternating portions of them, on subjects of the most divergent natures, in the programme of the Chamber. The Bill providing for the defence of the secular character of the schools and the method of securing attendance was, however, passed, after the rejection of the amendments supported by the deputies of the Right; but one of its essential points, the transfer of the appointment of teachers from the Prefect to the school authorities, was separated and postponed to a future period. Another Bill, equally important for the future of the nation, that for the limitation of the number of public-houses, was repeatedly revised and mutilated; and the Friday lists of interpellations were overloaded, and the militant spirit of M. Jaurès aroused, by the ever-recurring topic of the Ouenza mines. The Senate had before it two great questions: the income-tax, and electoral reform. The ideas dominant at the Luxemburg were in explicit contradiction with the decisions taken at the Palais-Bourbon. The discussion of the income-tax ranged over a remarkably wide field. The majority of the members agreed in regretting that, at the very moment when the Government was urging the Upper House to begin discussing the question of an income-tax, it had laid before the Chamber a proposal for a levy on capital, the provisions of which must modify the measure which that House had already passed. This was playing into the hands of the opponents of the reform.

As regarded the Electoral Reform Bill, the antagonism between the two Houses was equally acute. The Senate Committee rejected the Government measure by a large majority, and the pending general election seemed likely to be still conducted under[Pg 270] the system which so many competent observers had condemned, without, however, agreeing on a substitute. In view of this eventuality the parties were already defining their attitudes. At the end of January the Socialists met in Congress at Amiens. They declared themselves against the revival of the former Combist bloc (A.R., 1902, p. 264; 1904, p. 253) and decided that the Unified Socialists should put forward candidates in every constituency, in order to ascertain the numbers of their adherents. The programme to be laid before the electors was to contain in any case three essential articles: (1) "opposition to militarist and capitalist imperialism," i.e. immediate repeal of the law enacting three years' military service; (2) a Franco-German understanding; (3) the maintenance of the secular character of the schools. Should a second ballot be necessary, the Executive Committee of the party left the Departmental Federations to decide whether agreements should be entered into with the middle-class Republican parties, but these latter must be required to adopt the three obligatory articles stated above. The Committees of the Right, on their part, proposed to organise, under the name of a national inquiry, what really amounted to a plébiscite on the method of election to the Chamber. M. B. Pugliesi-Conti invited that House to do this (Jan. 30); M. Jaurès caused general surprise by supporting him. The motion was opposed by the Prime Minister and by M. Briand, and rejected by 389 to 164.

An incidental feature of the debates in this first period was the prominence of military and colonial questions. Thus on January 28 the Chamber had unanimously voted the loan of 230,000,000 francs for the Morocco Protectorate. Public opinion, again, was so strongly manifested against the intention ascribed to the Russian Putiloff Company of placing itself under the control of Krupps in order to increase its capital, that the French Government intervened to prevent the German firm from becoming concerned in the manufacture of artillery for Russia. Finally, throughout France the keenest attention was directed to the discussion in the Senate on the interpellation on military aeronautics supported by the Senator representing the Department of the Loire, Dr. Emile Reymond, an eminent surgeon and a noted airman (Jan. 23, 27, 30). The serious defects indicated by the various speakers were admitted by the War Minister, M. Noulens, who formally promised to remedy them. As a security that this should be done, the Senate passed a resolution regretting the faults of organisation existing in this service, and expressing confidence that the War Minister would effect the necessary reforms by giving it autonomy.

It was only on February 9 that the Chamber reached the discussion of the Budget of 1914. By 440 votes to 67 the general debate was omitted in the hope of gaining time. The Departmental Estimates and the Reports of the Committees upon them[Pg 271] were successively brought before the House with unusual speed. But this commendable zeal did not last. On February 13, M. Lachaud addressed an interpellation to the Government on the sanitary condition of the Army, and adduced information on the housing of the troops, particularly in the Eastern departments, and on its consequences, of so grave a character that the Prime Minister was obliged to intervene in the debate. He asked the Chamber to suspend the discussion, and to vote the sums necessary to improve the clothing of the troops and their barracks. But all he could obtain was a postponement for eight days, during which most of the Votes were hastily passed. The revelations made when the debate was resumed (February 20-23) were so serious that the Government did not venture to ask for a vote of confidence. M. Augagneur then moved the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. M. Abel Ferry proposed that this Commission should merely inquire what improvements could be effected while the Government should take measures against the persons responsible for the state of things revealed. The Chamber agreed to this solution by 389 to 29. The Government had evaded the conflict. It did not venture further to risk its fortunes in the Senate on the income-tax question. The general debate on this had taken up almost all of the Friday sittings from January 20 to February 25. All the party leaders successively had spoken: M. Caillaux and M. Ribot had faced one another in a striking passage of arms: and the competence and talent of the Upper House had been proved once more. The general debate over, the Senate decided by show of hands to pass to the examination of the clauses of the Bill. M. Perchot, one of the Radical leaders, put forward an amendment establishing impersonal taxes (impôts réels) on incomes of every class and a complementary tax on the aggregate income of every head of a household. It was opposed by M. Aimond, Senator for the Seine-et-Oise, and Reporter-General of the Finance Commission, and by M. Ribot, and supported by the Ministry. The Prime Minister, M. Doumergue, read a declaration asking the Senate to pass it, inasmuch as it corresponded to the wishes repeatedly expressed by the other House, and urging them, besides, to pass the pending fiscal reforms before the general election. He studiously avoided raising the question of confidence, and the amendment was rejected by 140 to 134. Next day, February 26, the Senate, to prove that it was not opposed to all reform, whether just or otherwise, adopted the first and second articles of the Budget; the land tax was profoundly modified in a manner favourable to small proprietors; it had been assessed by the Departmental and local authorities so as to produce a total amount fixed by the Legislature: it was now imposed at a uniform rate throughout France. A reduction of one-ninth was accorded to all income from agriculture.

The same evening, in a banquet organised by the Democratic[Pg 272] Republican party, M. Barthou set forth the electoral programme of the Federation of the Left—maintenance intact of the law reimposing three years' service in the Army; defence of the secular character of the schools, but without making education a State monopoly; representation of minorities. The Ministry in its turn scored a success in the Chamber (Feb. 27). M. Caillaux, replying to an interpellation on his financial policy, vindicated himself in one of his best speeches. He made a brilliant defence of his administration, boasted that he had restored order and abolished confusion in the revenue, and successfully met the attacks of M. Briand and M. Millerand; he was sustained by a majority of 329 to 214. Clearly the Radical-Socialist party and its Socialist allies were determined to maintain at all costs the Doumergue Ministry to conduct the elections; but it was equally clear that the real leader of the Ministry and its party was M. Caillaux, and it was against him that the Opposition concentrated their efforts, in the conviction that his overthrow would deprive the Government of its head. Full of confidence in his own talents and in his star, the Finance Minister exhibited a marvellous boldness in his manœuvres; thus, on March 4, when invited by the Senate Committee on the Income-Tax Bill to appear before it, he declared that he agreed with it in favouring the exemption of French Rente from taxation; the 3 per cent. Rente immediately went up. But next day in the Chamber, replying to an interpellation by M. Jaurès, M. Caillaux declared that he had merely reserved this question, and that he was firmly resolved to put a tax on Rente, as on every other kind of income.[5] A fall in Rente followed, and rumours of a most unfavourable character were circulated, though it was impossible to prove that the successive interpellations on the financial policy of M. Caillaux had facilitated speculative manœuvring on the Bourse. In any case it was regrettable that these charges had some verisimilitude, and the result was a marked revival of the Press campaign carried on for some months previously against him. The Figaro directed the attack; almost every day its political director, M. Gaston Calmette, produced documentary evidence of various alleged malpractices which M. Caillaux declared was not authentic, but it related to so many charges and was so precise that it greatly influenced public opinion, and weakened M. Caillaux's position. Finally, the conflict was concentrated on the part played by M. Caillaux in the Rochette case of 1911. It was whispered in well-informed circles that the Public Prosecutor in the Paris Court of Appeal had been requested by M. Monis, then Prime Minister, to grant M. Rochette, a company promoter, a delay in the prosecution for fraud instituted against him, and that, thanks to this, [Pg 273]M. Rochette had been able to start various fresh enterprises which had brought disaster on small investors. In the sitting of March 13, M. Delahaye, a member of the Right, introduced a motion inviting M. Caillaux, whose intervention had determined M. Monis to take the step referred to, to take legal proceedings against his accuser. The motion was opposed by MM. Doumergue and Jaurès, who alleged that it was merely a political manœuvre, and the Order of the Day, pure and simple, was voted by 360 to 135. But some days later (March 16) Madame Caillaux called at the office of the Figaro and shot M. Gaston Calmette dead with a revolver. This mad act necessarily entailed grave consequences. That evening M. Caillaux tendered his resignation, and M. Doumergue, after a hesitating resistance, was constrained to accept it. The Rochette affair was taken up again. In the Chamber, M. Delahaye formally demanded that the Government should either dismiss the Public Prosecutor, M. Fabre, or should compel him to take proceedings against the papers which accused him of showing undue favour to the accused. Seldom had sitting been more tumultuous or more passionate. M. Monis was questioned as to his attitude, and formally denied that he had intervened in the matter. Thereupon M. Barthou drew from his portfolio the letter drawn up by M. Fabre relating to the step in question and subsequently sent by him to the Minister of Justice. The Chamber then unanimously passed a motion reviving the powers of the Committee of Inquiry, but investing this body with judicial power, i.e., the right of administering an oath to the witnesses summoned before it, and, if necessary, of proceeding against them for giving false testimony. Naturally M. Monis was obliged to resign, and the Ministry was reconstructed. M. Renoult passed from the Department of the Interior to that of Finance, M. Malvy from that of Commerce to that of the Interior, M. Raoul Peret, Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of the Interior, became Minister of Commerce, and M. Gauthier, a Senator, succeeded M. Monis as Minister of Marine. Amid this whirlwind the work of the Legislature had not been suspended, and the Chamber had accomplished, after a fashion, the discussion of the Estimates of expenditure and had passed various social measures—a Bill organising a system of loans to small traders and manufacturers, the extension to women not paid by salary of the law providing a period of rest for women after their confinement, and the continuance to widows of the old-age pensions which had been allotted to their husbands. The Senate firmly maintained the positions it had taken up. On March 10 it voted the scheme of electoral reform elaborated by the Commission, which established scrutin de liste pure and simple; and on the 13th it rejected the tax on Rente by 146 to 126. Some days later it decided that the new tax on personal property, with the exception of Rente, should come into force on and after July 1, and that the reduction of[Pg 274] taxation on properties not built upon, agreed on by the two Houses, should take effect from January 1, 1916. Similarly two reforms were at last disposed of which had been for years shuttlecocked to and fro between the Chamber and the Senate. One concerned the measures to be taken to secure the secrecy of the ballot; the other restrained the abuses of bill-posting in the elections. The rest of the debates in the Chamber were less interesting; members showed that they were preoccupied with the elections. Thus, in passing the Finance Bill the system of licences to publicans was abolished, increases in salary were accorded to teachers, and allowances to postal servants, in spite of the factious attitude adopted by the associations and unions of these servants of the State. Finally the income-tax, which the Senate had not finally voted, was incorporated in the Bill. As it was evident that the Senate would not even begin considering the Budget of 1914 till after the general election, it seemed good policy—as is usual at the expiry of a legislature—to give pledges of liberality on the part of the Chamber to the most influential elements in the electorate. While this periodical comedy was played in the Legislative Chamber, a drama of greater poignancy was bringing into conflict the most conspicuous personages in the political and judicial world. M. Jaurès presided over the Commission; before it there testified successively, and were confronted with one another, three former Prime Ministers, the Procureur-General of the Court of Appeal, the directors-in-chief of leading Paris papers; and the result of the proceedings was a general conviction that in March, 1911, the Monis Ministry really had intervened to save a company promoter of questionable character from prosecution. The scandal caused was immense. In its sitting of April 3, the Chamber, after a short discussion, passed the following Order of the Day: "The Chamber, taking note of the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry, condemns improper financial interference in politics and political interference in the administration of justice, affirms the necessity of a law making membership of the Legislature incompatible with other employments, and is resolutely determined to secure more efficaciously the separation of the powers of the State." The unanimity with which this formula was accepted deceived no one, for it was the Chamber that was responsible in the main for the encroachments of the legislative power on that of the Executive and the Judiciary, and it was known beforehand that no effective check could be applied.

The Legislature separated on the same day, after having voted supplies on account for May and June. To all the scandals of the session it added another by terminating its existence without having performed the elementary duty of passing the Budget for the current year. That circumstance alone was sufficient to deprive its censures of all authority.

[Pg 275]

The electoral period began, in accordance with the law, on Sunday, April 5. The outward aspect of the conflict was not without interest, though less picturesque than the Italian elections of the year before (A.R., 1913, p. 305). In the first place the law regulating bill-posting effected a real revolution in the mural propaganda. No longer did posters of many hues adorn the public monuments, the pedestals of statues, and sometimes the statues themselves: no longer did bills settle in the night like butterflies on houses up to their very tops, or fasten on the trees on the boulevards, one overlying another; there were no more battles between bill-posters; the municipal authorities allotted to each candidate an equal surface, measured out very sparingly, according to the number of the population. It was an egalitarian revolution in political manners, assuring that the poorer candidates and organisations should no longer have their views smothered. On the other hand, the campaign was much more severe than at the previous election both for the candidates and for their organised supporters. The political meetings at which speeches from opponents were invited were at least three times as numerous. The Unified Socialist party exhibited an activity which the other parties were forced to imitate. Three questions were prominent: the law re-establishing three years' military service, the income-tax with the declaration of the payer subject to official revision, and proportional representation. The result was that candidates' professions of faith did not generally possess the encyclopædic character or reach the extravagant dimensions exhibited in former contests—a proof that political education had progressed far enough to compel candidates to abstain from promises covering the possible, the impossible, and the purely Utopian.

The Ministerial programme was awaited with much curiosity. M. Doumergue was called upon by M. Millerand to declare definitely for or against the three years' service law and proportional representation. At first he observed a prudent silence, being, as a Senator, exempt from submission to the popular verdict at the polls. He declared that the Government ought to observe the neutrality which he had recommended to the prefects, but which they carried into practice hardly at all. M. Clemenceau, rather maliciously, added his entreaties to those with which the Prime Minister was persecuted, and on April 29, at a banquet at Souillac, M. Doumergue spoke for the benefit of the electorate. As every one expected, he attacked the Barthou Ministry, charging it with having obtained support among the enemies of the Republic: he boasted that he had himself secured the passing of a reduction of taxation on property not built on; he praised the fiscal reform effected, was very vague on the subject of the three years' service law, and declared himself distinctly adverse to electoral reform by proportional representation, even going so far as to eulogise the system of single-member districts which had[Pg 276] been so universally attacked. This speech added nothing to the prestige of the Government, and contributed but slightly to the guidance of its supporters in the pending conflict. At the beginning of the electoral period the Radical-Socialists seemed in an awkward position; attacked mercilessly by the Socialists and the Conservatives, they were in danger of losing a portion of their habitual allies, i.e. the Republicans of the Left, through the coalition formed under the auspices of the triumvirate consisting of M. Briand, M. Barthou, and M. Millerand. But an evolution took place of which the effects were destined to make themselves felt more especially at the second ballot. Brilliant in oratory, active at the very first, possessing abundant resources generously supplied by the members of the new Republican aristocracy, controlling almost all the leading Parisian and provincial papers, the Federation of the Left rallied to its support very many discontented and restless middle-class voters. But dissensions arose between its leaders; M. Briand and M. Barthou did not entirely agree. The latter endorsed candidates whose past career did not entitle them to term themselves Republicans of the Left, and who were also patronised by allies of very questionable political hue. The instance which excited most comment was that of M. Jean Richepin, who carried on a campaign of a most romantic character against M. Caillaux's friend, M. Ceccaldi, in the Aisne. Moreover, on the first ballots only 349 members were elected out of 602. Every party hastened to claim a victory, for the most conspicuous of the outgoing deputies had been re-elected almost everywhere. All the members of the Cabinet had been successful. M. Caillaux, who at the outset had withdrawn from the contest, had altered his decision and, after a hard struggle, had beaten his adversary.

After this there was the question of the second ballots. The Radical Socialists offered the Executive Committee of the Unified Socialist party to support its candidates in all constituencies in which they had even a single vote more than those of the party whose headquarters were in the Rue de Valois, and M. Ferdinand Buisson, one of the most respected of the Radical leaders, set the example by issuing a notice, the very day after the first ballots, inviting all his supporters to concentrate their votes on M. Navarre, whose defeat on the second ballot would otherwise have been certain. The Socialists refused to go back on the decisions taken at the Amiens Congress; the departmental federations retained full power to determine their own attitudes, a position which gave full play to personal enmities, and in many constituencies favoured bargains of the strangest kind between Socialists and reactionaries. The number of Revolutionary Socialists who owed their success to these combinations was estimated at at least one-third of the whole (May 10). Whether "improperly elected," as those were termed in the language of the Chamber who owed their success[Pg 277] to these dealings, or loyal representatives of sincere convictions, the Unified Socialists had none the less achieved a great success. They numbered 102 in the new Chamber; the Unified Radicals were 136; the Independent Radicals 102; the Democratic Alliance 100. The members of the various groups of the Right amounted altogether to no more than 132.

A Ministerial majority might, therefore, have been formed by combining all those deputies whose programme might be summed up in the formula, "Neither revolution nor reaction." The President of the Republic found himself faced by this problem when the summer session of the new Chamber opened. During the electoral contest M. Poincaré's authority had lost nothing. He had scrupulously kept to the part assigned him by the Constitution above party conflict. While it went on he had, as usual, proved on occasion a brilliant representative of the nation. At the end of April he had received the King and Queen of Great Britain, at the end of May the King and Queen of Denmark. The people of Paris had welcomed the British Sovereigns with enthusiasm, the Danish Sovereigns with cordiality. On May 24 the President had personally inaugurated the admirable Civic Exhibition of Lyons, and had delivered an impressive speech on the attributes and function of the head of the French Republic.

The correctness of his attitude had, moreover, found its reward in the fact that the question of the abolition of the Presidency of the Republic, which had formerly been prominent in the Radical and Socialist programmes, had now almost entirely disappeared. How, in the face of the new Legislature, would the essential prerogative of the Head of the State be exercised—the designation of the Prime Minister? In the first place, what would be the attitude of the Chamber? and what indication would it afford by the choice of its officers? While M. Poincaré went to Rennes to the meeting of the Federations of Gymnastic Societies, and defended the law reviving the three years' term of service, the Chamber began its session on Whit Monday (June 1) and, after an address from its oldest member, the Baron Mackau, it elected M. Deschanel, by 401 votes, Provisional President, and then proceeded hastily to the work of verifying the elections of its members. In two sittings, the Committees had examined a number of elections, and declared more than half its members to be duly elected. The regular officers of the Assembly were elected on June 4. The groups had agreed on the division of the appointments; the Right and the Extreme Left, i.e. the Unified Socialists, had no share in them. The strictest discipline was observed, and in a few hours the work was completed. M. Paul Deschanel was elected President by 411 votes, the largest number ever given for a President of the Chamber since the establishment of the Constitution.

The Ministry had already retired. Scarcely, indeed, had M. Poincaré returned from Brittany when M. Doumergue tendered[Pg 278] its resignation, rather against his colleagues' will. After some hours of consultation with personages representative of public opinion, M. Poincaré entrusted the formation of a Cabinet in the first instance to M. Viviani; but the latter failed owing to a persistent refusal to co-operate on the part of two young Unified Radical deputies, M. Ponsot and M. Justin Godart, who demanded a promise that the two years' term of military service should be restored after certain measures for giving military training to the youth of the nation should have taken effect; and they refused to accept M. Viviani's reservation, "should the condition of foreign relations permit." M. Deschanel, M. Delcassé, and M. Jean Dupuy successively declined the task; ultimately M. Ribot agreed to attempt it, and on June 9 the Cabinet was formed. It contained no Radical-Socialist, the group having definitely refused to co-operate. M. Ribot took the Presidency and the Ministry of Justice; M. Leon Bourgeois had accepted the post of Foreign Minister, M. Jean Dupuy Public Works, M. Peytral the Interior, M. Delcassé War, M. Chautemps Marine, M. Clementel Finance. The other posts were assigned to deputies who had never previously held office. The new Cabinet was immediately repudiated by the Radical-Socialist group, which determined to address an interpellation to it at once, and gave all its own members imperative instructions to vote against the Ministry. M. Dalimier was charged with the task of setting forth the reasons for this opposition. On Friday, June 12, the Premier read the Ministerial declaration in the Chamber, while M. Peytral communicated it to the Senate, which received it with courtesy. Far different was its reception in the Chamber, and the sitting that day, at which the German and Italian ambassadors, M. von Schoen and Signor Tittoni, were present in the seats reserved for representatives of foreign States—a circumstance which attracted much attention—was among the most astonishing in Parliamentary history. The venerable M. Ribot, whose physical strength was not equal to his courage, and the senior member of the Radical party, M. Leon Bourgeois, were insulted, scoffed at, interrupted at every sentence. To secure a hearing amid this organised tumult would have required the powers of an O'Connoll, or at least of a Gambetta. The "grand old men" who had accepted the task of governing were physically incapable of compelling the assembly to hear them. However, though individual extravagances found full expression, when the vote came to be taken party discipline made itself felt. Two Orders of the Day were proposed; one, purely political, by M. Dalimier and M. Puech, declaring the Chamber resolved to give its confidence only to a Cabinet capable of uniting the forces of the Left; the other by M. Combrouze and M. Pierre Berger, affirming the necessity of maintaining the three years' service law and pursuing a policy of fiscal and social justice and of defence[Pg 279] of the secular character of the schools. M. Ribot demanded priority for the second; the Radicals claimed it for their own resolution, and it was on this question of procedure that the conflict took place. By 306 to 262 the Cabinet was defeated. Amid indescribable disorder the Ministers left their seats. In other days, as an example of the instability of Ministries under Louis Philippe, it had been usual to cite the Duke de Bassano's Cabinet (Nov., 1834) which had lasted three days. M. Ribot's Cabinet, in spite of the talent of its Premier and his chief colleagues, had not endured even as long as that.

Its place was soon filled. The day following, M. Poincaré summoned M. Viviani, who at once accepted the task. His first step was one of pure courtesy; he offered a place to M. Combes, who refused, stating that he remained absolutely opposed to the three years' service law. The other political personages applied to by M. Viviani were less uncompromising. M. Messimy and M. Augagneur, who had taken a leading place among the opponents of the law in 1913, now agreed to carry it out loyally. On June 14 the Journal Officiel published the names of the new Cabinet. M. Viviani took the Presidency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; M. Bienvenu-Martin, Justice; M. Malvy, Interior; M. Noulens, Finance; M. Augagneur, Public Instruction; M. Renoult, Public Works; M. Thomson, Commerce; M. Fernand David, Agriculture; M. Couyba, Labour; the three departments of national defence were entrusted respectively, War to M. Messimy, Marine to M. Gauthier, the Colonies to M. Raynaud. There were five Under-Secretaries of State—M. Abel Ferry, Foreign Affairs; M. Jacquier, Interior; M. Lauraine, War; M. Ajam, Mercantile Marine; M. Dalimier, Fine Arts. Two days later (June 16) the Ministry presented itself in the Chamber with a declaration on the military law which left no room for uncertainty; it also affirmed the necessity of an immediate loan, and announced its intention of pursuing the policy of social and political reforms which had been victorious at the polls. An interpellation was at once addressed to the Prime Minister; in replying, M. Viviani, who manifestly had the wind in his favour, took the offensive, and declared emphatically that, if he should be still in office in October, 1915, he would not release the class which would then be completing its second year of military service. Heckled by M. Jaurès and M. Vaillant, both Socialists, and by M. Franklin Bouillon (Left) and M. Paul Beauregard (Right), he in no way modified his attitude. An Order of the Day presented by M. J. L. Breton, Socialist Republican, was accorded priority by 362 to 139. At the end of the sitting, M. Noulens introduced a Bill sanctioning a 3½ per cent. terminable loan of 800,000,000 francs. The Ministry was successful; the Socialists then proceeded to obstruct. At the sitting of June 18, during the discussion on the date of an interpellation dealing[Pg 280] with the sinking of the soil in several quarters in Paris owing to the work on the Metropolitan Railway, the disorder and noise were so great that M. Deschanel was obliged to suspend the sitting. Some days later a modification was adopted in the rules of the Chamber which gave ocular demonstration of the tendency of parties to impose a stricter discipline on their members. The Journal Officiel, by an innovation which attracted some notice, had given the list of the eleven groups composing the Chamber. It was decided that, instead of members seating themselves wherever they individually pleased, they must sit in the sections assigned to their respective groups. This was a return to the old tradition of the Revolution, which had given the terms Right, Left, and Centre their current political significance. It might be hoped that the change would facilitate the work of the President of the Chamber.

Meanwhile the Senate had worked hard at the Budget, which had been so unfortunately delayed; and the Government speedily obtained the vote of the loan of 805,000,000 francs (including expenses of issue) designed to enable it to pay off the Treasury Bonds. The various sections of the Estimates of Expenditure were adopted almost without alteration. On the subject of the Estimates of Revenue the discussion was more active. The Finance Committee, supported on this occasion by M. Ribot, asked the Senate to follow the Chamber in including in the Budget a clause involving the application of the income-tax (Art. 7-27), the declaration made by the taxpayer to be subject to official revision. In spite of the opposition of M. Touron, M. Lhopiteau, and M. de Selves, the Senate passed this important innovation, though without fully accepting the text bequeathed to it by the defunct Chamber. On July 8 it finished the discussion of the Budget; and for a whole week the two Reporters-General of the Budget Commissions, M. Clementel in the Chamber and M. Aimond in the Senate, had to use all their diplomacy to induce the two Houses to agree. In these laborious sittings M. Noulens, who was making his first appearances as Finance Minister, strove to obtain concessions from all quarters and to discredit the unfavourable forecasts of the Opposition. He confidently affirmed that the deficit of 1914 would not exceed 207,000,000 francs, which would be covered by short-term obligations; that the reception of the loan had been wonderful, and that it had been subscribed forty times over. The credit of the French State had thus shown no decline.

While the Chamber was revising the Finance Bill, the Senate had to deal with a question of no less importance. M. Charles Humbert, a Senator from Lorraine, addressed an interpellation to the War Minister dealing with the bad state of the matériel of the artillery, and the grave revelations he made caused M. Clemenceau to sum up the impression made on his mind in the[Pg 281] severe comment, "We are neither defended nor governed." M. Messimy, the War Minister, and after him the Premier, vainly attempted to modify the impression produced by the debates on this subject, and found themselves obliged to agree to an inquiry by the Senate Commission on the Army, which was requested to report when the Chambers reassembled in October. The impression made by these debates was considerable, both in France and abroad. Finally, on July 15, after a few meagre concessions accorded by the Chamber, and a much greater number extorted through the weariness of the Senate—notably in regard to increased salaries and allowances for teachers and postal employees—the Budget of 1914 was passed. It reached the formidable amount of 5,191,861,991 francs (about 207,674,479l.). But it is useless to give details of it, for it had almost at once to be completely set aside in consequence of the war. Its great innovation, the first application of the tax on income from movable property (valeurs mobilières), was also destined to be shelved, for the financial Administration eventually found itself unable to set up the system of assessing the new tax in time.

The Chambers broke up on July 15. Immediately President Poincaré, accompanied by M. Viviani, left on his important journey to Russia and the Scandinavian countries which had been postponed owing to the length of the Parliamentary Session, and which the force of circumstances was destined considerably to abridge. M. Bienvenu-Martin, who as Minister of Justice was Vice-President of the Cabinet, also took the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ad interim. It was a heavy task, complicated by serious incidents at home. The very day the battleship France arrived at Cronstadt (July 20) the jury of the Seine assembled to try Mme. Caillaux. During eight sittings, the dramatic and romantic circumstances of the affair, the revelations as to the political and private life of M. Caillaux himself, made by the testimony given and the documents read in court or passed round in the lobbies, made the Palais de Justice, at first at any rate, the centre of keen and impassioned attention. But all these scandals were pushed into a secondary place, and the acquittal of the accused woman aroused but few protests, in view of the anxiety caused by the enigmatic attitude of Germany in the Austro-Serbian dispute. On arriving in Sweden M. Poincaré was obliged to break off his intended journey to Norway and Denmark, and he reached France on July 29. His return was impatiently awaited; but unfortunately the evil was now past remedy. All the efforts of the French Government and its diplomatic representatives, in concert with the British and Russian Foreign Offices, failed to induce Austria-Hungary, in her demand for satisfaction for the murder of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, to respect the sovereignty of Serbia, or to induce Germany to influence her ally towards peace. M. Dumaine, the French Ambassador at Vienna,[Pg 282] had vainly called the attention of Baron Macchio, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs at Vienna, to the anxieties aroused in Europe by the concentration of eight army corps along the Danube and Drina, and by the information circulated regarding the Note prepared by the Austro-Hungarian Chancellery. The answer given him was that the demands formulated, and their tone, would admit of the expectation of a pacific solution, and M. Jagow had told M. Jules Cambon, the French Ambassador at Berlin, that he did not know its wording. While the authorised representatives of the Triple Entente were concerting their measures, Austria-Hungary was acting; and on Thursday, July 23, it sent a Note to Belgrade, inviting the Serbian Government to agree to its demands within forty-eight hours. France made efforts to gain more time, but M. Jules Cambon informed the French Foreign Office that Germany was mobilising secretly, and M. Paléologue, the French Ambassador at St. Petersburg, gave his opinion that the only means of preventing the Germanic Powers from emphasising their provocative attitude lay in the demonstration of the solidity of the Triple Entente. In the result France associated herself fully and loyally with the efforts of Russia and Great Britain to avert the conflict and obtain an extension of the period accorded to Serbia for her reply, and also to persuade Germany to exercise a conciliatory influence at Vienna. All these overtures encountered manifest ill-will and the utmost coldness. The diplomatic breach between Austria-Hungary and Serbia took place on July 29 at the appointed hour; France at once gave her adherence to the steps suggested by Sir Edward Grey to prevent hostilities and to secure by the intervention at St. Petersburg and Vienna of the four disinterested Powers, that the Russian and Austrian Armies should not advance beyond their own respective frontiers. These efforts were paralysed by the hostility of Germany; Herr von Schoen, while declaring that his Government did not know the intentions of Austria-Hungary, gave it to be understood that Germany would not try to influence her ally. This attitude, and the information received from London, Berlin, and Rome, made France understand that the situation was hourly getting worse. Thus matters stood when M. Viviani resumed the direction of foreign affairs (July 30). While expressing the hope that peace might still be preserved, he declared clearly that, if Russia were attacked by Germany, France was resolved to fulfil all her obligations as Russia's ally. In response to the military measures taken in Germany, the Government hastened its preparations; but several days had been lost, and already the covering troops of the German Army were massed all along the frontier between Luxemburg and Alsace. To avoid any frontier incident, the French troops were ordered to leave a zone of ten kilometres between their outposts and the boundary line. But all the con[Pg 283]ciliatory proposals were rejected either at Vienna or at Berlin. Telegrams exchanged between the Tsar and the German Emperor merely convinced Russia that Germany had made her decision. On the morning of July 31, a general mobilisation was decreed at Vienna; for a few hours it was nevertheless hoped that Germany and Austria-Hungary would nevertheless draw back before the consequences of a declaration of war against Russia: Vienna hesitated, Berlin decided; and on Saturday, August 1, at the moment when Austria consented to enter into a discussion with the Powers regarding the basis of the ultimatum addressed to Serbia, Germany required Russia to countermand within twelve hours all the measures of mobilisation already taken. M. von Schoen invited France to state if she would support Russia.

Germany, which had already prepared for her general mobilisation by announcing the condition of "danger of war" (Kriegsgefahrzustand), decided on August 1 to proceed to this mobilisation, and at the same time her troops entered Luxemburg under the pretext of protecting its railways against occupation by French troops; and the German Ambassador at St. Petersburg delivered the declaration of war with Russia, thus rendering useless the negotiations between Vienna and the Powers of the Triple Entente. France then ordered a general mobilisation of her own forces, and applied to Great Britain, who undertook to protect the coasts of the Channel and the Atlantic against attack by the German Fleet (p. 171), The day following, German troops entered the territory of Belfort, and Germany required the Belgian Government to declare, within seven hours, whether it was disposed to facilitate German military operations against France. Finally, on August 3, at 6 P.M., Herr von Schoen delivered a letter to M. Viviani, notifying him that a state of war existed between Germany and France. M. Cambon was then instructed by the French Government to demand his passports and leave Berlin. To the last, and even in the practical details relating to international courtesies, the methods of Germany and of France were conspicuously different; M. Schoen was taken to the frontier by a special train—of which the Germans kept possession for several weeks; M. Cambon was subjected to treatment unworthy of a country with knowledge of the practices customary between civilised States.

France was faced by the most formidable war in her history. She courageously prepared to carry it on. The Government summoned the Chambers for Tuesday, August 4. The sitting was destined to have a decisive influence on the whole subsequent course of events; it showed how profoundly the German aggression had altered the opinion of the whole of France. All the disquieting forecasts which seemed to be supported by the debates in the Chambers and the party conflicts were found to be wholly[Pg 284] falsified. M. Raymond Poincaré, who some days earlier made a personal appeal to King George V. to use his great influence in favour of peace, the French Ministry now asked for the armed intervention of Great Britain in the interest of the future equilibrium of Europe. The German entry into Belgium compelled Great Britain to declare herself. The Triple Entente was transformed into an alliance, while the Triple Alliance broke up, inasmuch as Italy refused to be drawn into a war declared without consulting her. At this momentous juncture the attitude of France upset the calculations of her enemies. They had counted on two great causes of her inferiority, want of artillery and internal disturbance. As to the first, it was true that the German heavy artillery was greatly superior in the early days of the war, but, to compensate for this, the French troops, brought into the field a light artillery weapon, the 75-millimetres cannon, of which the manufacture had been hurried on in the utmost secrecy, thanks to an understanding between the Government and the Parliamentary Committees on the Army and the Budget, and of which the mobility, precision, and rapid fire contributed in no small degree to sustain the moral of the troops. Moreover, a vigorous impulse was given to the production of howitzers and long-range cannon which in a few months made up for the initial inferiority of France in these weapons. The dangers arising from internal disturbance and unrest were obviated very soon. The attitude of the trade unionists, and even of the Socialists, caused some anxiety to the Government. Towards the end of July the Executive Committee of the International had met at Brussels and had declared against the war. It had decided to hold a kind of congress at Paris on August 9; but the declaration of war caused this to be given up. An attempt at a trade-unionist demonstration in the streets of Paris had been forcibly suppressed by the police, with the entire approval of the public. Other attempts at disorder were made under the guise of patriotism, and a number of shops and stores were plundered; some arrests were made, and it was found that the nationality of some of the agitators was questionable. The murder of M. Jaurès by a wretched youth whose mental balance had been upset, had not the terrible consequences that there had been reason to apprehend. On the contrary, the horror manifested by the entire Press, the full justice done to the victim in impressive fashion by the Prime Minister, the loyal attitude taken up by the Socialist party, converted this great disaster into an opportunity for an imposing exhibition of the unity of the nation. But legislative sanction was required for the measures of public safety that the war compelled the Government to take. The Chambers met on August 4. On the previous day there had been some changes in the Ministry. M. Viviani, thinking—and quite rightly—that he would be fully occupied in the general superintendence of affairs, turned over the Foreign Ministry to M. Doumergue. M. Gauthier, for[Pg 285] reasons of health, left the Ministry of Marine, which was taken by M. Augagneur. M. Sarraut, a deputy and Governor-General of Indo-China, became Minister of Public Instruction. This rearrangement was not altogether happy. It left the Cabinet distinctively Radical at a moment when it would have been desirable to summon the two men whose return to office was hoped for by the public—M. Delcassé and M. Millerand. For a few days longer personal and party animosities kept them out.

The sitting held on the historic date of August 4 was profoundly impressive. President Poincaré's message and M. Viviani's address were received with enthusiastic acclamations; and the Bills necessary for national defence were passed unanimously without debate. There were eighteen in all; mention may be made of the following. One authorised the Government to issue decrees in Council of State opening the supplementary and extraordinary credits required by the needs of national defence, subject, however, to approval by the Chambers within the fifteen days next after their reassembling. Another provided for the grant of allowances to necessitous families of mobilised soldiers. A third authorised the extension of the note issue of the Bank of France from its actual figure of 6,800,000,000 francs (272,000,000l.) to 12,000,000,000 francs (480,000,000l.); another prolonged the period at the termination of which commercial bills would fall due. Another established the state of siege in France and the colonies. Another, again, permitted the incorporation either of commissioned officers or of privates of the Territorial Army into the Field Army, or conversely. Finally, there was a Bill to put a stop to indiscreet revelations on the part of the Press. When the Government had been invested with these very extensive powers, the Chambers were prorogued sine die, and the whole strength of the country rallied to meet the crisis, unprecedented in history, which had imposed this sudden strain. In the very first days of the war reassuring symptoms appeared. The Press resigned itself to strict censorship; the preparations for mobilisation were soon seen to have been skilfully co-ordinated; within a few days the regiments of the second line were ready to leave to rejoin the covering troops already stationed along the frontier. The great work of concentration was carried out with a marvellous punctuality and precision which aroused general admiration. The Northern and Eastern Railway companies adapted themselves most skilfully and readily to a task which was made even more complicated in that the German violation of the neutrality of Belgium compelled the French General Staff to make its principal effort in a different direction from that contemplated beforehand. The King of the Belgians on August 4 had appealed to France, Great Britain, and Russia to co-operate for the defence of Belgium as guarantors of its neutrality, and had declared that the defence of the Belgian fortresses would be undertaken by Belgium herself. There was,[Pg 286] therefore, reason to expect that the abrupt German attack in the north would be so retarded by the resistance of Liège and Namur as to permit the British and French forces to come to the assistance of the Belgians. Consequently it was decided that the French Armies should take the offensive in Alsace and Lorraine in such a way as to attract to this region the greatest possible number of the invaders. As it was stated that Austria-Hungary had sent Slav regiments to the Rhine, France recalled her Ambassador, M. Dumaine, from Vienna, and gave the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador in Paris, Count Széczen, his passports on August 10. By prolonging the ambiguity of her attitude for nearly a week, Austria-Hungary had hoped to compel France to declare war on her, and thereby to enable her to call on Italy to fulfil her treaty obligations. This measure, however, proved futile; for, by her despatch of troops, and especially of howitzers, Austria-Hungary had manifestly taken the initiative in making war.

While Belgium was holding back the invasion by the north, the French Army on the extreme right made its way into Alsace by the Gap of Belfort and the passes of the Vosges. It was commanded by General d'Amade, who had previously been in command of the Corps of Observation in the Alps, and who was available for other service owing to the certainty that Italy would remain neutral. The first conflicts were favourable to the French. Altkirch and Munster were carried, and on August 6 the French outposts were enthusiastically welcomed at Mulhouse. But the forest of the Hardt and the heights situated beyond the town had been protected by a very strong system of defences. While General Joffre, the French Commander-in-Chief, issued a proclamation promising the Alsatians that they should be restored to France, the German Commander, General von Demling, was strongly reinforcing his defensive positions, and the French were overwhelmed by a heavy artillery surpassing their own field guns in number and range. They fell back; the people of Mulhouse, who had openly welcomed them, were shot by the Germans without mercy. General d'Amade was superseded by General Pau; but it was recognised that it was through inadequate information that his advance had failed; and some days later he was sent to Arras. General Pau made great efforts to resume the attack, he was supported by part of the troops from Algeria, who had crossed the Mediterranean without incident, and had been brought to the front with praiseworthy speed by the Paris, Lyons and Mediterranean Railway; and also by the Chasseurs Alpins, for whom on the South-Eastern frontier there was nothing now to do. By three weeks' desperate fighting the French recovered the plain of Alsace up to the gates of Colmar, and obtained control of the high valleys of the Vosges. But meanwhile the armies of the Ardennes and Lorraine were attacked by forces so greatly superior that the continuance of the work of liberating Alsace had to be given up.[Pg 287] General Pau was ordered to retire. He contested every step of his retreat; created positions defending the passes through the Vosges, furnished General Thévenet, the Governor of Belfort, with the troops necessary to hold the enemy in check between the Ballons and the Swiss frontier, and emerged from the struggle with his prestige increased. On August 26 the French offensive in Alsace was suspended; and up to the close of the year this region took a secondary place. Strongly defended by the 21st Corps, whose officers had previously familiarised themselves thoroughly with the country, and by the Alpine troops, it became as it were the bastion on which the extreme right of the French Army might safely rest.

More serious consequences resulted from the miscalculation made by the French Government on the front towards Lorraine and Belgium. As it had expected a sudden attack directed on the right bank of the Meuse and along the Moselle, the bulk of the French forces had been divided between the Vosges and the Meuse. French Flanders was, at the very first, left undefended. The town of Lille was protected only by forts of which the construction dated as far back as the first conceptions formulated in 1875; not one was constructed of concrete or provided with cupolas. The heavy guns had been partly sent to the fortresses of the North-East or to the sea front. Maubeuge was better off, though its defences were not equal to those of Verdun, Toul, or Épinal, which were fairly good. Now, if the invasion came—as it actually did—by the left bank of the Meuse and the Gap of the Oise, the defensive position of the North would serve as a point of support to an army threatening the flank of the invader. Were this point of support lacking, the French would be in great danger of having their left flank turned. This danger was destined to influence the whole of the first part of the campaign, after the repulse of the French attempts to advance. In fact, contrary to the expectations entertained at the outset, the Army of Lorraine, under General de Castelnau, had not been attacked since hostilities began. Holding back the army of the Crown Prince of Bavaria, which had crossed the Schirmeck and Donon passes in the Middle Vosges, and was advancing on Lunéville, it had succeeded in forming before Nancy a very strongly entrenched front, which became famous as the Grand Couronné of Nancy, and then had moved forward in the direction of Metz. On August 12 it attacked the Germans at Pont-à-Mousson and Pagny, and drove them back on its left, while on the right it retook Blamont and Cirey, and then advanced rapidly on August 16 and the days following, retook the passes of St. Marie-aux-Mines and Bonhomme, occupied Sarrebourg, and pushed its cavalry forward as far as Château-Salins. But on August 20 it found itself confronted with the entrenched camp at Morhange, and met with a serious check. Its attack was stopped short by forces superior in[Pg 288] number, and some of its units were seized with panic. The energy of the commanding officers coped successfully with these weaknesses, and the retreat on Nancy was carried out in good order. By successive stages, General Castelnau retired on the defensive positions of the Grand Couronné of Nancy, and held it with vigour. For three days (Aug. 22-24) his position was most critical, and his army suffered heavy losses. On the 25th reinforcements arrived under the command of General Dubail. The environs of Nancy were freed of the enemy by a decisive counter-attack; and when, a fortnight later, the German Emperor himself came to preside over a series of desperate efforts to capture the capital of Lorraine, it was too late. The Grand Couronné held out; and the Germans were compelled to evacuate Lunéville, which for several days they had occupied. Nancy, Toul, and Verdun thus formed as it were a barrier serving as a support for the victorious right wing of the French Army while holding back the tide of invaders pouring in from Luxemburg and Belgium.

On the west centre General Joffre, the Commander-in-Chief, had, as it proved, to face terribly severe ordeals. On August 10 the Crown Prince William's army had entered France by the Gap of Tiercelet; it had invested Longwy, carried Spincourt, and encroached on the fortified area of Verdun; but the unexpected resistance of Longwy and the invincible strength of the advanced works of Verdun delayed its march, and thus permitted the armies of Generals Bülow and Von Kluck to play the leading part during this period of the war. These two generals had made their way into Belgium, and found themselves faced by the two armies of General Ruffey and General de Langle de Carry, which had the British Expeditionary Force on their right, supported by General Lanrezac. On August 15 Dinant was occupied by the French wing, which General Joffre had been compelled to push forward beyond the lines of defence he had chosen. It took more than a week for the two armies of Generals Ruffey and de Langle de Carry to reach the front. The great conflict took place on August 22, on the wooded plateau extending along the right of the Meuse. The Germans had had time to entrench and to bring up heavy artillery, the effects of which for a time upset the French resistance. The French losses were immense; some army corps, the 11th among others, lost almost all their officers, and were compelled to retreat. The Germans advanced rapidly by both banks of the Meuse. The fall of Namur (Aug. 25) and the sanguinary conflict at Charleroi enabled them to enter France. Their daring tactics, their use of armoured motor-cars, their superiority in machine-guns, above all the overwhelmingly large proportion of their effectives, allowed their opponents to do no more than honourably contest the ground, retreating all the time. On August 24 General Lanrezac retired on Givet; on the 25th the British Army took up a position of resistance to the invaders on the line Cambrai-Le Câteau[Pg 289]-Landrecies; but the day following it was attacked by five German army corps, and, in spite of the admirable behaviour of General Smith-Dorrien's division, it was compelled to continue its retreat. The situation of the Anglo-French Army then became extremely critical. It was threatened with envelopment on its left flank by a great turning movement of the enemy, who had masked Maubeuge and were pouring in by the North. Contrary to the views of General Percin and General d'Amade, and at the request of the civilian authority the fortified town of Lille had been declared an open town on August 24 and hastily evacuated. Flanders and Artois were swept by the cavalry and the advanced guard of the German Army; the bulk of the troops were advancing by stages of forty to forty-five kilometres daily (twenty-five to twenty-eight miles). All seemed lost.

This news produced an immense effect in Paris and throughout France, although the official bulletins were sparing of information, curt, and ambiguous, and no other source of intelligence was permitted by the censorship. General Joffre complained that he was thwarted in his plans by the War Minister; the Ministry seemed too exclusive in its composition at a time when mere politics were out of season. M. Viviani recognised the need and rapidly took his decision. On August 26 he announced to his colleagues that he proposed to resign, a step which entailed their doing likewise; but in his case it was a mere feint, for he was at once charged to reconstruct the Government, and on August 27 the Journal Officiel published the list of the new Ministry of National Defence. M. Viviani remained Prime Minister; M. Briand became Minister of Justice and Vice-President; M. Delcassé triumphantly returned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in place of M. Doumergue, who became Colonial Minister; M. Ribot became Minister of Finance, M. Millerand Minister of War, M. Sembat took the Ministry of Public Works, succeeding M. R. Renoult, M. Bienvenu-Martin was given the Ministry of Labour in exchange for that of Justice; the five remaining posts were retained by their previous holders. To emphasise the wide range of the new combination, M. Jules Guesde, a Unified Socialist, was made a Minister without portfolio. As the Chambers were not sitting, the new Government published a manifesto to the French people. "A conflict is in progress which, though of supreme importance, is not decisive. Whatever the issue, the struggle will continue. France is not the easy prey imagined by the insolence of the enemy." The Ministry was well received. M. Clemenceau himself gave M. Delcassé some degree of welcome. The "sacred union" came to find a more sure foundation in the common danger. General Joffre grew even greater amid his trials. The energy he exhibited was beyond belief; and, what was perhaps a phenomenon without precedent in France, he remained popular although he required his armies to undertake the thankless task of retiring while fighting, and of[Pg 290] abandoning the richest and most populous regions of the country to the German invasion and German atrocities. Admirably supported by his subordinates and by General French, he superintended, without an instant of weakness, the strict execution of his programme. It consisted in holding on and lasting out; avoiding any decisive battle until the moment when the elements needed for success should all be present together, but giving ground without a real combat, so that the retreat should present the appearance of a calculated manœuvre, and not of a compulsory flight. Thus General Lanrezac and the British troops gave battle and fought hard at Guise and St. Quentin, while, on the extreme left, the army which General d'Amade had begun to reorganise passed under the command of General Maunoury, disputed inch by inch Picardy and the Beauvais region, and retired on Paris, while the troops of the 1st and 2nd military depots were gradually removed towards Brittany. Similar measures were taken in Champagne. General Langle de Carry and General Ruffey gave battle, and suffered heavy losses, respectively near Chateau-Porcien and Bazeilles; and the splendid behaviour of their troops retarded the progress of the enemy, and enabled almost all the rolling stock of the railways to be saved, with important results for the subsequent operations of the war. Finally General Dubail, firmly based on the fortresses of Lorraine, harassed the left flank of the Crown Prince's army, and the delay he caused to it proved to be an important factor when the decisive encounter took place before Paris.

In spite of their efforts, the French Generals did not succeed in stopping the furious inrush of the invaders. Paris was threatened, and, what mattered even more, the railways were choked. The great railway stations from which the traffic was regulated, and whose working in August had exhibited a marvellous activity and power of adaptation to new conditions, began to be overwhelmed with traffic. The provisioning of Paris and its suburbs was endangered. The civil and military authorities were overwhelmed by the influx of fugitives from Belgium and the invaded French districts, who fled in terror before the German atrocities. In these critical circumstances great energy was displayed by General Gallieni, the Governor of Paris, and by M. Delanney, the Prefect of the Seine. For a moment the idea had been entertained of declaring Paris an open town and making a stand farther back. This idea the new Ministry abandoned, and formidable outworks were improvised in advance of the forts of the first line of defence. Steps were taken systematically to clear the city of non-combatants; the numerous departmental associations in Paris undertook to despatch to the remoter provinces all the families who had originally come from them, while the roads radiating from the capital swarmed with motor-cars carrying wealthy families to the seaside resorts on the Channel or the[Pg 291] Atlantic. These families had been unobtrusively encouraged to leave by the municipal authorities, or had fled before the rumours spread by unknown means. On September 2 the Government left for Bordeaux, and the people of Paris learnt next day from a proclamation by General Gallieni, as laconic as it was emphatic, that he would do his duty to the end. But there was no need: for meanwhile the great Battle of the Marne had begun, and it was destined to relieve him from the necessity of imitating Palafox at Saragossa or Rostopchin at Moscow.

General Joffre had decided to retire, if necessary, as far as the Seine to check the invader, but a series of favourable circumstances enabled him to give battle before Paris on the North, and along the Marne and the Grand Morin on the South. At the moment when people were expecting to see the German masses press on the northern front of the entrenched camp of Paris and attack it by the space intervening between the forest of Montmorency and the Marne, they were seen to be turning abruptly to the South-East and transferring their efforts to the line of the Ourcq, Meaux, and Coulommiers. All was ready for its reception. On the left General Maunoury, reinforced by the troops of the Army of Paris and having on his right the British forces and those of General Lanrezac, now under the command of General Franchey d'Esperey, was about to hurl himself on the German right. At the centre was a new army formed since August 20 and placed under the command of General Foch, charged to hold the line between the Marne and the tertiary cliffs; it was faced by General Bülow's army. Finally on the right General Langle de Carry's and General Ruffey's armies, the latter now commanded by General Sarrail, were ready to receive the Crown Prince, who slackened his pace in his devastating march through Champagne. On the evening of September 5 General Joffre issued his famous Order of the Day: "A body of troops which cannot advance must at all costs keep the ground it has acquired, and be shot down where it stands rather than retreat. Under present circumstances there must be no giving way." On September 6 the fight began all along the line from Nanteuil-le-Haudouin at one end to Vitry-le-François on the other. The Germans advanced as far as Coulommiers and La Ferté-Gaucher, but, while the British stopped them at the crossing of the Grand-Morin, General Maunoury forced them back all along the Ourcq, and the Prussian Guard lost very heavily in the marshes of St. Gond. After five days of furious attacks the Crown Prince's army gave way, and, on the morning of September 11, General Foch re-entered Châlons-sur-Marne in triumph. Bülow and Kluck had been drawn farther back, and the French Commander-in-Chief was able to announce to the Army and to France that the battle was won. Paris was saved.

Meanwhile the Government had established itself at Bordeaux, and had invited the members of the two Chambers to go there[Pg 292] also, to keep in touch with it. Most of the deputies for Paris had preferred to remain among their constituents, and, as the session had been closed by decree, the presence of deputies or senators on the banks of the Garonne involved more inconvenience than advantage. There was some idea of sending the best speakers among them about the country to explain the origins of the war and the vicissitudes of the campaign; but the Press, in spite of censorship, was amply sufficient for this work; and the Ministry, though it prepared the two chief theatres of Bordeaux to receive the Chambers, if needful, abstained from subjecting itself to their control. This course, however, was approved by the great majority of the nation, which evinced a praiseworthy spirit of resignation amid the varied trials imposed on it by the war. Gradually France became accustomed to the idea that the conflict would last much longer than that of 1870, and that firmness and endurance were needed in the spheres of economics and diplomacy as well as in the actual warfare. The hardest task fell to M. Ribot, the Finance Minister. Means had to be found of supporting not only the Army and Navy, but the civil population, in order to protect from need those families whose bread-winner had been mobilised, and even those impoverished through unemployment. In the first days of the war committees had been formed to provide allowances for women deprived of a husband or son, and for their young children. These committees had adopted different rules in different places, and their proceedings gave rise to acute complaints. It was determined that the State should make itself responsible for the support of the families of the men mobilised, that the municipalities, aided eventually by the State and the departmental authorities, should provide subsidies in aid of the unemployed, whether by gifts in money or aid in kind—food, fuel and clothing. Great service in these circumstances was rendered by the Bank of France, whose aid was the more appreciated inasmuch as the issue of National Defence Bonds which the Treasury had striven to arrange on the first days of the war had not found entirely adequate response. The Ministers of War and of Public Works, M. Millerand and M. Sembat, were harassed by complaints on the subject of transport; the victualling of the Army and the provisioning of the towns seemed likely to be paralysed by the overcrowded condition of the railways and the ports. In defiance of the censorship, M. Clemenceau actively attacked the abuses set up by political or social favouritism, through which a considerable number of young men evaded their duty as patriots, and remained ensconced in the public offices, or were rejected on medical examination through favouritism. Provision had also to be made to replace the immense quantity of ammunition and war material consumed on the battlefields. The indefatigable War Minister grappled with the difficulties, the manufacture of heavy guns was pushed on with amazing energy,[Pg 293] and ample amends were made for the inferiority from which the French troops had suffered so severely in the first days of the war. General praise was expressed, too, for the skilful management of the supply services; the Army, well fed and largely strengthened by new levies, was enabled confidently to continue its work. It knew that the conflict would go on until exemplary chastisement had been administered to the aggressor. Far from keeping "the nation in arms" in ignorance of the causes and vicissitudes of the gigantic struggle in which it was engaged, the Government established and issued an "Army Bulletin," in the preparation of which the most eminent writers held it an honour to take part, and which gave the troops the most essential items of news and kept up their hope and emulation.

This, indeed, was eminently needed, for the warfare was just about to take on a new character little in accordance with the instincts of the French soldier. After the victory of the Marne, the Germans had at first been pursued vigorously, in spite of the fatigue and the losses suffered by the Allied troops. The Crown Prince's army had been thrust back into the forest of Argonne and was with difficulty holding its ground before Varennes; it held in great strength the commanding mass of hills known as Montfaucon, and was being considerably reinforced; but, in the centre, the French on September 13 hurled themselves against a formidable line of entrenchments, of which the eastern pivot was formed by the forts of Reims, while its right was supported by the quarries of the Soissons district. The forts of Reims had been precipitately dismantled by the French in the early days of August, and subsequently restored by the Germans; the quarries had been minutely explored for a long time before the war by German spies, and recently furnished with powerful guns. A new battle now began, termed the Battle of the Aisne. It was destined to last till the end of September; and it comprised two series of operations. One set was tactical; the armies whose alignment has been described above—General Dubail's in Lorraine, General Sarrail's in the Woevre region, General Langle de Carry's in the Argonne, and General Franchey d'Esperey's in the Reims district, forced back the troops opposed to them step by step, and fought battles in which the chief part was played by artillery, and which consisted in attacks and counter-attacks designed to carry fortified positions. General Maunoury and Sir John French held the Soissons district and made their way slowly along the Aisne and the Oise. But the Germans put new troops in the fighting line, and brought back from the Eastern front part of the forces taken from the Western front in August to clear East Prussia of the enemy. Further, they withdrew troops in considerable numbers from the northern Vosges, and sent the army of the Crown Prince of Bavaria to the north-west. All this caused strategic movements, responded to by similar manœuvres on the side of the[Pg 294] French. The Germans took the initiative as occupying a central position, while the French line overlapped theirs. They strove, therefore, to turn it, and to envelope the Allies' left. General Joffre replied by a rapid change in the position of his effectives. Reinforcing General Dubail's army by new regiments formed in the West and centre of France, and filling in full measure the gaps left in his former units by drafts from the depots, he despatched General Castelnau's army to the right of the Oise, where it took the place vacated by the British troops. These latter proceeded to cover Artois and Western Flanders, together with General Brugères' Territorials and the rest of the troops that could be spared from Lorraine, under the command of General de Maud'huy. These movements were carried out with great precision; and, by a curious coincidence, the French regiments from Lorraine found themselves faced by the same Bavarian troops that they had fought between Épinal and Nancy some weeks before. Thus was accomplished what has been termed the race to the sea, and a definitive check was given to the plan of the German General Staff for enveloping the French left.

While these immense movements of troops were being effected, the conflict raged, more especially at the centre, where General von Kluck was striving to break the junction in the square marked out by the French lines. Firmly established in the forts at the north of Reims, he had revenged himself for his inability to capture the town by bombarding the cathedral, on which, from September 13 to the end of the year, the work of destruction was to be persistently directed every time that a German attack was repulsed. In the Soissons district furious attacks were sustained by the British troops. The Battle of the Aisne, taken as a whole, ended in a success for the Allies, for the discomfiture of the Germans was such that the Emperor deprived General von Moltke of his post as Chief of the General Staff, replacing him first by General Voigts-Retz, then by the Minister of War. The Crown Prince, who had not been very successful in the conduct of the operations on the left, was replaced by General von Einem, and, after a mysterious eclipse, was sent to the Eastern front. The weakness of the German Army lay in the inadequacy of the chief command.

During October the chief interest of the struggle centred in the northern area of the war. The Belgian Army had evacuated Antwerp on October 9, and, with the aid of a landing force of British marines and bluejackets, and a British squadron lying off the coast, it had escaped the German grasp and retired, first on Ostend, then on the coast district of West Flanders. The Belgian Government established itself at Havre, while King Albert encouraged by his presence the remains of the organised forces of the Kingdom. The modest nucleus was destined to be increased rapidly by the reinforcements provided by the enrolment of all[Pg 295] Belgians of military age who had fled before the invasion. To these General Joffre added a new army under the command of General d'Urbal; and, as this vast distribution of forces required that the command should be strongly organised, he took two coadjutors; and one of these, General Foch, was charged with the direction of the operations of the armies of the North, the other, General Pau, was concerned primarily with the armies of the East, and might, if necessary, take his own place as Commander-in-Chief. Thus the French armies were satisfactorily co-ordinated and combined; and all was ready to receive the new attack about to be made, under the personal supervision of the German Emperor, against the extreme left of the French Army. Twelve Army Corps and four Cavalry Corps were charged to break its resistance at all costs, and to reach Dunkirk and Calais, which were to serve as bases for the invasion of England. Under the pressure of this mass, sent to attack in deep columns regardless of the losses thereby imposed on the assailants, the Allies' troops were at first obliged to fall back to the Yser, and for three weeks, up to November 12, the result remained doubtful. But already the method of attrition employed by General Joffre and Sir John French was having its effect. The Prussian, Bavarian, and Würtemberg regiments had not the dash or the homogeneity of the troops that had invaded Belgium and France in August. The officers, commissioned and non-commissioned, were of very inferior quality; the greater part of the effectives consisted of soldiers who were either too young or too old, and were badly led; the superiority in artillery had passed to the defenders. The Emperor had to leave this theatre of war after the same lack of success as had marked his previous appearances on the front in Lorraine and Champagne. The German losses in the encounters collectively named the Battle of the Yser were estimated at 120,000. In accordance with the custom set up by the Germans, their long-range guns requited the humiliation inflicted on their troops by firing on the monuments of antiquity, and bombarded and completely destroyed the Cloth Hall of Ypres, a masterpiece of the Flemish architecture of the fourteenth century.

On the remainder of the front the struggle continued, and took on more and more the character of a war of siege. Instead of operations in the open field, both sides dug themselves into interminable trenches connected by tunnels through earth or rock, and strongly protected. In the aerial warfare the French and British airmen encountered the German Taubes and Aviatiks; fighting went on for weeks to capture or recover a wrecked and miserable village or a ragged clump of trees. In spite of all their efforts the Germans were unable either to recover Soissons or to capture Reims, or completely to invest Verdun. In the last-named quarter, after capturing St. Mihiel at the end of September, they had been compelled to confine themselves within the high ground[Pg 296] along the Meuse, and to retire beyond Nancy, without, however, giving up all hope of returning to the attack. The winter campaign opened with the armies in this position of reciprocal defence. The war seemed likely to last much longer than had been expected at first, and to be a real war of exhaustion, in which the advantage would remain with whichever of the combatants displayed most obstinacy and tenacity.

However, it seemed improbable that the Germans would be in a position to resume their march on Paris; and the question arose whether the French Government should remain at Bordeaux. Indeed, in proportion as the war took on more and more the character of a chronic malady from which recovery would be lengthy, and as a renewal of the German advance against Paris became increasingly improbable, the inconveniences involved in the continued stay of the Government at Bordeaux were more keenly realised. In spite of the reticence imposed on the Press by the censorship, the bitter criticisms suggested to the people of the great south-western city by the influx of the strange crowd that swarmed round the public offices were echoed throughout France. Unpleasant comments were aroused by the contrast between the casual methods displayed in the fashionable restaurants of Bordeaux and the almost ascetic and Puritanical attitude of the people of Paris. The difficulties of communication hampered not only business, but even the action of the authorities. The deputies of Paris formed themselves into a group presided over by M. Denys Cochin, a Conservative member for the Department of the Seine; but it included also Socialists as well as Moderates. Without actually forming a State within a State, this body, unknown to the Constitution, speedily showed an activity with which the Government was compelled to reckon. It became the mouthpiece for all the complaints set up by the economic crisis with which Paris was struggling. Another group arose, that of the Senators and Deputies of the invaded districts. It made M. Leon Bourgeois its spokesman, and took up the defence of the interests, whether material or moral, of the populations of the North-East. The Ministry was quite aware of the hindrance to the war of which these particularist tendencies contained the germs; but they thought it more prudent to make terms. Various missions were entrusted to members of the Ministry; M. Briand, M. Sembat, M. Millerand, and even M. Viviani himself, repeatedly came to parley with representatives of Paris and the North-East. M. Poincaré twice left Bordeaux to visit the armies, and made one of his visits coincide with that paid by King George V. at the beginning of December to the British Expeditionary Force (p. 246). This conciliatory policy bore satisfactory fruit. The feeling of the public generally remained excellent. A generous rivalry was exhibited by the different Departments. Many Departmental Councils, whose session had been delayed in view of the war, voted[Pg 297] aid in money or in kind to the war victims and the refugees. The towns, the Chambers of Commerce, and associations of all kinds vied with one another in generosity, and, as the winter became more rigorous, paid ample contribution to the National Relief Committee, enabling M. Appel, its President, and his fellow-workers to meet all demands. In spite of the unemployment and the rise in the cost of living, the necessitous classes passed through this difficult time without great suffering.

Little by little, business began to recover. Great improvements had been effected in the management of the railways; from October onwards, the express services had been to some extent re-established on all the lines. In November the continued depression in the foreign exchanges had been stopped, the imports and exports were increasing again; so was the revenue from taxation, direct and indirect. On December 7 the Paris Bourse, which had been closed since September 3, resumed its operation for cash transactions. True the 3 per cent. Rente opened at 72.50, while before the closing it had remained firm at 75, but this latter price was due to the fact that the syndicate of agents de change had forbidden dealings at a lower figure. The market was not swamped, as had been feared, by the offer of enormous masses of securities; the provincial Exchanges, at Lyons, Bordeaux, Marseilles and other great towns, which had continued open while the Paris Bourse was closed, had quietly absorbed a great part of the stocks offered. The political situation cleared up likewise. On December 8 the Government returned to Paris. M. Millerand alone of all the Ministers remained behind for a few days, his department requiring rather more time for its transference. The Chambers were summoned for December 22, to give legal sanction to the measures taken since August 4 by the Government. Their Committees had never had so much work, for it was really on them that the control given by the Constitution to the two Chambers had of necessity devolved. Though certain persons were impatient and some ambitions were disappointed, the truce of parties was maintained. If the Ministers favoured the Committees on the war, on foreign affairs, and on finance, with certain confidential statements not quite in harmony with the occasionally ambiguous optimism of the daily official war bulletins in the Press, the secrecy of these statements was well kept; the measures taken by the Ministry during the Parliamentary interregnum were collectively judged worthy of approval, and the innovations proposed were accepted. Among the measures taken mention must be made of the decree signed by M. Ribot on December 11, restoring to the paying Treasurers-General the prerogatives and advantages lost some years earlier; they recovered the right of obtaining on their personal credit the capital advanced by them to the State to give steadiness during the first months of the financial year. Among the innovations we must note the abolition in the Budget of 1915 of all the[Pg 298] special accounts which had gradually grown up beside the account of current expenditure; repair of war material, naval construction, Morocco, reduction of succession duties in the case of direct heirs or of wives of soldiers killed on active service, and, finally, the suspension for 1915 of the complementary income-tax (p. 271), in view of the impossibility of completing, while the war lasted, the formalities prescribed by the Finance Act of 1914. On December 22 and 23 the Chambers unanimously adopted the proposals of the Government. They had received with acclamation the dignified declaration of M. Viviani on behalf of the Ministry and the entire nation, that France, together with her Allies, would carry on the war to the end, and would not lay down her arms until the provinces torn from her by force were for ever welded to their French fatherland. A like greeting had been given to the fine Presidential address of M. Paul Deschanel in the Chamber, and to that of M. Antonin Dubost in the Senate. It was under this reassuring impression of unity and concord that the year came to its end. For the first six months of 1915 the Chambers voted credits of 8,525,000,000 francs (341,000,000l.). They also postponed till the end of the war all the elections, including the partial renewal of the Senate, due at the beginning of January, 1915. Everything was made subordinate to national defence, by the entire nation as by its representatives. Meanwhile the allied armies, firmly fixed in their trenches as if in winter quarters, continued, without much progress but also without retirement, the war of attrition which was gradually thinning the forces of the invader and drawing away their strength.

II. ITALY.

At the beginning of the autumn of 1911, and at the calmly calculated instigation of Signor Giolitti, Italy undertook to conquer Tripoli; and thereby she obliged herself to choose between two courses: either that of frankly denouncing, sooner or later, the treaty forming the basis of the Triple Alliance, or that of extricating herself from it with dexterity. Never, perhaps, had Italian diplomatic talent found itself confronted with problems of such complexity; unquestionably, on many occasions during 1914, it showed itself surpassingly skilful. The situation was dominated by three great facts: (1) the eclipse of Signor Giolitti, and the resultant developments of the parties in Parliament; (2) the declaration of neutrality with the skilful manœuvres which led up to the Italian landing at Valona; (3) the death of Pope Pius X. and the efforts of his successor, Benedict XV., to guard the prestige of the Church between Austria and Prussia on one side and France and Belgium on the other.

Signor Giolitti had repeatedly expressed a desire to quit public life; at the age of seventy he began to feel the weariness[Pg 299] entailed on him by the difficulties of Parliamentary work. His determination was strengthened during the January recess. The Radicals were showing indications of independence. The Nationalists were agitating; their organs in the Press claimed that Turkey should indemnify Italy for the supplementary expenses entailed by the attacks of the Arabs in the Cyrenaica, who had been formed into military units by the officers and privates of the Ottoman Army who, despite the Treaty of Ouchy, had remained in Libya. They demanded railway concessions in Asia Minor, and M. Venizelos, the Greek Premier, came to Rome to confer with the Italian Foreign Minister, the Marchese di San Giuliano, on the subject of Epirus and the islands. The Socialists were making progress. On February 9 they secured the election to the Chamber by an immense majority of Amilcare Cipriani, who, by reason of the numerous convictions he had undergone, was ineligible. New votes of credit were necessary, and the day before the Chambers reassembled, the Ministry decided to ask the Chamber for new taxation, estimated to produce 47,000,000 lire (1,880,000l.), to be levied on buildings in construction, prices of admission to cinema shows, public carriages, furniture removers, and mineral waters, and also from Customs. On February 10 the debate began on the extraordinary expenditure entailed by the expedition to Libya. It was destined to last more than three weeks, and it would have dragged on longer, had not the Socialists decided to give up obstructing in return for an engagement by the Minister of Public Worship to introduce a Bill providing that civil marriage should invariably precede the religious ceremony. The debate was marked (Feb. 27) by a spirited encounter between Signor Giolitti and Signor Luzzatti. At last (March 4) the Premier summed up his African policy, and declared that he would not ask for a vote of confidence, but would merely request the House to pass to the consideration of the clauses of the Bill. His demand was granted by 361 to 83, with three abstentions. But some days later (March 7) the Radical group in Parliament adopted a resolution expressing the opinion that the time had come to lay stress on its distinctive differences. Two Ministers belonged to it; they resigned. The Socialists organised a one-day general strike in sympathy with the hospital attendants, a number of whom had been discharged; and at Rome this manœuvre had some success. On March 10 Signor Giolitti announced to the Chamber that he had resigned, and that the King had accepted his resignation. The Chamber adjourned.

The situation presented great difficulties, for the retiring Ministry retained its influence to the full, and its members continued personally to act on every branch of the Administration. A new Ministry had to be found pliant enough to accept its patronage, and with sufficient dignity to retain a certain degree[Pg 300] of independence and maintain the prestige of office. Signor Salandra proved to be the right man for the occasion. His financial ability gave him almost the authority of a Luzzatti; his reputation for enlightened Conservatism enabled him to obtain sufficient help among the members of the Right to make up for the hostility of the Radical irreconcilables. He accepted the task imposed on him by the King at Signor Giolitti's suggestion; and on March 20 the new Cabinet presented itself to the Chamber. It was a Cabinet of concentration, containing no representative of the Extreme Right or Extreme Left, and consisting for the most part of the late Ministers. At the Ministry of War, General Spingardi was succeeded by General Grandi, who had declared that he would be satisfied with an extraordinary expenditure of 200,000,000 francs (8,000,000l.) spread over five years, while General Porro, whose appointment was favoured by the Chief of the General Staff, General Tassoni, demanded 325,000,000 lire (13,000,000l.). The Finance Bills had still to be examined again; some days were required for their further discussion, and it was only on April 5 that Signor Salandra was able to state his general policy. Before a crowded Chamber, he expressed himself with a firmness and geniality which assured him goodwill; he promised a policy which would maintain the dignity of the nation abroad and secure progress at home; wise reforms, educational, economic, and social, an honest Administration, and strict management of finance. With some modification, the Civil Marriage Bill would be carried through. The Chamber approved this programme by 303 to 122, with nine abstentions, and adjourned (May 6). The Senate adjourned the next day, after approving the Foreign Minister's declaration regarding the expenditure on Libya and the expected renewal of the Triple Alliance, and applauding his statement that the interview between the King and the German Emperor at Venice (March 29) had shown that the period of effacement was over for Italy, and that her friendship with Great Britain and France was firmly established.

The Easter recess had been marked by an agitation among the railway men, which was successfully allayed by Signor Ciufelli, the Minister of Public Works; by an interview between the Foreign Ministers of Italy and of the Dual Monarchy, the Marchese de San Giuliano and Count Berchtold, at Abbazia; and by an Irredentist demonstration of students at Rome, Genoa, Florence, Naples, and other towns. Signor Salandra closed the University of Rome (May 6). The Budget debate began on May 7, with the Estimates for the Ministry of the Interior; on the same day the Bill was introduced imposing the new taxation amounting to 90,000,000 lire (3,600,000l.). Replying on May 12 to a violent attack on the subject of the disturbances at the University, Signor Salandra defended himself with energy, and the Chamber gave him its support. On May 19, on the other[Pg 301] hand, he took a conciliatory tone, promising that in the impending elections of Provincial Councils the Government would allow all possible latitude; but, some days later, in reply to questions put by Signor Colajanni, Signor Barzilai, and Signor de Felice, on the removal of the Prefect of Naples, he replied that the official in question had shown a lack of energy in the disturbances. This encounter was a mere skirmish; at the beginning of June the Socialists returned to the charge. Disturbances of a wholly exceptional kind swept like a cyclone over the essentially revolutionary areas of the Marches and the Aemilia. On Constitution Day, June 7, the Socialists organised demonstrations at Florence, Turin, Imola, and elsewhere; the army was insulted, the red flag hoisted, the troops fired on the crowd. The funerals of the victims intensified the disturbances; a general strike was called at Rome, but this was only the revolutionists' usual move; but what happened in Romagna was without precedent altogether. The State seemed to be collapsing all at once. Such towns as Ancona, and all the villages, declared themselves free communes; the authorities went into hiding, and, for some days, the excited insurgents were convinced that their example had been followed all over Italy, and that the Federal Republic had been proclaimed at Rome. The rising was promptly and severely repressed; the agitators who were most deeply implicated took to flight. At Rome the middle classes organised counter-demonstrations, and the Secretary of the General Confederation of Labour hurriedly sent out (June 10) a circular ordering the strike to be stopped. When the matter came before the Chamber, the Prime Minister demanded that its decision should be explicit and positive; a Socialist resolution regretting the attitude of the Government was rejected, on a vote by roll-call, by 254 to 112.

Amid the impression left by these events, the provincial and municipal elections were held, in batches, as is the rule in Italy, on the Sundays from June 14 to July 16. At Rome the Constitutional ticket was successful, as also at Brescia, Modena, Siena, and Reggio. At Rome, Don Prospero Colonna was elected Syndic; at Milan and Naples the Socialists won. The Parliamentary sittings became stormy; for the rest of June the Socialists persistently obstructed the financial proposals of the Government. Signor Chiesa (Socialist) even overturned the voting-urn; he was severely assaulted by other members and suspended for some days (June 25). Finally on July 3, Signor Carcano, leader of the Giolittian group, interposed, and induced the Socialists to give up obstructing. The vote of 90,000,000 francs was passed by 224 to 34; the minority consisted of Socialists, and 72 Radicals abstained. Two days later the Chamber adjourned sine die.

The Government remained master of the situation. Domestic policy lost all interest in view of the complications set up by the Austro-Serbian conflict. Italian diplomacy strove to secure that[Pg 302] counsels of moderation should prevail; but it was obstinately set aside by the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Office, and naturally resented this treatment. Public opinion was indignant at the violence displayed by Austria towards Serbia, and clearly perceived that the interests of Italy were gravely menaced by a complete break-up of the Balkan equilibrium. The Government refused to comply with the demand of the Socialists, assembled at Milan, to call the Chamber together, but on July 30 it mobilised the Fleet and concentrated it not at Brindisi, but at Gaëta. This was at once a warning and a concession as a matter of form. On July 31 the Austrian Ambassador, Herr von Flotow, notified the Italian Foreign Minister of the delivery of the ultimatum to Russia and France, and demanded information as to the attitude which Italy proposed to adopt. The Minister replied that Austria-Hungary had not consulted her ally, and that he could not answer before consulting the Prime Minister. The decisive hour had come. Two days later, on August 2, Italy signified her neutrality, her reason being that the casus fœderis had not arisen, inasmuch as Austria-Hungary and Germany had brought the situation to the point where it then stood by their initiative alone. The day following Major Kleist brought King Victor Emmanuel an autograph letter from the German Emperor. The King confined himself to declaring that his Constitutional duty was to support his responsible Ministry. Thus Italy took up officially an attitude of expectant and vigilant neutrality. She was destined to observe it till the end of the year, in spite of the pressure exercised by the advocates of intervention—Radicals, Liberals and Nationalists—who demanded an invasion of the Trentino and Istria. The Socialists, on the contrary, delivered impassioned speeches in favour of systematic and absolute neutrality. The armed peace and the economic disturbance required expenditure and special precautions. On August 4 a moratorium was established by decree; repayments of deposits and on current account were limited to fifty lire, and the maximum of currency issue permitted to the banks was increased. The resentment caused by this "betrayal" on the part of Italy was very acute in Germany, and still more in Austria; it showed itself by outrages on the numerous Italians employed in the mines and quarries of the basin of the Moselle, outrages in sharp contrast with the consideration and generosity of the French authorities, for which the Italian Ambassador at Paris, Signor Tittoni, tendered the cordial thanks of his Government.

The death of Pope Pius X., on August 20, gave the Ministry the opportunity of exhibiting an entirely correct attitude towards the Holy See. The Conclave opened on August 31. There were three parties in it; The Right, Conservative, directed by Cardinals Merry del Val and Billot, and inclined to vote for Cardinal de La[~i]; the Centre, led by Cardinals Pompili, Serafini, and Gatti, and putting forward Cardinal Ferrata; the Left, headed by[Pg 303] Cardinals Agliardi, della Chiesa, and Amette, hesitated between Cardinals Gaspari and Maffi. But the Italian proverb, "He who enters the Conclave as Pope leaves it as Cardinal," was verified once more. After sixteen ballots Cardinal Agliardi pronounced the name of Cardinal Della Chiesa, who was elected on September 3 and took the name of Benedict XV. He was a professed diplomatist, and had been a collaborator of the late Cardinal Rampolla. He had only been a Cardinal for three months, and was Archbishop of Bologna. He had to define his course of conduct in the European struggle almost at once. The Belgian Cardinal Mercier, Archbishop of Malines, was destined, in returning from the Conclave, to come into conflict with the Germans, who had destroyed Louvain and Malines, and who prevented him from communicating with his suffragans and his flock. Contrary to general expectation, the new Pope did not take up with sufficient energy these encroachments on ecclesiastical prerogatives. His policy appeared to be timorous and the result was a revival of Gallicanism among the French clergy. Thus, when at the end of the year the Holy See enjoined all the Episcopal authorities to cause prayers to be offered for the restoration of peace, it met in France with an almost universal resistance. The Bishops refused to allow the Pope's words to be read without qualification; they were communicated subject to the reserve that there could be no question of any peace which did not safeguard the rights of the French nation. It was a bad beginning for the new Pope.

In contrast with this weakness on the part of the Roman Curia, the Government of the Italian kingdom adopted an attitude which was at once pliant and firm. Germany had been unable to resign herself to the neutrality of Italy; she resorted to every possible means of reviving the Gallophobia prevalent in the country under the rule of Crispi. A leading German Social Democrat, Herr Sudeküm, was sent to the Italian Socialists on a mission of instruction; they protested against the destruction of Louvain, and affirmed their sympathy for France, the "defender of civilisation"; they declared that they supported neutrality, but that, if the Italian Army attacked the Allies, they would rise in insurrection. This clumsy move on the part of Germany seemed at the moment to produce no effect on the Italian Government, but some days later (Sept. 3) the Fleet left Gaëta for Taranto, and troops were concentrated in the neighbourhood of Verona and Brescia. As it was rumoured that, in the event of a breach with Austria-Hungary, Italy would be attacked by a German Army coming from the St. Gothard, Signor Salandra notified the Swiss Government (Sept. 24) that Italy, which did not exist as a State in 1815, would formally adhere to the recognition then entered into of Swiss neutrality. Three days later the classes of 1884 to 1888 were mobilised, thereby raising the total of the effectives in the Italian peninsula to thirty army[Pg 304] corps. At the same time an important change was made in the Ministry, General Grandi, who had not been able to come to an understanding with the Chief of the General Staff, resigned, and was succeeded by General Zupelli (Oct. 11), but, as the Marchese di San Giuliano died on October 16, a general reconstruction of the Ministry became inevitable. Signor Salandra resigned on November 2, and was again made Premier by the King. He made Signor Carcano, Signor Giolitti's second in command, Minister of Finance, and Signor Orlando Minister of Justice; and, some days later, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was accepted by Signor Sonnino. This latter greatly increased the activity of his Department; he summoned to Rome successively all the diplomatic representatives of the King at foreign Courts, and thoroughly convinced himself of the necessity of remaining for some time longer in an attitude of expectancy. The Chambers were summoned to sanction the financial measures taken by Royal decree, and to approve the international policy of the Government. The session was short, but productive. On December 4 the Ministry made a statement which was well received, and the question of neutrality was closely debated. The greatest sensation of the debate was the disclosure made by Signor Giolitti (Dec. 5) who read a despatch received by him as Prime Minister in August, 1913, and proving that at that time Austria-Hungary desired to attack Serbia and appealed to the Triple Alliance, but that Italy had refused her aid. Signor Giolitti concluded his speech by assuring the Government of his support, and thenceforward all its difficulties were solved. By 413 to 49 the Chamber accorded the Salandra Ministry a vote of confidence (Dec. 8), and thus it was understood that Italy was to preserve her attributes as a Great Power and to be ready at any moment to intervene if necessary. The Triple Alliance, which had not been actively denounced, was thus virtually dissolved.

To prevent Italy from turning against the Germanic Powers, the German ex-Chancellor, Prince Bülow, whose personal connexions at Rome were very extensive, was sent there as Ambassador Extraordinary, taking the place of Herr von Flotow. This mission, which was announced very loudly, was coldly received from the first by the Liberal party and the Italian Press. He waited to present the letters accrediting him as Ambassador till the Chambers had adjourned for the recess. The Senate adjourned on December 18, the Chamber on the 19th, after having accorded the Ministry the votes of credit which it demanded, passed the military Bills, and sanctioned a loan of 1,000,000,000 lire (40,000,000l.). Before the week was over, the Italian Fleet, under the command of Admiral Patris, effected without incident a landing at Valona. Italy did not yet side definitely with either set of combatants, but she took possession of an important pledge, thus signifying her firm intention not to allow herself to be[Pg 305] neglected when the time came for a final settlement in the Balkans. This was a first step; Austria-Hungary, which had so categorically opposed an operation of the same sort in 1911, on this occasion made no objection. Times were changed.

CHAPTER II.
GERMANY AND AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

I. GERMANY.

Germany, the protagonist of the great European War, though she professed to pursue the same policy this year with regard to the quarrel between Austria-Hungary and Serbia as she did in 1908 and 1913 (A.R., 1908, p. 311; 1913, p. 321), now found herself in a position where mere threats, even if expressed "in shining armour," would not have sufficed, for her ally was entering upon a struggle on which she believed her very existence depended, and Russia had nearly completed the reorganisation of her Army, while Germany had made hers ready to strike at any moment. The Militarische Rundschau declared in July that "if we do not decide for war, that war in which we shall have to engage at the latest in two or three years will be begun in far less propitious circumstances. At this moment the initiative rests with us: Russia is not ready, moral factors and right are on our side, as well as might. Since we shall have to accept the contest some day, let us provoke it at once. Our prestige, our position as a great Power, our honour, are in question; and yet more, for it would seem that our very existence is concerned." This, however, was only the view of the military party and the Pan-German professors. The mass of the people did not want war, and it was only when they were deluded into the belief that the war had been engineered by the British Government, with France and Russia as its tools, that they were filled with a bitter hatred of England and determined to fight to the last in defence, as they thought, of their country. One of the most popular books in Germany during the autumn was one entitled "Edward VII., the Greatest Criminal of the Nineteenth Century," and all foreign newspapers and books on the war were rigidly excluded, while the fanatical outburst known as "the Hymn of Hate for England" was distributed among the troops in the field. Its author received a decoration, and its sentiments were held to be justified by the supposed criminal plot of Great Britain and her allies against the existence of Germany. The German Government of course knew better; Herr Maximilian Harden described in his usual downright way its real motives as follows: "We are fighting not to punish criminals or free oppressed nationalities, but to get more room in the world for ourselves. Other nations, Spain, the[Pg 306] Netherlands, Rome, Austria, France, England, have been at the helm, it is now our turn. It is folly to try to justify our encroachment on Belgian neutrality by saying that France and England would otherwise have done so."

The earlier part of the year was almost entirely occupied in Germany with the Zabern incidents (A.R., 1913, pp. 318-21), and the discontent in Alsace-Lorraine. Colonel Reuter and Lieutenant Schad were tried by a military court at Strasburg and fully acquitted (Jan. 5-11). The Military Court of Appeal at the same time reversed the sentence of forty-three days' imprisonment passed upon Lieutenant Forstner for striking a lame cobbler over the head with his sword, on the plea that it was only an ordinary military sword and had not been specially ground for the occasion. Colonel Reuter in his defence claimed entire responsibility for the acts of his subordinates, as he was "a Prussian officer and executed the orders of his King." He referred, apparently, to a Cabinet Order cited by the King of Prussia in 1820, when Prussia had no jurisdiction in South Germany; and the court held that this order fully justified his action, as it was applicable in every country where a Prussian officer happens to be. In Bavaria and Würtemberg, however, it was officially stated that in those countries there was not the slightest authorisation for independent military action in such cases (Jan. 14, 28). In the Prussian Upper House Count Yorck von Wartenburg complained that the representatives of the people had not displayed the national sentiment to be expected in the centenary year of the War of Liberation, as they were trying to strengthen the Reichstag at the cost of the Emperor, the Federal Council, and the separate States. The Reichstag was interfering in all directions, and had presumed to censure the Prussian Premier. Imperial laws were being passed by which "the King of Prussia lost more than the Emperor gained," and the Army must not be exposed to democratic impulses, lest Germany should become like England, which had "a life President at the head of a Republic." The Chancellor stated in reply that Prussia had never overstepped the restrictions she had placed upon herself in founding the German Empire, and that she was always supported in the Federal Council as the German dynasties were strong believers in unity. As to the new power of members of the Reichstag to put short questions to Ministers (A.R., 1913, p. 321), he promised to do everything he could to prevent the answering of questions from causing encroachments upon the Executive, adding that "votes of censure merely established the fact of a difference of opinion in a particular case between the Reichstag and the Imperial Chancellor." The Armament Inquiry Committee had "no right of control whatever," and it had been a great satisfaction to him during the past few weeks to see "how the heart of the whole Prussian nation is stirred as soon as the honour of the Army is affected.[Pg 307] To preserve this Army, led by its King, against all attacks, and to prevent it from becoming the Parliamentary Army of which Count Yorck has spoken, is the passionate desire of every Prussian who is true to the Constitution."

On January 20 the Upper Chamber of the Diet of Alsace-Lorraine, consisting almost entirely of nominated and official members, carried a resolution expressing the opinion that the trouble at Zabern could have been prevented "if the military authorities had dealt promptly and adequately with the unworthy, insulting, and provocative behaviour of Lieutenant Forstner"; also that Colonel Reuter went far beyond his rights, and that guarantees must be given that such things should not occur again, and especially that the law should be respected absolutely by the military authorities. In the Reichstag (Jan. 24) the Chancellor, in reply to Social-Democratic and Radical interpellations, said that in civil disturbances the military could, as a rule, intervene only on the demand of the civil authorities, but that "the Prussian Constitution recognised expressly and in principle that in exceptional cases a demand from the civil authorities was not necessary," and that it reserved the subject for special legislation which, however, had never taken place. The Cabinet Order of 1820, which was embedded in the Service Orders of 1899, was undoubtedly binding on Colonel Reuter, but in view of the doubt whether it was in accordance with the Constitution and the general principles of law, the Emperor had ordered an inquiry, and the Service Orders would be brought into harmony with the result. It was not true that Germany was under sabre rule, for the Zabern case was the only one in which the provisions of the Order had been applied. Alsace-Lorraine could not flourish except under a calm, uniform, and just, but at the same time firm, policy. The attempts to create differences between North and South must be nipped in the bud. Not one of the Federal States could exist without the united Empire, for which their fathers had shed their blood in loyal comradeship, all with the same enthusiasm, the same devotion, and the same courage. The debate was now mainly carried on by the Social Democrats, who indulged in the usual invectives against monarchy and especially against the Crown Prince, and the House finally carried by a large majority a motion of the Centre party asking the Federal Council to see that the conditions of military intervention in police matters should be determined with uniformity and in a way securing the independence of the civil authority. A National Liberal motion was also carried, asking the Imperial Chancellor to inform the Reichstag of the result of the promised inquiry, and referring to a Committee of twenty-one members Bills proposed by the Socialists, the Alsatians, and the Radicals in regard to military powers and jurisdiction. The Government answered these motions the same day by an official communiqué, stating that it was not the practice[Pg 308] of the Federal Council to discuss motions so introduced, and that "the Constitution excluded the Legislature from all share in any alteration of the military Service Orders." As regards the attacks of the Socialists on the Crown Prince, a journalist named Leuss was sentenced on March 5, to six months' imprisonment for an article entitled "Wilhelm der Letzte" in the Welt am Montag, in which he spoke of telegrams said to have been sent by the Crown Prince to General Deimling and Colonel Reuter as an unwarrantable interference with the course of justice in the Zabern affair, and described a farewell order issued by the Crown Prince to his regiment, in which he said that the highest joy of the soldier is to ride against the foe, as an outburst of bellicose feeling calculated to revive Republican ideas and to raise doubts whether the hereditary principle should not be abolished and Princes be pensioned off. The editor of the Socialist Vorwärts was also sentenced on March 6 to three months' imprisonment for a parody of the Crown Prince's farewell to his regiment. Another of the Prince's indiscretions was the sending of telegrams in July to the authors of Chauvinistic pamphlets which he described as "excellent"—one entitled "the Hour of Destiny," by Herr Frobenius, which called upon Germany to be prepared for a war in 1915 or 1916 against France, Russia and England, "who will not miss a favourable opportunity of attacking Germany," and the other by Professor Buchholz, inveighing against the "weak Governments" which had directed Germany since Bismarck and allowed democracy to make "frightful progress."

The decision of the military courts at Strasburg on the Zabern affair and the Chancellor's speech on the subject were followed by the resignation on January 29 of the Statthalter or Governor of Alsace-Lorraine, Count Wedel, and all the principal members of his Ministry. Count Wedel was succeeded on May 1 by the Prussian Minister of the Interior, Herr von Dallwitz, whose place in the Ministry was taken by a retired official, Herr von Löbell, formerly head of the office of the Imperial Chancellor and Prince Bülow's political manager. A new Army Order was also issued in April suppressing the ancient privileges under which Colonel Reuter had acted, but the new Statthalter refused in July to confirm in office the Burgomaster of Zabern, who had been re-elected by a large majority of the Town Council, and had defended the rights of civilians in the Strasburg trial. An agitation was now started by the Conservatives in Prussia for stronger action against all the border races. As regards the Danes the Minister of the Interior stated in the Budget Committee of the Prussian Diet on February 1 that the Law Officers had been instructed to keep a sharp control over the Danish Press in Schleswig-Holstein, and Danes from across the frontier were forbidden to go to the Danish club-houses on Prussian territory, even when not used for political agitation. Everything possible was being done to strengthen the[Pg 309] German element in Schleswig-Holstein. German proprietors were assisted by the State, German libraries had been established, and German elementary high schools on the Danish model were started in order to check the emigration of young people across the border. Further, on May 26, the Chancellor, in reply to an interpellation signed by more than sixty members of the Upper House of the Prussian Diet accusing Denmark of undermining Prussian authority in Schleswig-Holstein, said he must admit that as a consequence of the excessive agitation against Germanism the situation in the north was unsatisfactory. Prussia was negotiating with Denmark on the question of the people who have no definite nationality, but would cling to the determination not to accept them as Prussian subjects (A.R., 1907, p. 294). The dreams of an incorporation with Denmark would never be realised. Among the Poles in Prussia, too, it was a bitter grievance that though sermons might be preached in the Polish language, the Communion might not be administered in Polish, and in a Roman Catholic Church in the suburb of Moabit in Berlin about seventy Polish children entered in procession after the Polish sermon and sang Polish hymns, upon which the police entered and with considerable effort cleared the church. Another Polish grievance was that the German Eastern Colonisation Society (Ostmarkenverein) whose object was to strengthen the German element in Posen and Silesia, had been trying to carry the war against the Poles into Austrian territory in Galicia by inciting the Ruthenian against the Polish workmen, and on February 25 the police raided the two chief Polish newspapers in Posen in order to discover evidence of the theft of documents quoted by them in proof of the charge against the Ostmarkenverein. Heated debates took place on the subject in the Prussian Diet, but no evidence of the alleged theft was discovered.

Important statements on Anglo-German relations were made to the Budget Committee of the Reichstag on February 4 by Grand-Admiral von Tirpitz and Herr von Jagow, the Foreign Secretary. The former said that from the technical point of view he had nothing to add to or subtract from his statement of 1913. The ratio of 16 to 10 offered by Great Britain was still acceptable to Germany if it referred to battleships only; but the idea of "a holiday year" could not be realised. Positive proposals had not yet reached Germany; if they did, they would certainly be carefully examined. The naval estimates of foreign Powers had grown much more rapidly than those of Germany. During the last five years her naval expenditure had increased by 2,750,000l., that of Great Britain by 10,800,000l., apart from the expected supplementary estimate of 3,000,000l., that of France by 6,700,000l., and that of Russia by 15,100,000l. Herr von Jagow next stated that the present German relationship with England was one of thorough mutual confidence. In both countries there had been[Pg 310] an increasing feeling that they could work side by side on many points and that their interests met in many respects. The events in the Balkans and the negotiations in London had contributed much to this result, and people in Great Britain had been able to convince themselves that Germany was not pursuing any aggressive policy. On February 20, however, Grand-Admiral von Tirpitz stated during the debate on the Navy Estimates that it was "not only an economic and political necessity for Germany to have her ships of war abroad as well as at home, but a military necessity also." If in recent years the German Fleet had been concentrated in home waters, this was due "to circumstances which need not be discussed more closely," but he trusted they would be "more active," with their Navy abroad, and he reminded the House that the contemplated number of German ships abroad, i.e. eight large cruisers, had not yet been reached. On June 25, during the British Naval visit to Kiel, the German Emperor, after inaugurating two new locks for the Kiel Canal, which had been made two metres deeper and doubled in breadth, and had reduced the distance between Kiel and Wilhelmshafen from 500 nautical miles to eighty, went for the first time on board a British Dreadnought, the King George V., and hoisted his flag as a British Admiral; enthusiastic speeches were delivered in the Town Hall by Vice-Admiral Sir George Warrender and the President of the German Navy League, and the bluejackets of both nations made merry together ashore.

On the second reading of the Army Estimates a remarkable statement was made by the Prussian War Minister as to the manner in which the Army Law (A.R., 1913, p. 307) had been carried out. Between July and October they had to arrange for the accommodation of 60,000 more men and 21,000 more horses. There had been no difficulty whatever about the recruits. On the contrary, there were 38,000 men perfectly fit for service whom they could not take.... There were now only about 3,000 vacancies among some 30,000 officers, and he thought that all the vacancies would be filled within two years—or at the existing rate of competition much sooner. The Army Bill had created 10,000 new posts for non-commissioned officers. Six weeks after the Bill came into force there were only 4,000 vacancies left, and these would probably be filled within the year. There had been no difficulty about the purchase of remounts. The money voted for frontier fortifications had been duly spent, and there had been very little trouble about the supply of new accommodation for the troops. The health of the Army had been splendid during the past year. Although orders to manufacturers, etc., could not be given until July, everything had been ready so quickly that on October 6, 1913, five days after the new Law had come into force, all the new units were ready and perfectly equipped for war.

On January 13 the Reichstag discussed a petition of the Ger[Pg 311]man League for Women's Suffrage demanding that women should have the equal suffrage with men in the Reichstag elections and should be eligible for election themselves. In former years such petitions had been ignored, but this time the House decided to bring the petition to the cognisance of the Government as a compromise between a Social Democratic proposal that it should be submitted for consideration and a Conservative one that it should be ignored as heretofore, the Centre desiring to show sympathy with the movement without pledging themselves to radical changes. On January 15 the Budget Committee of the Reichstag rejected a Government proposal to grant an Imperial subsidy in aid of the preparations for the Olympic games.

The Reichstag was closed on May 20, the Socialists remaining silent in their seats, instead of leaving the House, as they had hitherto, while the other parties responded to the President's call for three cheers for the Emperor.

In February a private company composed of members of the leading industrial concerns of the Empire was formed at the instigation of the head of the Press Bureau of the German Foreign Office to "further German industrial prestige abroad," i.e. to supply the foreign Press with information favourable to Germany and German industrial enterprise. The sum of 12,500l. a year, the whole Secret Service Fund at the disposal of the Imperial Foreign Office for subsidising foreign papers, was added by the Government to the funds of the company.

In March, the Emperor William visited the Emperor Francis Joseph at Vienna, and afterwards the King of Italy at Venice. The chief feature of these meetings was the special favour shown by the German Emperor to Count Tisza, the Hungarian Prime Minister, with whom he had long conversations on Eastern affairs.

A discussion on Colonial reforms took place on February 18 in the Budget Committee of the Reichstag. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, Dr. Solf, said that after comparing the colonial administrations of the world he had found the British system the best suited to be a model for Germany, and he accordingly intended to strengthen the powers of the Colonial Governors and correspondingly to lighten the burden of the Colonial Office. Replying to a member who complained of the ill-treatment of the natives and the existence of forced labour, the Minister said that the Government was endeavouring to protect the natives, and had instructed the Colonial governors to abolish forced labour. The question was raised again in a full House shortly afterwards, when the Reichstag passed a resolution desiring the abolition of serfdom in German East Africa by January 1, 1920. The Government, on the other hand, issued a White Paper in March, saying that it would be a highly dangerous experiment to fix a date for the abolition. According to the[Pg 312] German law every native born after December, 1905, is free, and those who are still serfs can purchase their freedom for a small sum, usually between thirty and forty rupees, which their masters are not allowed to prevent them from earning; more than 2,000 purchase their freedom every year. The number of serfs now in East Africa was estimated to be about 85,000, but it was believed that in fifteen years' time serfdom would be extinct. To abolish it at the date stated in the Reichstag resolution would cost 4,200,000 rupees (about 280,000l.) in compensation to the owners, and leave many serfs without the means of existence. These arguments apparently satisfied the Centre and the National Liberals, but the Social Democrats urged that the Colonies were merely a burden, and that the sooner they could be got rid of the better, as they were useless as homes for white men and contained hardly 25,000 whites altogether. The increase of their trade was only 3½ per cent. of the total of that of German trade, and was less than Germany's trade with Cape Colony and with England's Crown Colonies; most of their needs were supplied from England, and they were not wanted for emigration, for Germany had no surplus population and was always importing foreign workmen. Finally, the Colonies were administered in the interests of unscrupulous companies which were exterminating the natives.

The usual crop of espionage cases came up in the first half of the year. In July a German sergeant was sentenced to fifteen years' penal servitude and expulsion from the Army for corruption and betrayal of military secrets to the Russian military Attaché Colonel Bazaroff, who suddenly left Berlin when the sergeant was arrested. He was clerk in the Engineer Inspection Office, and had sold plans of the fortifications of Königsberg and other places in East Prussia to the Attaché.

Herr von Jagow, the Foreign Secretary, in the usual statement of German foreign policy in the Reichstag, on May 14, referred especially to the violent attacks made upon Germany in the Russian Press, which had naturally led the German Press to retaliate, but for this the German Government was not responsible. He knew of no real Russo-German antagonisms and "had reason to suppose" that the Russian Government was determined to maintain friendly relations. As to England the negotiations "were being conducted on both sides in the most friendly spirit, a spirit which in other matters also prevailed in Anglo-German relations." "An understanding which removed possibilities of friction" was also being arrived at with France.

When Austria-Hungary sent her ultimatum to Serbia the German Emperor was on his usual holiday trip in Norway. He was informed of the text of the ultimatum by the German Ambassador at Vienna, but did not think it necessary to return at once to Berlin, as both he and his Ministers and Ambassadors[Pg 313] believed that Russia would not actively interfere and that England in any case would be neutral. He shared the indignation of the Austrians and Hungarians at the murder of their Crown Prince, and fully approved of the text of the ultimatum;[6] it was probably intended as a preliminary to war, but he thought the war would be localised, and if successful would remove from Austria-Hungary the danger of a "Slavonia Irredenta" (A.R., 1912, p. 338), which threatened her existence as a great European Power. It was not believed at St. Petersburg that he really wanted war,[7] and in the opinion of his Ministers at Berlin, the declaration of Austria-Hungary that she had no intention of seizing Serbian territory "would have a calming influence at St. Petersburg."[8] As, however, the situation became more threatening, the Emperor suddenly returned to Berlin on July 26, the day before the Serbian reply to the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum was delivered. On July 27, when Germany declined to accept the British proposal for a Conference on the ground that it would practically amount to a Court of Arbitration, she stated that "if Russia mobilised only in the South, Germany would not mobilise, but if she mobilised in the North, Germany would have to do so too."[9] As Russia would evidently have to mobilise in the North for a war against Austria-Hungary as well as against Germany, this showed that the Emperor William had now decided for war, and his subsequent acceptance of the principle of mediation between Austria and Russia by the four Powers,[10] and his assertion that he was "doing his very best both at Vienna and St. Petersburg to get the two Governments to discuss the situation directly with each other and in a friendly way"[11] were merely concessions to the British Government in the hope that it would be neutral. His bid for British neutrality (p. 177) was made two days after, and when it was refused Germany prepared at once to mobilise both against Russia and France, although negotiations were still going on between the Powers for a pacific issue, and Austria-Hungary had agreed to discuss with them even the basis of the conflict with Serbia.[12] On July 31 the German Chancellor informed the British Ambassador at Berlin that as the whole Russian Army and Fleet were being mobilised, Kriegsgefahr (danger of war) would be proclaimed by Germany at once, and mobilisation follow almost immediately.[13] When on the same day Russia issued orders for a general mobilisation, Germany addressed an ultimatum to the Russian Government demanding that the Russian forces [Pg 314]should be demobilised, and that a reply should be given within twelve hours. This, of course, meant war, which was declared against Russia on August 1, and a last effort to secure British neutrality was made by Germany on the same day. The German Ambassador in London asked Sir E. Grey whether, if Germany gave a promise not to violate Belgian neutrality, England would engage to remain neutral, and he even suggested that the integrity of France and her Colonies might be guaranteed, to which Sir E. Grey replied that he "felt obliged to refuse definitely any promise on similar terms."[14] Germany then declared war against France (Aug. 3). The day before her armies, which had for some time been ready on the frontier, had marched into Luxemburg, the Chancellor declaring that this was not a hostile act, but was merely intended to insure against a possible attack of the French Army, and promising full compensation for any damage done.[15] Luxemburg protested against this violation of her neutrality, but, of course, without effect. On August 2 Germany invited Belgium to allow German troops to pass through her territory, in which case Germany would guarantee the possessions and independence of Belgium on the conclusion of peace, and pay an indemnity for any damage done by German troops. Belgium rejected this proposal on August 3. And while Germany, on August 4, "repeated most positively the formal assurance that even in the case of armed conflict with Belgium, Germany will, under no pretence whatever, annex Belgian territory," German troops entered Belgium and summoned Liège to surrender.[16] The German excuse for this violation of Belgian neutrality was that Germany had to advance into France "by the quickest and easiest way," and that "it was a matter of life and death for them, as if they had gone by the more southern route they could not have hoped, in view of the paucity of roads and the strength of the fortresses, to have got, through without formidable opposition, entailing great loss of time, which would have meant time gained by the Russians for bringing up their troops to the German frontier; rapidity of action was the great German asset, while that of Russia was an inexhaustible supply of troops." The British Ambassador having, in accordance with instructions from his Government, then demanded his passports, the German Secretary of State expressed "his poignant regret at the crumbling of his entire policy and that of the Chancellor, which had been to make friends with Great Britain and then, through Great Britain, to get closer to France." The Chancellor, on receiving the British Ambassador's farewell visit, complained that Great Britain was going to war "just for a word, neutrality, which in war time had so often been disregarded, just for a scrap of paper, on a kindred nation which desired [Pg 315]nothing better than to be friends with her." All his efforts, he added, had now been rendered useless, and "the policy to which he had devoted himself since his accession to office had tumbled down like a house of cards." What Great Britain had done was "like striking a man from behind while he was fighting against two assailants," and he held her responsible for all the terrible events that might happen. When the news was circulated that England had declared war against Germany, the Berlin mob broke the windows of the British Embassy. On the following morning, August 5, the following message was delivered to the British Ambassador by one of the Emperor's aides-de-camp:—

A second attempt was made by Germany on August 10, after the capture of Liège, to obtain the consent of Belgium to the German armies passing through Belgian territory on the understanding that "Germany would evacuate Belgium as soon as the state of war will allow her to do so," but this proposal was also rejected by the Belgian Government (Belgian Grey Book, Nos. 62 to 65).

A German "White Paper" was issued in August under the title "How the Franco-German Conflict could have been Avoided," which contained the telegrams exchanged between Prince Henry of Prussia, the King of England, and the German Emperor before the outbreak of the war. It was issued from the Government printing office in Berlin in English, not in German. Prince Henry's telegram to the King, dated Berlin, July 30, stated that the Emperor his brother "is much preoccupied" and "is trying his utmost" to fulfil the Tsar's appeal to him to "work for the maintenance of peace," adding that Germany has "taken no measures, but may be forced to do so any moment should our neighbours [France and Russia] continue," and urging the King to use his influence on France and Russia "to keep neutral." The Emperor, he concluded, "is most sincere in his endeavours to maintain peace," but "the military preparations of his two neighbours may at last force him to follow their example for the safety of his own country, which would otherwise remain defenceless." A telegram from the German Emperor to the King, dated July 31, stated that the proposals of the British Government (that Russia and France should suspend further military preparations if Austria will consent to be satisfied with the occupation of Belgrade and the neighbouring Serbian territory as a hostage for the satisfactory settlement of her demands, other countries mean[Pg 316]while suspending their military operations) "coincide" with his ideas and the statements he had got that night from Vienna and forwarded to London, but that the German Chancellor had just informed him that an official notification had arrived that the Tsar had "ordered the mobilisation of his whole Army and Fleet, not even awaiting the results of the mediation he" (the German Emperor) "was working at," and leaving him without any news. He had accordingly left for Berlin to take measures for insuring the safety of his Eastern frontiers, "where strong Russian forces were already posted." Finally, on August 1, the German Emperor telegraphed to the King, with reference to a suggestion by the German Ambassador in London that Germany might refrain from attacking France in a war between Germany and Russia if France remained neutral, that "on technical grounds" this suggestion could not be accepted, as the German mobilisation, which had been proclaimed that afternoon, "must proceed against two fronts, East and West, as prepared, and cannot be countermanded," but that if France should offer her neutrality, "which must be guaranteed by the British Fleet and Army," he would "refrain from attacking France and employ his troops elsewhere." He added that the troops on his frontier were "in the act of being stopped by telegraph and telephone from crossing into France." It was afterwards explained that the suggestion had created a misunderstanding, as it would probably have been incompatible with the terms of the Franco-Russian alliance.

In another German White Paper, entitled "Memorandum and Documents with Regard to the Outbreak of War," the "Memorandum" stated that the Balkan League against Turkey had been organised under the patronage of Russia, and that when the League was successful in the Turkish Campaign and had been broken up in consequence of the dissensions of its members, Russia desired a new Balkan League "whose activities should be directed this time not against Turkey ... but against the existence of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy." Serbia was under this plan to "cede to Bulgaria the section of Macedonia that she had won in the last Balkan War and compensate herself by the acquisition of Bosnia and Herzegovina." Austria-Hungary, in view of this scheme, considered that "it was not consistent with the dignity or self-preservation of the monarchy to look on longer at the operations on the other side of the border without taking action," and asked Germany's opinion in the matter. Germany assured her ally "most heartily" of her agreement with the Austro-Hungarian view, while fully aware "that warlike moves on the part of Austria-Hungary against Serbia would bring Russia into the question" and might draw Germany into war "in accordance with her duties as an ally." Recognising, however, that "the vital interests of Austria-Hungary were at stake, Germany could neither advise her ally" to a compliance that[Pg 317] would have been inconsistent with her dignity "nor deny her Germany's support," especially as "her interests were also seriously threatened," for "if Serbia with the assistance of Russia and France, had been allowed to imperil the existence of Austria-Hungary any longer, this would lead to the gradual downfall of the monarchy and her submission to Slavonic sway under the Russian sceptre, thus making the position of the Germanic race in Central Europe untenable. A morally weakened Austria-Hungary, breaking down under the advance of Russian Panslavism, would no longer be an ally on whom Germany could count such as she needs in view of the attitude of her Eastern and Western neighbours.... Austria was therefore given a free hand in her action against Serbia, in the preparation of which Germany took no part." This was "Austria's affair; she alone would have to settle it with Serbia, and Germany therefore devoted her entire efforts to localising the war," holding that "no civilised nation had the right in this struggle against barbarism and criminal political morality to prevent Austria from inflicting a just punishment on Serbia." Although the Austrian Government had declared through its Ambassador at St. Petersburg that it had no plans of conquest, the first reports of Russian mobilisation had reached Berlin on the same day, and in the evening the German Ambassadors in London, Paris, and St. Petersburg were directed to call the attention of the English, French, and Russian Governments energetically to the danger of this measure, "for the decision as to the peace of the world lay entirely in St. Petersburg." The Ambassador at St. Petersburg especially was directed to inform the Russian Government that if it mobilised Germany would also have to mobilise, "both against Russia and France." On the following day (July 27) the "Russian Minister of War, M. Sukhomlinoff, gave the German Military Attaché his word of honour that no mobilisation order had yet been issued; for the present only preparatory measures had been taken, but if Austria crossed the Serbian boundary the military districts facing Austria would be mobilised."

Meanwhile Germany "continued her mediatory efforts to the utmost and advised Vienna to make any possible compromise consistent with the dignity of the monarchy," but "unluckily all these mediatory acts were soon overtaken by the military preparations of Russia and France. On July 29 the Russian Government officially announced in Berlin that it had mobilised four Army districts, and reports arrived of rapidly progressing military preparations by France on land and sea." Yet on the same day the Chief of the Russian Staff had informed the German Military Attaché at St. Petersburg "that everything had remained the same as had been explained by the Minister of War two days before, and gave his word of honour in the most formal manner that mobilisation had begun nowhere up to three o'clock[Pg 318] that afternoon; though he could not answer for the future." At the same time he declared most emphatically that no mobilisation was desired by His Majesty in the districts touching on the German boundary. As numerous and positive reports of the levying of reservists in these districts had reached St. Petersburg, Warsaw and Vilna, the Attaché expressed the opinion to his Government that the statement of the Chief of the Russian General Staff "was an attempt to mislead Germany with regard to the extent of the measures that had already been taken." The assembling, the Memorandum proceeds, "of troops on the East Prussian border and the declaration of a state of war in all important places on the Russian Western boundary no longer left any doubt that Russian mobilisation was actively going on against Germany," notwithstanding the denials "on his word of honour" of the Russian Minister of War. The Memorandum further publishes the text of telegrams exchanged between the Emperor William and the Tsar. On July 28 the former expressed "the greatest disquietude" at the impression which he heard Austro-Hungary's action against Serbia was making in the Russian Empire. "The unscrupulous agitation," he said, "which has gone on for years in Serbia has led to the revolting crime of which the Archduke Ferdinand was the victim. The spirit which allowed the Serbians to murder their own King and his wife still rules in that land. Undoubtedly you will agree with me that you and I, as well as all Sovereigns, have a common interest in insisting that all those morally responsible for this terrible murder shall suffer deserved punishment." He knew how difficult it was for the Tsar and his Government to resist the pressure of public opinion, and remembering "the heartfelt friendship which had bound him and the Tsar closely for a long time," he was exerting "all his influence to endeavour to make Austria-Hungary come to an open and satisfactory understanding with Russia." He "earnestly hoped, therefore, that the Tsar would help him in his efforts to set aside all obstacles that may yet arise." To this the Tsar replied on July 29 with an urgent appeal that "in this serious moment" the Emperor would help him. A disgraceful war, he said, had been declared on a weak nation; the indignation at this, which he fully shared, was immense in Russia, and he foresaw that soon he would not be able longer to withstand the pressure that was being brought to bear upon him, and that he would be "forced to adopt measures which will lead to war." In order to prevent such a calamity he asked the Emperor, in the name of their old friendship, to do all that is possible to prevent his ally from going too far. The Emperor replied that he shared the Tsar's wish for the maintenance of peace, but that he cannot consider Austria-Hungary's action "a disgraceful war." Austria-Hungary knows by experience that Serbia's promises, when they are only on paper, are[Pg 319] quite unreliable, and full guarantees must be secured that Serbia's promises shall be turned into deeds. Russia might, he thought, remain in the rôle of a spectator towards the Austro-Serbian War without dragging Europe "into the most terrible war that it has ever seen." He therefore suggested a direct understanding between St. Petersburg and Vienna as "possible and desirable"—an understanding which his Government was endeavouring to help with all its power. He added, however, that military measures by Russia would hasten a calamity which they both wished to avoid, and would undermine his position as mediator. On July 30 the Emperor repeated that if Russia mobilised against Austria-Hungary, his position as mediator, which he had accepted at the Tsar's urgent request, would be jeopardised, if not rendered untenable. The whole weight of the decision now rested on the Tsar's shoulders; they must bear the responsibility for war or peace. To this the Tsar replied that the military measures now being taken "were decided upon five days ago for defensive purposes against Austria's preparations," and that he hoped "with all his heart" that these measures would not influence in any way his (the German Emperor's) position as mediator. On July 31 the Tsar again expressed his thanks to the Emperor for his mediation, "which permits a gleam of hope that everything can yet be settled peaceably," but added that "it is a technical impossibility" for Russia to halt her military preparations "which became necessary through Austria's mobilisation," though "we are far from being desirous of war." So long as the negotiations continue with Austria regarding Serbia "my troops will not undertake any challenging action, I solemnly pledge my word as to that. I am trusting in the grace of God with all my might, and hope for the success of your mediation at Vienna, for the welfare of our countries and for the peace of Europe—Your sincerely devoted Nicholas." The Emperor replied that upon the Tsar's appeal to his friendship and plea for his help he had undertaken a mediatory action between the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Governments, but that while this negotiation was under way the Tsar's troops were mobilised against Austria-Hungary, and that his mediation was thereby rendered almost illusory. Notwithstanding this, he had continued it; but now he was in receipt of reliable reports of serious preparations for war on his Eastern boundary also, and responsibility for the safety of his Empire compelled him to take defensive measures. He had carried his efforts for the maintenance of the world's peace to the utmost limit, and it was not he that bore the responsibility for the calamity that now threatened the entire civilised world. Yet at this moment it lay in the Tsar's power to stave it off. No one threatened the honour and might of Russia, which might have awaited the result of his mediation. "The friendship," the Emperor concluded, "for you and your Empire which was be[Pg 320]queathed to me by my grandfather on his death-bed, has always been sacred to me, and I have been faithful to Russia when she was hard pressed, especially in her last war. It is still possible for you to maintain the peace of Europe if Russia will decide to put a stop to the military measures that threaten Germany and Austria-Hungary."

The mobilisation of the entire fighting force of Russia, the Memorandum adds, which had been ordered in the forenoon of the day when these telegrams were despatched, was in full swing—"the Tsar's telegram was sent at two o'clock in the afternoon"; and this "shows clearly that Russia desired the war," and "in the afternoon of August 1 Russian troops crossed our border and advanced on German territory. By this move Russia began the war." To the question put to the French Cabinet as to what steps it would take "the reply given on the afternoon of August 1 was that France would do what her interests seemed to warrant. A few hours later, at five in the afternoon, the complete mobilisation of the French Army and Navy was ordered, and on the morning of the following day France opened hostilities." A long reply to the French Yellow Book published by the North German Gazette on December 21 further states, with regard to the argument that Austria and Russia were on the point of coming to an understanding respecting the Note to Serbia, when Germany suddenly destroyed all chances of peace by declaring war, that the general mobilisation ordered by Russia brought to naught the entire mediatory work of Germany, so that nothing can get rid of the fact "that Russia bears the responsibility for unchaining a European war."

Germany was badly served by her diplomatists and Ministers, and also by her generals, though she had perhaps the most efficient, and certainly the best organised, army in the world. She believed up to the last moment that neither Russia nor England would fight, being completely ignorant of the relative strength of the cross-currents of influence at the Russian Court and of the determination of all parties in England to resist the violation of the neutrality of Belgium—a step which only turned against her all the civilised nations of Europe, and probably did not bring her much nearer or more quickly to Paris than if she had invaded France from the South, which was the reason given for Germany's action (no doubt based on the opinion of the German General Staff) by the German Secretary of State (p. 314). Another reason, or rather pretext alleged by the German Government was that it was necessary to anticipate a hostile attack of France through Belgium, and that it had received reliable information to the effect that French forces "intended" to march on the line of the Meuse by Givet and Namur; but as a matter of fact there were no French forces in that direction; the attack was made from the Vosges and the subsequent alleged discovery of docu[Pg 321]ments proving that France and England had for some time been preparing together with the Belgian Staff for an attack upon Germany through Belgium only showed that these preparations were made in view of the defence of that country against a possible violation by Germany of Belgian neutrality; besides which both France and England had, in response to an appeal from Belgium to defend her neutrality, replied that they would do so (p. 365).

The German armies forced their way through Belgium with the precision and pitilessness of a machine, but the victories of the Marne and the Aisne in September arrested their progress, and from then until the end of the year they practically remained stationary. In Russian Poland and Galicia, too, although there they had a leader, Field-Marshal Hindenburg, who gained some brilliant victories, they did not succeed in freeing Prussia from the danger of a Russian invasion.[17]

The Germans and Austrians had at the end of the year occupied, besides nearly all Belgium, one twenty-seventh of French territory and one-third of the Kingdom of Poland, while the French and the Russians held respectively about 200 square miles in Alsace, nearly half of Galicia, and some frontier districts of East Prussia; but neither of the great Austrian fortresses, Cracow and Przemysl. Of the important towns in Poland Russia had Lemberg, the capital of Galicia, while Germany held the equally large, though politically not so important, town of Lodz, "the Polish Manchester." The troops engaged on both sides amounted to about 2,000,000 with upwards of 20,000 guns; the Russian artillery, mostly manufactured in the Creuzot works in France, were only surpassed by the German when the latter brought into action their 42 centimetre and 30½ centimetre mortars, the former manufactured at the Krupp works and the latter at Pilsen, in Austria. The last four months of the year were spent in a series of gigantic but inconclusive struggles, accompanied by hideous carnage of hundreds of thousands of men and in which often each side claimed the victory, but whose only appreciable result was the stemming by Marshal Hindenburg of the advance on Silesia by the Russians and by Generals Joffre and French of the advance on Paris by the Germans. In Poland the Germans had the advantage of internal lines and numerous railways by which they could rapidly bring up abundant supplies of men and material, while the Russians were hampered by a lack of railways, by bad roads, and long distances to their base; in France, on the other hand, the Germans had to go long distances for their reserves, and their difficulties were greatly increased by their occupation of Belgium, the cardinal blunder of the war. The losses of the Germans financially were enormous. Professor Julius Wolf, Professor of Political Economy [Pg 322]at Berlin, estimated the damage done in East Prussia and in Alsace at about 50,000,000l., and computed that Germany must reckon upon a total waste in three months of 350,000,000l.

The German Navy[18] did not venture to leave its secure harbours in the Baltic except in the battle off Heligoland in August, the two cruiser raids on the East coast of England in November and December, and some attacks on the Russian port of Libau, where the cruisers Magdeburg and Friedrich Karl were destroyed. When the war broke out the battle cruiser Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau were in the Mediterranean, and after bombarding Bona and Philippeville made their way to Messina, whence they escaped to the Bosphorus and were renamed as Turkish ships (p. 183). The armed merchant cruiser Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, which endeavoured to arrest traffic between England and the Cape, and the Cap Trafalgar were sunk before they could do much damage (Aug. 27 and Sept. 14), but the light cruiser Emden, which escaped from Kiaochau, and the Karlsruhe captured about thirty-three British merchant ships, and the armoured cruisers Gneisenau and Scharnhorst, which had also escaped from Kiaochau, after being engaged by the British unsuccessfully off Coronel, on the Chilian coast, were caught on December 8 off the Falkland Islands and sunk (pp. 226, 247). By the end of the year the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the Indian Ocean were nearly free of German cruisers. The submarines of the Germans were equally active and enterprising, but beyond sinking the Cressy, Aboukir, and Hogue in the North Sea in September and the cruiser Hermes in the Straits of Dover in November (pp. 212, 225) they were not very effective in their attacks either upon the Navy or on merchant ships; more were lost by striking the German mines which were laid at the mouth of the Thames and off Ireland. The German airships, too, did not prove very effective.

In the Pacific Ocean Germany lost all her Colonies. On August 18 Japan demanded of Germany the delivery of the entire leased territory of Kiaochau with a view to its restoration to China, and no reply having been given, besieged its fortified port, Tsing-Tao, from October 31 to November 7, when its garrison surrendered. This was by far the most valuable of the German colonies. The Marianne, Caroline, and Marshall Islands were also taken from Germany by the Japanese. German New Guinea and New Britain were captured by an expedition from Australia, and Samoa by one from New Zealand. In Africa Togoland was occupied by the British and French on August 7. In September some raids were made by the Germans on British East Africa, Nyasaland, and British South Africa which were repelled after heavy fighting. On September 19 Lüderitzbucht, in German South-West Africa, was occupied by the Union Defence Force.

[Pg 323]

On September 27 the British and French invaded the German Colony of Cameroon, whose capital, Duala, surrendered to them, but an attack by British and Indian troops from Bombay on Tanga, in German East Africa, on November 4, was repelled, and the troops then embarked, as it was considered inadvisable to attempt a second attack without adequate reinforcements. In November the Germans made a raid on the Portuguese Colony of Angola, which was repeated in December, although the German Consul had presented a formal apology to the Portuguese Government for the first raid. Finally, on December 30 an Australian force occupied Bougainville, the largest of the Solomon Islands, and hoisted the British flag, and on the following day the British Colony of Walfish Bay, which had been raided by the Germans, was reoccupied by the British.

The horrible atrocities committed by the Germans in Belgium and Poland—the massacres, rapes, and acts of mutilation of unarmed and inoffensive members of the civil population, the placing in front of the troops of male and female civilians to shield them from the fire of the Allies, the taking of hostages to be made responsible for the conduct of the population, the burning of villages and churches and the execution of parish priests, the killing of wounded soldiers and the disregard of the Red Cross—which far exceeded the devastation wrought by the Cossacks in East Prussia and by the Austrians in Serbia—aroused the reprobation of the whole civilised world, and Germany, by way of making some compensation to the Poles, and in contrast to the policy of Russia in forcing her language and religion upon the Ruthenians of Galicia, sanctioned the appointment of a Pole, Dr. Likowski, as Archbishop of Posen, dissolved the anti-Polish Ostmarkenverein (Eastern Colonisation Society) in that province, and in the districts of Russian Poland which were occupied by the German troops, announced that Polish and German would be recognised as the official languages instead of Russian. The German Humanity League issued on September 20 from Rotterdam an appeal "to the civilised world" concluding as follows:—

On August 19 the Emperor issued an Army order to his troops urging them to use all their skill and valour "to exterminate first[Pg 324] the treacherous English and walk over General French's contemptible little army," and on December 3, in reply to a deputation from the Army in Poland, he said: "We shall continue to fight successfully as hitherto, for Heaven is on our side. With God's help we shall win a long peace, for our nerves are stronger than those of the enemy."

In both the Prussian and German Parliaments all parties united in declaring that the war should be pursued to a successful end. In the German Parliament on December 2 the Imperial Chancellor, dressed in the grey service uniform of a general, declared that the German nation was fighting "a defensive war for right and freedom," and that "though the apparent responsibility for the war fell on Russia, the real responsibility fell on the British Government," as the latter "would have made the war impossible if it had without ambiguity declared at Petrograd that Great Britain would not allow a Continental war to develop from the Austro-Serbian conflict; such a declaration would have obliged France to take energetic measures to restrain Russia from undertaking warlike operations," and the German "action as mediators between Petrograd and Vienna would have been successful." "But Great Britain did not act thus. Great Britain was aware of the bellicose machinations of the partly irresponsible but powerful group around the Tsar. She saw how the ball was rolling, but placed no obstacle in its path. In spite of all its assurances of peace, London informed Petrograd that Great Britain was on the side of France, and consequently on the side of Russia. The Cabinet of London allowed this monstrous world-wide war to come about, hoping, with the help of the Entente, to destroy the vitality of England's greatest European competitor on the markets of the world. Therefore, England and Russia have before God and men the responsibility for the catastrophe which has fallen upon Europe. Belgian neutrality, which England pretended to defend, was nothing but a disguise. On the evening of August 2 we informed Brussels that we were obliged in the interests of self-defence and in consequence of the war plans of France, which were known to us, to march through Belgium, but already on the afternoon of the same day, August 2, before anything of our démarche in Brussels could have been known in London, the British Government promised France unconditional assistance in case the German fleet should attack the French coast. Nothing was said about Belgian neutrality. How can England maintain that she drew the sword because we violated Belgian neutrality? How could the British statesman, whose past is well known, speak at all of Belgian neutrality? When on August 4 I spoke of the wrong which we were committing with our march into Belgium, it was not yet established whether the Belgian Government at the last hour would not desire to spare the country and retire under protest to Antwerp."

[Pg 325]

In September, in reply to an informal inquiry made of the Imperial Chancellor by the American Ambassador at Berlin as to whether the German Emperor would be willing to discuss terms of peace, the Chancellor replied that as the Allies had formed a compact under which none of them would cease hostilities except by common agreement, the inquiry should be addressed to them, but that there were three pre-requisites to Germany's consideration of peace negotiations: first, that England should forego her demands for a war to a finish and the complete crushing of Germany; second, that while negotiations might be considered with regard to the German Colonies the German Empire in Europe must remain intact; and third, that Germany should be secured against interference by the other Powers around her in future. These conditions were considerably enlarged in a statement made at New York by Herr Dernburg, the Emperor's financial agent in America, in December. He said that Germany "would not consider it wise" to take any European territory, but would make "minor corrections of frontiers" by occupying such frontier territory as has proved a weak spot in the German armour. Belgium, which belonged geographically to the German Empire, would be incorporated in the German Customs Union like Luxemburg; but her neutrality, "having been proved an impossibility," would be abolished, and her harbours secured for all time against British or French invasion. Great Britain having "bottled up" the North Sea, a mare liberum must be established, and the Channel coasts of England, Holland, Belgium and France must be neutralised even in time of war, and the doctrine that private property should enjoy the same freedom of seizure on the high seas as it does on land must be guaranteed by all nations. All cables must be neutralised, and all Germany's Colonies returned, and in view of Germany's growing population she must take Morocco "if it is really fit for the purpose." There must be a recognised sphere of German influence for commercial and industrial purposes from the Persian Gulf to the Dardanelles, and no further development of Japanese influence in Manchuria. Finally, all small nations, such as Finland, Poland, and the Boers of South Africa, must have the right to frame their own destinies, while Egypt is to be returned, if she desires it, to Turkey.

On December 10 the British Government proposed to Germany through the American Government that arrangements should be made for the exchange of British and German officers and men, prisoners of war, who were physically incapacitated for further military service, and this offer was accepted by the German Government on December 31.

The Government was authorised by the German Parliament at the beginning of the war to borrow 200,000,000l., and a War Loan was accordingly started in. September bearing interest at 5 per cent., the issue price being 97½. Extraordinary efforts were made[Pg 326] to insure the success of the loan, and the Government sought to raise a minimum sum of 50,000,000l. by offering Treasury bills to that amount. The total subscribed amounted to 223,000,000l., but only 188,000,000l. of this sum was paid up at the end of November. The enormous increase of the expenditure in armaments was shown by the announcement of the firm of Krupp that its share capital would be increased from 9,000,000l. to 12,000,000l. and that of the new amount 1,750,000l. would be paid up at the end of the year. All the deposits of Russia, France, Belgium, and England in the German financial institutions were declared at the beginning of the year to be confiscated, and any repayment of such deposits was to be punished as an act of high treason.

In December General von Moltke, who had not displayed any of the military qualities which had made his uncle famous, was dismissed from the post of Chief of the General Staff, and succeeded by Lieutenant-General von Falkenhayn, Minister of War. His dismissal was ascribed to a difference of opinion between the Kaiser and himself. General Moltke desired a plan of campaign which would concentrate the German efforts on breaking through the Allies' line at Verdun and forcing the British Army to retire in a northerly direction. The Kaiser, however, preferred the plan of breaking through to Calais, and his favourite, General von Falkenhayn, worked out the plan, with the well-known results at Dixmude and Ypres and on the Yser (pp. 222, 369).

II. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

The result of the second Balkan War was so far favourable to Austria-Hungary that it broke up the Balkan League, but it left as the predominant State in the peninsula Serbia, which aspired to be the Piedmont of the Southern Slavs, and had long pursued a pan-Serbian agitation in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia and Dalmatia, which had become very formidable with the prestige gained by the Serbian victories. The danger to the very existence of the Empire, seeing that Serbia was secretly encouraged and supported by Russia, was patent, and there was a general feeling in Austria-Hungary that the only way to avert it was to compel Serbia by force of arms, if necessary, to cease her agitation in the Austrian provinces on her border. The Austrian and German Emperors had combined in the previous year to prevent what might have become a European war (A.R., 1913, p. 34), but the assassination of the Austrian heir to the throne by a Serbian, with arms furnished by a Serbian officer, precipitated a crisis which was bound to come sooner or later. One of the outcomes of the pan-Serbian agitation was the attempt on May 20 on the life of Baron Sterletz, Ban of Croatia, by two Serbian students, who were sentenced on October 8 to five and eight years' penal servitude respectively.

The trial of the persons accused of promoting an agitation[Pg 327] among the Ruthenians of Eastern Galicia and Hungary with the object of their conversion to the Russian Church as a first step towards the annexation of their country by Russia, which had been begun in the previous year (A.R., 1913, p. 329), was concluded on March 3, and thirty-two of the accused were sentenced to various periods of imprisonment, combined with fines, varying from six months to four and a half years. A similar trial began at Lemberg on March 9. The accused, who were all Ruthenians, were a journalist, two "Orthodox" priests, and a law student, and they were also charged with espionage in favour of Russia. The jury before whom they were tried was composed entirely of Poles, who acquitted them because, it was said, they wished to avoid interference with the internal affairs of the Ruthenians.

The racial struggle in Bohemia (A.R., 1913, p. 328) continued to make the assembling of the Diet impossible, and the Czech members of the Reichsrath retaliated by obstruction in the Reichsrath, which was consequently adjourned sine die early in March. It was not summoned again even after the outbreak of the war.

The Austro-Hungarian Delegations were opened by the heir to the throne, the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, on April 29, after a meeting, described as "very cordial," between Count Berchtold and the Marquis of San Giuliano, accompanied by their diplomatic staffs, at Abbazia. The estimates for the financial year from July 1, 1914, showed that the naval expenditure for the year would amount to 7,386,083l., of which 2,000,000l. was set down as a first instalment of a new naval programme to be completed in five years at a total estimated cost of 17,781,830l. An explanatory note attached to the Estimates stated that the object of this programme was "to make provision against the marked shifting of naval power in the Mediterranean which recent changes in the Near East may be expected to bring about." Four battleships, each of 24,500 tons displacement, were to be substituted for the three old vessels of the Monarch class and the Hapsburg, and were to form the second Dreadnought division of the Austro-Hungarian Navy, besides which three fast cruisers were to be built of 4,800 tons each, to take the place of the three cruisers of the Zenta class built in 1897, and six torpedo gun-boats of 800 tons each and two new gun-boats for service on the Danube. Provision was also made for the extension of the arsenal at Pola and the naval base at Sebenico, about half-way down the Dalmatian coast, which has a good natural harbour, is the headquarters of a rear-admiral with a command extending from Zara to Cattaro, and possesses a torpedo station, though it is not, like Pola, a naval base in which the ordinary necessaries for a modern fleet are to be found, and it was proposed to make it such a base in order to provide for a partial decentralisation of the Fleet, the necessity for which was alleged to have been shown by the recent crisis in the Balkans. Baron Engel, the Assistant[Pg 328] Finance Minister, succeeded the late Minister, Count Zaleski, on October 21.

Among the prosecutions for espionage, which were frequent this year in Austria-Hungary, as in other countries, were those of three former officers of the Austrian Army on February 24 and March 6 and 10, who were sentenced to three, nineteen, and seventeen and a half years' penal servitude respectively for espionage in favour of Russia.

An important statement as to the foreign policy of Austria-Hungary was made by Count Berchtold to the Delegations after the President of the Austrian Delegation had expressed the hope that "while preserving the non-aggressive policy of the monarchy, steps might be taken to put a decisive check upon the anti-Austrian propaganda carried on in the frontier districts." Count Berchtold, speaking of the mutual relations of the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente, noted "a certain slackening of the tension" between them, which he attributed to the policy of Great Britain. "In the attitude adopted by England at the decisive moments of the Balkan crisis," he said, "and more recently, we can perceive efforts to prevent in the future dangers to European peace similar to those threatened in the events of the most recent past. Such a policy is capable of removing misunderstandings which may arise between the two groups of Powers, and thereby to compensate in some measure for the defects which attach to the practical translation into activity of a rigid system of equilibrium"—a hint that such a system is only too likely to produce a European war. The Count also spoke in friendly terms of the relations between the Dual Monarchy and Russia, which he hoped would develop still further in the direction of mutual confidence. Turning to the Balkan States, he referred especially to the desire for closer commercial relations between the monarchy and Bulgaria, the negotiations as to the section of the Orient railways in the new Serbian territories (A. R., 1913, p. 359), the visit to Vienna of the Greek Premier, M. Venizelos, "which showed that the friendly feeling of Austria-Hungary towards Greece was reciprocated at Athens," and to the political and economic interests of the monarchy in the Ottoman Empire, which "could be best served by the continued development of friendly relations with the Porte." As to Roumania, he said that "no serious Roumanian politician could think of risking the loss of the great advantages which the hitherto close and friendly relations with the monarchy had brought to the country."

Francis Kossuth, the head of the Hungarian Independence party, died on May 25. Brought up as an engineer, he had none of the qualities of a great political leader, and he owed his position mainly to his name; he did not inherit even the oratorical gifts of his celebrated father.

The murder of the heir to the Austrian throne, the Archduke[Pg 329] Francis Ferdinand, and his wife, which was the immediate cause of the war, took place at Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, on June 28. The Archduke, who was Inspector-General of the Army, was on a tour of inspection, and as his car was driving to the town hall a bomb was thrown at him, but without effect. Half an hour later, as the Archduke was returning from the town hall, another bomb was thrown which did not explode, and the man who threw it, a Serbian student of the high school, then fired three shots with a pistol, two of which hit the Archduke and the third his wife. Both expired shortly after. It was stated that this was not the act of isolated assassins, but of a Serbian conspiracy, as widespread as that which had brought about the murder of King Alexander of Serbia and his Queen (A.R., 1902, pp. 322-3), and an outburst of horror and indignation followed all over the Empire. At Sarajevo the Croats, who, though of the same race as the Serbians, are Roman Catholics while the Serbians are "Orthodox" Greeks, and are consequently separated by deep religious as well as political differences, marched through the streets together with a large contingent of Moslems who are Serbian by race but Mohammedan by religion, and broke the windows of houses belonged to "Orthodox" Serbians; and at Agram, the capital of Croatia, large crowds of Croats marched in procession crying, "Down with the Serbian murderers." The general belief was that the conspiracy had its source in Belgrade, and the chief of the police at Sarajevo was said to have arrived at the same conclusion from the examination of the men who had taken part in the murder. According to the evidence taken at the trial of these men, which took place in October, they were the paid agents of a conspiracy whose leaders were Ministers and other functionaries of the Serbian Government, officers of the Serbian Army, and even, as was suggested by one of the witnesses, possibly the Crown Prince of Serbia himself, whose father was alleged to have been in correspondence with the assassins of King Alexander and Queen Draga, and had loaded them with honours on his accession to the throne. Five of the accused, said to have been furnished with arms and bombs by the Serbian Government for the express purpose of the murder, were condemned to death, one to imprisonment for life, and ten others to various periods of imprisonment, from three to twenty years. A dramatic incident in this connexion was the sudden death of M. Hartwig, the Russian Minister at Belgrade, while on a visit to Baron Giers, the Austro-Hungarian Minister, for the purpose, it was said, of defending himself against the charge which was freely made at the time, of his having been an accomplice in the murder. The funeral of the late Archduke took place on July 8, and on the same day the aged Emperor issued a patriotic message to his people, expressing his profound affliction at a crime which "had taken from him a dear relative and faithful helper and robbed his[Pg 330] children, still of tender age and still in need of protection, of all that was dear to them on earth," and declaring that as through sixty-five years he had shared joy and sorrow with his people, remembering even in the hours of deepest gloom his high duties and responsibility for their destinies, he was only strengthened by this fresh painful trial in the resolve to follow to his last breath the way he knew to be right for their welfare.

The new heir-presumptive, the Archduke Charles Francis Joseph, was the late Archduke Francis Ferdinand's nephew, a young man twenty-seven years of age, very popular, especially with the Poles and Ruthenians, among whom he served for some years with his cavalry regiment, but more through his pleasant manners and those of his wife, the Archduchess Zita of Bourbon-Parma, than by any special qualities of character or ability, while his uncle was impetuous and quick-tempered, with very strong opinions, chiefly in an Ultramontane direction; and an enthusiastic champion of the idea of a politico-religious conquest of the Western Balkans by Hapsburg influence, if not by Hapsburg arms, and by the propagation of Roman Catholicism among the Southern Slavs—an idea which was of course abhorrent to the Pan-Serbians, and was probably the cause of the conspiracy to which he fell a victim. The murder of the heir-presumptive of a great European State by the members of a conspiracy in a neighbouring country called for immediate and vigorous action. Accordingly, on July 23, the Austrian Minister at Belgrade presented a peremptory note to the Serbian Government, demanding a reply before 6 o'clock on July 25. The Note began by recalling the statement made by the Serbian Government on March 31, 1909, and drawn up by Great Britain (A.R., 1909, p. 346), to the effect that it would alter its policy with regard to Austria-Hungary, and live in future on good neighbourly terms with her. So far from fulfilling the engagement thus contracted, the Note proceeded, "the history of recent years has shown the existence in Serbia of a subversive movement with the object of detaching a part of Austria-Hungary from the monarchy—a movement which had its birth under the eyes of the Serbian Government, and was carried out by a series of acts of terrorism, outrages, and murders." The Serbian Government had "done nothing to repress this movement"; it had permitted "the criminal machinations of various societies and associations," had "tolerated apologies for the perpetrators of outrages and the participation of Serbian officers and civil officials in the movement," and had "permitted all the manifestations which have incited the Serbian people to hatred of the monarchy and contempt of its institutions." Passing to the murder of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the Note stated that the depositions and confessions of perpetrators of the outrage had shown that it was "hatched in Belgrade, that the arms and explosives with which they were provided had been given to them by Serbian[Pg 331] officers and civil officials belonging to the society Narodna Oprava, and that their passage into Bosnia was organised and effected by the chiefs of the Serbian frontier service." It was therefore impossible for the Austro-Hungarian Government "to pursue any longer the attitude of expectant forbearance which it had maintained for years in face of the machinations started in Belgrade and thence propagated to the territories of the monarchy"; and in order to put an end to these machinations, "which form a perpetual menace to its tranquillity, it demands from the Serbian Government a declaration, to be published on the front page of the Official Journal for July 26, and communicated to the Serbian Army as an Order of the Day by the King, stating that it condemns the movement whose final aim is to detach from the Austro-Hungarian monarchy territories belonging to it," that it "regrets that Serbian officers and civil functionaries have participated in the movement and thereby compromised the neighbourly relations to which Serbia was solemnly pledged by its declaration of March 31, 1909," and that "henceforward it will proceed with the utmost rigour against persons who may be guilty of such machinations, which it will use all its efforts to anticipate and suppress." The Note also made the following demands of the Serbian Government: 1. The suppression of all publications inciting to hatred and contempt of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy or whose tendency is directed against its territorial integrity. 2. Immediate dissolution of the Narodna Obrana and confiscation of all its means of propaganda, also of all other societies with the same objects. 3. Elimination from public instruction in Serbia of everything serving to foment the propaganda against Austria-Hungary. 4. Removal from the service of all officers and civil functionaries guilty of such propaganda whose names and acts shall be communicated by the Austro-Hungarian Government to that of Serbia. 5. Representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Government to be accepted by Serbia for the purpose of collaborating in the suppression of the above propaganda. 6. Judicial proceedings to be taken against accessories to the plot of June 28 who are on Serbian territory, and delegates of the Austro-Hungarian Government to take part in the investigation relating thereto. 7. The immediate arrest of Major Jankasitch and the Serbian State functionary, Ciganovitch, who were found to be implicated in the plot at the official inquiry at Sarajevo. 8. The prevention by effective measures of the co-operation of the Serbian authorities in the illicit traffic in arms and explosives across the frontier, and the dismissal and severe punishment of the officials of the frontier service who had facilitated the passage of the frontier for the perpetrators of the outrage of June 28. 9. Explanation of the utterances of high Serbian officials, both in Serbia and abroad, who notwithstanding their official position did not hesitate after the crime of June 28[Pg 332] to express themselves in terms of hostility to the Austro-Hungarian Government. 10. Notification to the Austro-Hungarian Government without delay of the execution of the measures comprised under the preceding heads.

The general feeling at Vienna was that notwithstanding the hard and uncompromising tone of the above Note, Serbia would yield as she did in 1909 and 1913. Everything depended, now as then, on Russia, and the Tsar was known to be strongly opposed to a European war. The Serbian reply, however, which was delivered by M. Pashitch, the Premier, to the Austro-Hungarian Minister within the time stipulated, after a busy exchange of telegrams between Belgrade and St. Petersburg, though it accepted "in principle," but with reservations, nearly all the Austrian demands, protested against the claim that Austro-Hungarian officials shall take part in the judicial inquiry into the complicity of persons on Serbian territory in the murder and in the suppression of the propaganda against Austria-Hungary, and suggested that the matter should be settled by arbitration. At Vienna the Serbian reply was regarded as merely a device to gain time for Russian and Serbian mobilisation, and a request on the part of Russia that the period in which the reply was to be given might be extended was similarly interpreted. Diplomatic relations between Austria-Hungary and Serbia were at once broken off, orders were given for a mobilisation of the Austro-Hungarian Army, part of the Landsturm was called up for service, and all ordinary traffic on the railways was stopped. In reply to Sir Edward Grey's proposal for the mediation of the four Powers, the Austro-Hungarian Government, while expressing entire agreement with him as to the desirability of localising the war, stated that "things had proceeded much too far" to allow anything to be done for the suspension of military operations; both Russia and Serbia had been mobilising for some time, and Austria-Hungary could not risk being behindhand, especially if the outcome should be a European war.

On July 28 war was declared against Serbia, and the Emperor Francis Joseph addressed a manifesto to his people, stating that it had been his fervent wish to consecrate the years still remaining to him to the works of peace, and to protect them from the heavy sacrifices and burdens of war. "The intrigues of a màlevolent opponent," however, had compelled him, in the defence of the honour and dignity of the monarchy, of its position as a Power, and of the security of its possessions to grasp the sword after long years of peace. When, "after three decades of fruitful work for peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina," the Emperor extended his sovereign rights to those lands, Serbia, whose rights were in no wise injured, had assumed an attitude of "bitterest hate" to the monarchy, notwithstanding which it had only required her to reduce her Army to a peace footing and to promise that in future "she would tread the path of peace and friendship." Again, when[Pg 333] Serbia was embroiled two years ago in a struggle with the Turkish Empire, it was to Austria-Hungary, which had "restricted its action to the defence of the vital interests of the monarchy," that Serbia "primarily owed the attainment of the objects of the war." But "the hope that Serbia would appreciate the patience and love of peace of the Austro-Hungarian Government, and would keep its word," had not been fulfilled. "The flame of its hatred" for the Emperor and his House had "blazed always higher," and the design to tear from it by force inseparable portions of Austria-Hungary "had been made manifest." "A criminal propaganda extended over the frontier with the object of destroying the foundations of State order," of making the people "waver in their loyalty to the ruling House and the Fatherland," and of inciting their youth "to mischievous deeds of madness and high treason." A series of murderous attacks, an organised, carefully prepared, and well carried out conspiracy, "whose process had wounded him and his people to the heart," had marked with its bloody track the secret machinations which were operated and directed in Serbia with this object. In vain did his Government make a last attempt to preserve the honour, dignity and interests of the monarchy from these criminal shocks, "and to induce Serbia, by means of a serious warning, to desist." Serbia had rejected "the just and moderate demands" of his Government; he must, therefore, proceed by force of arms to secure "those indispensable pledges which alone can ensure tranquillity to the monarchy at home and lasting peace abroad." Finally, the Emperor declared that "in this solemn hour he was fully conscious of the whole significance of his resolve and his responsibility before the Almighty"; that he had "examined and weighed everything," and with a serene conscience would "set out on the path to which duty points," trusting in his people "who throughout every storm always rallied in unity and loyalty round the throne, and were always prepared for the severest sacrifices for the honour, the prestige, and the might of the Fatherland," in his "brave and devoted forces," and "in the Almighty to give the victory to his arms."

The ultimatum to Serbia was, as Sir Edward Grey described it, unprecedented in the harshness of its demands of an independent State, and its style was so different from that of Count Berchtold that it was believed at Vienna to have been drafted at the Emperor Francis Joseph's request by Baron Burian, the Hungarian Minister a latere of the Emperor, an expert in South Slavonic affairs and himself of Slovak origin. The German Chancellor and his Secretary of State professed a total ignorance of the text of the ultimatum, but there seems to be no doubt that it was sent to the German Emperor in Norway and met with his complete approval, as it was more in accordance with the policy of "the mailed fist" than the polished and conciliatory despatches of Count Berchtold. The latter repeatedly asked the Emperor[Pg 334] Francis Joseph to be relieved of his post, and only remained to carry out a policy distasteful to him out of loyalty to his Imperial master. He strove up to the last for a pacific issue, and he announced in London and Paris on July 31 that he would consent to submit to mediation the points in the Note to Serbia which seemed incompatible with the maintenance of Serbian independence,[19] but the matter had by that time passed into the hands of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian military leaders and could not be pursued diplomatically any further. The policy initiated by the late Count Aehrenthal in 1908, the disastrous consequences of which Count Berchtold had done his best to minimise, was now again predominant at the Hofburg, and threatened to lead Austria-Hungary to her ruin.

War was declared against Russia, France, and England, on August 6, and the Austrian troops marched across the Russian frontier, which had been left unguarded, on August 7. The Austro-Hungarian Army was well organised and equipped, and though composed of men of several different nationalities, showed a unity of action and a rigid discipline not surpassed by that of its German ally. The Polish legion, numbering 20,000 men, many from Russian Poland, and equipped out of a fund raised by private subscription among the Poles of Galicia, greatly distinguished itself by its headlong valour and the high military qualities of its officers. Austria-Hungary was a most efficient ally for Germany, but the task assigned to her of invading Serbia, defending her own territories against the overwhelming forces of Russia, and at the same time assisting the Germans in their defence of East Prussia, was beyond her strength. This was the cause of her failures in Serbia; she crossed the frontier at Shabatz on August 13, after having bombarded Belgrade, but the necessity of massing her troops in Galicia to resist the Russian invasion prevented her from sending sufficient reinforcements to the army of 15,000 men with which she had occupied Shabatz, and she announced on August 23 that as she was "obliged to gather all her forces for the principal struggle in the north-east," her attack upon Serbia was to be regarded "as a punitive expedition and not as a definite war." The campaign which followed (p. 360) was disastrous to the Austro-Hungarian arms; three attempts were made to invade Serbian territory, and in the third, further troops having been brought up from Hungary, they succeeded in capturing Belgrade, but a fortnight after the Serbians recaptured their capital and drove the Austro-Hungarians in disorder from the country (p. 361). Montenegro having joined Serbia in declaring war upon Austria her coasts were blockaded on August 12 by the Austro-Hungarian Fleet and the Montenegrin fortress of Lowczen, opposite Cattaro, was bombarded with little effect. The Montenegrins and Serbians [Pg 335]repeatedly attempted to invade Bosnia, but did not succeed in reaching Sarajevo, the capital, being on each occasion beaten back by the Austrians.

The capture of Lemberg by the Russians and the Austro-Hungarian disasters in Serbia were a great blow to Austrian prestige, and much discontent was expressed at Vienna because Germany had apparently neglected the interests of her ally in her anxiety to protect Prussian territory against Russia. Repeated negotiations took place on the subject between the two Governments, and Count Tisza, the Hungarian Premier, was sent on a mission to the German headquarters, the result of which was that numerous German troops were sent to assist in a fresh expedition against Serbia.

War was declared against Belgium on August 27, and a treaty of arbitration with Switzerland was concluded on September 2.

CHAPTER III.
RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND THE MINOR STATES OF SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE.

I. RUSSIA.

Whatever may be the verdict of history as to the Power responsible for plunging Europe into war, it would not have taken place if Russia had not supported Serbia, for Serbia would have accepted the whole of Austria-Hungary's demands if she had not been assured of Russian active intervention in her behalf. Russia, with the magnanimity of a great people, was not prepared to stand idly by and witness the wanton attack of Austria upon a weaker state, which had already offered ample reparation for any offence for which she could be held responsible. The attack made on Serbia by Austria-Hungary was, however, regarded by the party under the Grand Duke Nicholas as an imperative call to action, even though the Army was not quite ready; but the Government made every effort to arrive at a pacific solution, and it was not until the equivocal attitude of Germany made the situation menacing that the Tsar, wavering between his love of peace and internal reform on the one hand, and the just outcry of the Nationalists and the "Orthodox" Church on the other, was at length persuaded to take the side which was sure to be the most popular, at least so long as success should crown the Russian arms. It was not, strictly speaking, a war "between Slav and Teuton," for many of the Slavs outside the Russian Empire declared themselves against Russia, and fought on the side of her enemies. The enemies of "the[Pg 336] Teuton" among the Slavs, apart from Serbia and Montenegro, were only the Russians; the Poles, the Czechs, the Croats, and even the Slovaks and Slovenes, were on the side of Austria-Hungary. There were some mutinies of Czech and Croat regiments, which were due to the racial hostility of the Czechs to the Germans and the Croats to the Hungarians (A.R., 1912, p. 337; 1913, p. 328). The "Orthodox" clergy in Russia regarded the war as a sort of crusade against Catholicism; but their agitation met with little success among the Austrian Slavs except in some districts of Galicia and Hungary inhabited by Ruthenians of the United Greek Church (p. 327), many of whom were shot during the war for having given the Russians information of the movements of the Austro-Hungarian Army. The Ruthenians of the "Orthodox" Church, on the other hand, who inhabit the province of the Ukraine in Russia, had started a separatist movement at Kieff in March in favour of union with Austria.

The most important event of the earlier part of the year was the retirement on February 11 from the post of Premier and Minister of Finance of M. Kokovtsoff, under whose administration Russia had attained to unprecedented welfare and a greater political stability than it had enjoyed for many years. His retirement was believed to have been brought about by the intrigues and disloyalty of his colleagues—a frequent cause of the fall of Ministers and other high functionaries in the Empire, and also by his having insisted, in opposition to the Ministry of Agriculture, M. Krivoshein, on the maintenance of the brandy monopoly as the safest and most productive source of the Imperial revenue. The new Premier was M. Goremykin, a reactionary bureaucrat who held the same post at the time of the first Duma (A.R., 1906, p. 319), and M. Bark, an eminent banker and a personal friend of M. Krivoshein, was appointed Minister of Finance. In a rescript addressed to the new Minister the Tsar directed him to carry out a policy of "radical reforms in the financial administration of the State and the economic life of the country," as "it is inadmissible to permit the favourable financial position of the State to depend on the destruction" (owing to the national vice of drunkenness) "of the moral and economic strength of the great multitude of Russian citizens, and it is therefore urgent that financial policy should be conducted on the principle of obtaining revenue, not from the sale of spirituous liquors, but from the produce of the inexhaustible wealth of the country and of the labour of the people." The Council of the Empire at the same time adopted a series of extremely drastic provisions in favour of temperance contained in a bill passed by the Duma, at the instigation of the peasant deputies, giving powers of local option to all communes, townships, and villages by a simple majority, with the right either of completely prohibiting the sale of liquor or restricting it to specified shops to be opened on certain days or at[Pg 337] certain hours; women being allowed to vote on these matters. Count Witte, who with M. Kokovtsoff, had been the founder of the brandy monopoly, now joined the opposition to it, declaring that he had made "a mistake which was leading Russia to her ruin." According to his estimate, the total revenue derived from the monopoly was about 100,000,000l. and had been increasing every year since it was established. The first step towards temperance reform was taken on March 26, when an order was issued to suspend the sale of spirits at all railway stations; it was also announced that the penalties on illicit trading in spirits would be increased, that the people would be taught the advantages of temperance in the churches and schools, and that the plea of extenuating circumstances would not be admitted in the case of crimes committed under the influence of drink. The outbreak of the war in August gave the movement a new impetus; the Government shops for the sale of spirits were nearly all closed, and it was announced by the Tsar in October that they would not be opened again. The result of this measure was not only an enormous increase of the efficiency of the troops, but of the wealth of the peasantry, which instead of being dissipated in drink was employed in agricultural improvements and a great increase of their investments in savings banks. A further result of the interest taken by the Tsar in the moral and physical welfare of his people was the creation of a "Department of Physical Culture," for the promotion of outdoor sports, and during the war the sale of spirits was strictly forbidden in all the Galician towns occupied by the Russians; the keeper of a restaurant at Lemberg was fined 2,000 crowns (83l. 6s. 8d.) for having sold a customer a glass of cognac. The chief difficulty in the adoption of the proposed reforms was that which had hampered the Tsar's intentions since the issue of the October manifesto of 1905 (A.R., 1905, p. 319), namely the want of harmonious co-operation between the Ministry and the Legislature on the one hand, and the members themselves of the Ministry on the other. The new Premier, M. Goremykin, was appointed by the Tsar without a Ministerial portfolio, apparently with the object of placing him above departmental rivalries, and he was directed by an Imperial Rescript on March 20 "to work in harmony with the Legislature." Cooperation with the Duma was attempted by conferences between the Premier and its leading members, the intention being, if it should prove impossible to secure a majority for the proposed reforms, to hold a general election. The first of these conferences held in the Duma did not relate to internal reforms, however, but to a proposal made by the Government to increase the peace effectives of the Army by 460,000 men, bringing up the total to 1,700,000, at an extra cost of 50,000,000l. spread over three years. This was the Russian answer to the increase of the German Army in 1913 (A.R., 1913, p. 307), and to an [Pg 338]anti-Russian campaign in the German and Austro-Hungarian Press, and all the Russian party leaders, except the Socialists, sanctioned the proposal. It was further determined, with the consent of the Duma, that the service of time-expired men should be prolonged for three months after the legal limit, which brought up the peace effective at once to almost the number fixed above.

The Russian Foreign Minister, M. Sazonoff, made a remarkable statement on the subject to a representative of the Hungarian Journal Az Est. He said that he could not understand the reason of the excitement in Germany and Austria-Hungary with regard to Russia; tension certainly did exist between the monarchy and Russia in the previous year, but the relations between the two countries were now "excellent." The increase of armaments, he continued, was initiated by Germany, whose initiative had reacted on France, and led to an increase of the peace strength of Austria-Hungary; it was therefore natural that Russia should have taken steps in the same direction. With a birth rate of 2,500,000 she could allow herself "the luxury" of an increase in the peace footing of her Army. A "test mobilisation" of about 500,000 reservists was begun on April 15, and in June the Duma approved of an extraordinary credit of 10,000,000l. for the construction of warships for the Black Sea Fleet, to be spent on one 27,000-ton Dreadnought, two 7,500-ton cruisers, eight torpedo boats and six submarines, all to be built at Nikolaieff and commissioned not later than the spring of 1917. The Minister of Finance at the same time stated that Russia would have to spend 752,000,000l. in the next five years for the Army and Navy.

On April 2 the Imperial assent was given to a bill providing that married women, separated from their husbands, should enjoy full liberty of movement and enjoyment of property, even if minors, and that the courts shall have no power to order restitution of conjugal rights; cruelty to the children, rudeness, violence, dishonesty, immorality, or dangerous or loathsome illness to be sufficient cause for separation, and the husband to provide alimony, the care of the children being awarded to the injured party.

The report of the Budget Committee of the Duma on the Budget for 1914 was issued on April 6. It fixed the expenditure at 358,032,609l., or nearly 33,000,000l. more than in 1913, and the revenue at 361,265,916l., or 36,200,000l. more than in 1913, and proposed that the surplus of 3,233,109l. should be devoted to the building of ways of communication, also that as the temperance campaign was likely to diminish the revenue, fresh taxes should be introduced. The Opposition groups took advantage of the debate on the Budget to protest against the intended prosecution of one of their leaders, M. Tcheidze, for propagating Republican ideas. Hereupon, on the proposal of the President, the Duma voted the suspension for a fortnight of fifteen Socialists, including M. Tcheidze, who were removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms and the[Pg 339] guard. Notwithstanding the efforts of M. Gozemykin to establish more friendly relations between the Government and the Duma, there was no alleviation of the discontent manifested by all classes in the previous year (A.R., 1913, p. 336). On May 17, after voting a reduction in the Home Office Estimates as a protest against its policy, the Duma, by 186 votes against 95, censured M. Maklakoff, the Home Minister, for his persistent disregard of the representative institutions of the Empire, thereby "undermining the welfare and safety of the State." In June there was a serious crisis on the Stock Exchange at St. Petersburg, ascribed chiefly to the reactionary and repressive policy of the Home Minister, who discouraged foreign capital by the vexatious restrictions imposed upon joint stock companies with regard to the participation of Jews in their management. He was also held responsible for the enormous increase in so-called political strikes (A.R., 1913, p. 336), the work of a clandestine organisation which threatened to paralyse trade and industry. In the May-day strike 130,000 men took part in St. Petersburg alone, and such widespread drunkenness had never before been observed among the working-men. The strikes continued through the months of June and July; on July 23 there was fighting in different parts of the capital until midnight, the strikers having raised barricades against the police, upon which they were charged by the Cossacks, many being killed and wounded. On the following day 110,000 workmen were still out on strike, and the Novoe Vremya, the most influential of the Russian papers, declared that the existing system of police repression had proved a failure, and "unorganised masses had been thrown defenceless under the yoke of revolutionary agitators," adding that both the Government and public opinion were responsible for the abominable excesses which had disgraced Russia. The strikes ceased, however, on July 26 without further recourse to violence, and they were not renewed in view of the greater issues confronting the Empire.

On July 13 Gregory Rasputin, the peasant "fakir" whose influence with the Empress and the ladies of the Russian Court had given rise to much scandal in the society of the capital, was stabbed in his house near Tobolsk by a woman, a follower of his rivals the monk Heliodorus and Bishop Hermogen, who had sought to obtain his banishment. A report presented by the Holy Synod to the Tsar stated that defections from the "Orthodox" faith were growing more and more numerous, and that the Socialists and others, dreaming of a new revolution, were sapping the foundations of the Church. The seceders were mostly Baptists, Stundists, Old Believers, Flagellators, and Atheists.

The cordiality of the reception on June 24 of the officers of the British First Battle Cruiser Squadron at Tsarskoe Selo was somewhat marred by the unfavourable impression produced at St. Petersburg by the acquisition by the British Government of a pre[Pg 340]ponderant interest in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (p. 123), which Russian politicians regarded as tantamount to the establishment of British preponderance in the neutral zone in which the Anglo-Russia Convention of 1907 had stipulated equality of opportunity. In the Duma on May 24 M. Sazonoff, the Foreign Minister, had declared that the foreign policy of Russia "continued to be based on the unshakeable alliance with France and friendship with Great Britain; the establishment of a sound friendship between France and Great Britain, and also between Great Britain and Russia, had brought Great Britain within the sphere of political communion previously existing between Russia and France which had helped to maintain peace." Although there was not a formal alliance between Russia and Great Britain, there was a "political combination imposed by unity of aims," and therefore "friendly co-operation is assured irrespective of the form and the scope of the written word." The Triple Entente was "responsible for the equilibrium of Europe, and ever ready to co-operate with the Triple Alliance in the general interests of peace." Russia "continued to seek the maintenance of the old friendly relations with Germany," but unfortunately the endeavours of the two Governments in this direction "did not always meet with due support from the Press of their countries." As to Austria-Hungary the Minister merely re-echoed the friendly sentiments of Count Berchtold with regard to neighbourly relations, and in the Balkans, he said, Russia's task was pacification. "She would impartially assist all the Balkan States, asking in return only neutral sincerity and confidence." Her relations with Turkey had improved since the Balkan crisis, and she was disposed to assist Turkey in the internal reform of her Asiatic possessions, as "only the peaceful development of Turkey would assure the freedom of the navigation of the Straits"; and the conciliatory spirit of the Turkish Government was shown by its attitude towards Armenian reforms, in which matter "Germany had co-operated with Russia." Finally, M. Sazonoff said that a "comparative lull" had been noticeable of late in Persia, "thanks to the continued friendly co-operation of Russia and Great Britain and the efforts of the Russian legation and the Persian Cossack brigade in quelling disturbances in the Western districts." The majority of the Russian troops at Kazvin had consequently been recalled, but in the northern provinces order was still dependent on the presence of the Russian troops. Russian policy towards Persia, the Minister concluded, remained unchanged and was devoid of aggressive intentions. "Our object is, as hitherto, to contribute to the establishment in this bordering country, so closely joined to us by important economic interests, of that stable order so necessary for the further development of our mutual commercial relations and the progress of Persia herself."

The visit of President Poincaré to Russia (July 20) elicited an[Pg 341] enthusiastic welcome on the part of the people, and on July 23 the Tsar, in proposing the toast of the President and France, said that France and Russia had for nearly a quarter of a century been bound by close ties in order the better to pursue the same end, "which consists in safeguarding their interests by collaborating in the equilibrium and the peace of Europe," adding that he was convinced that "the two countries will continue to enjoy the benefit of peace," remarkable words, considering that they were spoken only a few days before Europe was plunged into war.

On July 26 the Tsar left St. Petersburg on a trip to the Finnish Skerries, after having authorised, in consequence of the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia (p. 330), the issue of orders for a mobilisation of fourteen Army Corps on the Austrian frontier, and of the rest of the Russian Army immediately upon mobilisation in Germany.

Russia and Germany had never since the partition of Poland been in antagonism until now. Austria had given the Poles liberty and self-government, and they were naturally ready and willing to fight for her. But Russia had alienated them by her incessant persecution of their language and national institutions, and by her fruitless attempts to crush their national existence and turn them into Russians, while Germany, acting by more subtle means with a similar object, was feared as well as detested. Both, now that Poland was to be the battlefield, appealed to the Poles for their support, making golden promises to them of which the motives were only too evident, and which a tragic experience had taught them were not to be depended upon. By the side of Germany, as Russia's most formidable enemy, they were ready though reluctant to fight. But of the many thousands in the Russian Army who surrendered to the Austrians many were Poles, and thousands more escaped from Russian Poland to join the Polish legions which were formed under Austrian auspices. The feeling of the other Slavs in Austria-Hungary and elsewhere with regard to Russia was equally hostile. The Czech Glas Naroda, commenting on one of the appeals of the Grand Duke Nicholas to the Poles, saying the war "is a war of liberation for the Slavs," and promising "to unite all the parts of Poland now under the rule of Austria-Hungary and Germany, give them self-government, and restore Poland under his sceptre," asked: "From what are the Slavs to be liberated? From the freedom and self-government which they enjoy under Austria-Hungary? They will hardly be tempted to exchange these benefits for the despotic rule of a corrupt bureaucracy. As for the Czechs, they often oppose the Government, but are always warmly attached to the State with whose existence their own is inseparately bound. Austria-Hungary gives equal rights to all the nationalities in the Empire and enables them freely to develop themselves. Russia does not tolerate any other nationality in her dominions, not even[Pg 342] a Slavonic one." Shortly after the bombardment by the Turkish fleet of the Russian towns on the Black Sea a deputation of Ruthenians from the Ukraine came to Constantinople and issued an address to the Ottoman nation, saying that Russia had always been the enemy of Turkey, that the treatment of the Mohammedans in Russia was a crime against humanity, and that thirty millions of people in the Ukraine hoped to be rescued from such sufferings by Turkey, the old ally of the Cossacks of the Ukraine. In Bulgaria, too, the Rabotniczewski, an organ of the Labour party, described Russia's claim to pose as the liberator of the smaller European States as a "shameless piece of cynicism," as 180,000,000 people, Russians, Poles, and Finns, were suffering under her despotic rule. While in France, Belgium, Germany, and Austria-Hungary the Socialists joined with the other parties in supporting the Government, in Russia they declared in a letter to M. Vandervelde, the eminent Belgian Socialist and ex-Minister, who had urged them to join in the war against Germany, that they would continue their struggle against Tsardom with more energy than ever, and take every opportunity of reversing it: "The Russian as well as the German Government is the enemy of democracy; even now that it is at war it persecutes the working-men and the non-Russian nationalities, and should it be victorious it would be the propagator of political reaction in all Europe."

At the beginning of the war the Russian troops were removed from the frontier districts to the great fortresses of Ivangorod and Brzesc Litewski, where they were formed into three Armies, one to advance through East Prussia and Silesia towards Berlin, another to break through the Carpathians into Hungary, and the third and strongest to march upon Galicia. The advance into Prussia was to be a powerful diversion with the object of weakening Germany's invasion of France by forcing her to send troops from there to the East to defend her own territory, while the object of the advance to Hungary was to help the Serbians against the Austrian invasion. To strengthen these Armies the whole of Finland, nearly the whole of Russian Poland and large districts in Central and Northern Russia, as far as Siberia, were left without troops. The Grand Duke Nicholas, the nephew of Alexander II. and husband of the Princess Anastasia of Montenegro, was appointed Commander-in-Chief, and General Sukhomlinoff, Minister of War, Chief of the General Staff. As not only the troops, but the gendarmes and the Customs officials, were removed from the frontier districts, and the Custom houses were closed in anticipation of an Austrian advance before the Russian mobilisation was completed, people could pass into Austria without examination at the frontier, and many Poles took the opportunity of thus escaping enlistment into the Russian Army and joining the Polish legions which were being formed at their own expense by the Poles in Galicia for service with the Austrian[Pg 343] Army. On marching with his troops into Russian Poland the Grand Duke Nicholas issued the following address to the Poles: "Poles, the hour has struck when the sacred dreams of your fathers and ancestors can be realised. A century and a half ago the living body of Poland was torn to pieces, but its soul did not die. She lived in the hope that the hour of resurrection would come for the Polish nation and its fraternal reconciliation with Great Russia. The Russian troops bring you the solemn news of that reconciliation. May the Poles of Russia unite under the sceptre of the Russian Tsar, under that sceptre Poland will be born again, free in her religion, her language, and her autonomy. Russia only asks that you should respect the rights of the nationalities to which history has allied you" (i.e. the Ruthenians). "With open heart and hands fraternally held out, Great Russia comes to meet you. The sword which struck down the enemy at Grünwald (an allusion to the battle in which the Polish King, Ladislaus Yagiello, defeated the German crusaders and made them his vassals) has not yet rusted. The Russian Armies march from the shores of the Pacific to the North Sea. The dawn of a new life begins for you. May the sign of the Cross, the symbol of the suffering and the resurrection of the nations, glitter in that dawn." A reply to this address, signed by some Poles in Warsaw, expressed their loyalty to the Tsar and their wish for the success of the Russian arms, but among many of the Poles the Grand Duke's promises were regarded as merely a device for keeping them quiet. The address produced more impression among the Russians than among the Poles; at Moscow and Kieff large sums were subscribed for the relief of the Poles who were suffering from the total devastation of their country caused by the war, and there was a revulsion of feeling in favour of the Polish nation.

While the Russians were massing their armies in the "Trilateral" (Ivangorod, Novo Georgievsk and Brzesc Litewski), Austrian troops crossed the frontier and occupied Kielce and other towns in Russian Poland, and were at first well received by the people, but when subsequently their place was taken by German troops, who imposed contributions, took hostages, and bombarded churches and villages, the feeling for their new rulers naturally changed. There were 1,300,000 Polish soldiers in the Russian, German and Austrian Armies, military service in all three States being obligatory, and their country, seven times as large as Belgium, was even more devastated by the constant marchings to and fro of millions of troops, which destroyed everything that could be of advantage to their enemies; and often, notably the Cossacks, the Honveds and some of the Germans—as in Belgium—burnt villages and plundered country houses.

Directly after the declaration of war, on August 2, a strong Russian column, with guns, crossed the Prussian frontier near[Pg 344] Biala, and marched to Johannisburg. The Germans, on the other hand, occupied Bendzin, Kalisch, and Czenstochowa in the Kingdom of Poland. On August 1 the Russians occupied Stallupönen, east of Insterburg, and Lyck, after five days' skirmishing with the Germans at Eydtkuhnen and Wirballen. These, however, were merely reconnaissances in force; the general advance of the Russian Armies did not begin until August 18, when they sent two Armies into East Prussia and invaded Galicia from the north and east, converging upon Lemberg. On crossing the frontier the Grand Duke Nicholas published an appeal to the Ruthenians in Galicia, addressing them as brothers "who had languished for centuries under a foreign yoke" and calling upon them "to raise the banner of united Russia."

The first great battle of the war between the Russians and Germans took place on August 20 between Pilkallen and Stallupönen, on the road to Tilsit; it lasted fourteen hours, and the four German Army corps which took part in it were driven by the Russians towards Gumbinnen with a loss of 3,000 men and thirty guns, and followed to Insterburg, which the Russians captured on August 23 without resistance. Then came a Russian attack on Kielce and Tomaszow, in the Kingdom of Poland, which had been occupied by the Austrians; the Russians were driven back with great loss, and the Austrians then occupied Sandomierz. Meanwhile the Germans brought up three Army corps of 160,000 men near Gumbinnen, and endeavoured to turn the Russian left, but without success, and the Russians then occupied Soldau, which commands the railway to Dantzig, and took possession of nearly one-half of the territory of East Prussia. Their attempts to enter Galicia were less fortunate. They were beaten at Sokal on the road to Lemberg with the loss of a whole brigade and two generals, one of whom was killed and the other taken prisoner. At Pavosielica, on the frontier of Bukovina and Bessarabia, 20,000 of the Russian cavalry were driven back by the Austrians; on August 24 an Austrian Army under General Dankl, engaged the Russians in a three days' battle on a line of fifty miles at Krasnik, on the road to Lublin, and on September 2 another Austrian Army, under General Auffenberg, attacked 280,000 Russians in eight days' fighting on a front of 200 miles at Zamosc and Komarow. A fresh Russian Army, however, under General Russky, coming up from the south-east between the two Austrian Armies, which had lost 20,000 killed and wounded, with 76,000 prisoners and 300 guns in the previous battles, inflicting on the Russians a loss of 19,000 prisoners and 200 guns, forced them to retire, and occupied on September 3 Lemberg (which they renamed by the Polish name Lwow), the capital of Galicia, which remained in the hands of Russia till the end of the year, with a Russian administration, Russian clergy (the Ruthenian Archbishop having been banished to Russia) and obligatory teaching of Russian, instead of Ruthen[Pg 345]ian, in the schools. Meanwhile the Russians, who had completed the mobilisation of 8,000,000 men, divided into four Armies, to be sent into the field one after the other, marched two of them into East Prussia, and were so confident of victory that they expected to reach Berlin within three weeks. One, under General Rennenkampf, occupied Tilsit and marched on Königsberg; the other, under General Samsonoff, started for Thorn and Posen, but on reaching Tannenberg, near Ortelsburg, it was confronted on August 28 by the Germans under General Hindenburg, who, using a similar manœuvre to that of Hannibal at Cannæ, drew on the Russians with apparently inferior forces into the swampy region of the Mazurian lakes, and then, attacking them on both flanks and in the rear, compelled them to surrender with a loss of 50,000 killed and wounded, including three of their best generals and several staff officers, 90,000 prisoners and 516 guns. The second Army under General Rennenkampf, which had come too late to prevent the disaster, was also routed by General Hindenburg on September 10, and for the time being the Russian offensive in East Prussia was abandoned. The remnants of the Russian Army were again defeated on September 15 at Elk, and were pursued by the Germans into Russian territory as far as Augustowo, near the fortress of Ossowiec, which they invested on September 30.

Although the capture of Lemberg was a great blow to Austrian prestige, the Austrian armies, together with some German corps which had been brought up to their assistance after the Russian defeat at Tannenberg, pursued their attacks upon the Russians at Rawa Russka, after a battle which lasted from September 7 to September 11, with terrible loss on both sides. The Russians had still 2,000,000 men in the field on the Austrian and Prussian frontiers, and their attempt to break through the Germans in the direction of Königsberg and Thorn having failed, they now made the fortresses of Przemysl and Cracow their objective, as if these were taken the road would be clear to Berlin and to Vienna. After seventeen days' fighting they advanced towards Przemysl, and attacked the Austrian Army while it was crossing the river San, capturing the whole of its rearguard, amounting to 30,000 men. The Austrians fought well, but the Russians, as regards fighting efficiency were more than equal to their opponents. Nearly the whole of Eastern Galicia and Czernowitz, the capital of Bukovina, were now in their hands; on September 18 they occupied Sandomierz, on the 22nd Jaroslaw, on the railway between Lemberg and Cracow, and on the 28th they began the siege of Przemysl, while other Russian forces advanced to the passes of Uszok and Dukla, in the Carpathians, for a raid into Hungary, which, however, was beaten back by the Hungarians and the Polish legionaries on September 30. When the Russians arrived at Medyka, near Przemysl, they were also[Pg 346] attacked by the Austrians, who inflicted on them a loss of 5,000 killed, 40,000 wounded, and 10,000 prisoners. This, combined with their losses in attempting to take Przemysl by storm, when whole regiments perished under the deadly fire of the Austrian artillery, and the menace of the Germans in Northern Poland, led to a retreat of the Russians from Western and South-Eastern Galicia, though not from Lemberg and the adjoining territory. The Austro-German Allies were at the beginning of October again strongly posted along the Vistula and the San, and in possession of the whole of Western Galicia, the Bukovina, and the passes of the Carpathians, besides one-half of the Kingdom of Poland. The Russian attempt to invade Prussia and to destroy the Austro-Hungarian Army had, therefore, so far failed. But new Russian forces were brought up from Warsaw and the adjoining fortresses which caused the Germans to retreat towards the frontier, while the Austro-Hungarians took the offensive in Galicia on the line from Sambor to Stanislawow. The main Armies of Austria-Hungary and Germany and Russia were now in close touch over a front of 270 miles, and on October 14 the whole of Poland west of the Vistula, including the important town of Lodz, "the Polish Manchester," which was captured after severe fighting on October 8, was in the possession of the Austrians and Germans, who, with the Polish legions, penetrated to within half-a-day's march of Warsaw, and caused much indignation among the people by their aviators throwing bombs on the town and killing or wounding many civilians, but they were attacked both on the front and on the flanks by four Russian Armies of 200,000 men each, who after seven days' fighting forced them to retire on October 20. The Polish legions, furious at the order to retreat being given when they were within sight of Warsaw, made a rush forward and had to be surrounded by the Germans to prevent their being annihilated. The German line was then pushed back to Skierniewice, fifty miles west of Warsaw, and on October 27 the Russians reoccupied Lodz, but the battle continued to rage on both fronts with unprecedented tenacity, the Russians fighting with intense energy and spirit. On November 3 they took Kielce, having captured Radom on the previous day, and on November 4 they entered Sandomierz, on the Vistula. On November 8 they resumed the invasion of East Prussia, advancing to Stallupönen, Soldau, and Pleschen, in the German province of Posen. In Galicia, however, the Austrians still held to the left bank of the San, notwithstanding the vigorous attacks of the Russians, who inflicted upon them a loss of 100,000 men besides those who suffered on the other lines of retreat. Meanwhile the Germans, who had brought up fresh troops from the West, resumed the offensive in Russian Poland on November 18, and broke through the Russian lines at Kutno, between the Vistula and the Wartha, compelling the Russians to retire several miles[Pg 347] in the direction of Lowicz. In this battle the Russians were stated to have lost 45,000 men, including the Governor of Warsaw, who drove inadvertently into the German lines. After their victory at Kutno the Germans again advanced towards Warsaw, driving the Russians before them, and on the 22nd they were within forty miles of the Polish capital. In East Prussia, too, they drove the Russians from their fortified positions and captured 23,000 prisoners at Wloclawek, on the road to Thorn. The Russian Armies, on their western frontier, now numbered 3,500,000 men, while the Austro-Hungarian and German Armies combined did not exceed 2,000,000. Another great battle took place before Lodz, which, after a fortnight's desperate fighting, with immense loss on both sides, was recaptured by the Germans on December 8, who after being almost enveloped by the Russians broke the ring which was being drawn round them and put back the Russian front before Warsaw. This check was attributed to dissensions among the Russian generals, and General Rennenkampf, who arrived too late to relieve the Russian centre, was, with seven other generals, arrested and brought before a court martial. General Hindenburg, on the other hand, was made a Field-Marshal for what was described by the German General Staff as "one of the finest deeds of arms in the whole campaign," having captured 60,000 unwounded prisoners and 100 guns. The Germans were not able, however, to pursue their advantage; the powerful attacks of the Russians prevented their getting any nearer to Warsaw than Sochaczew, about thirty miles to the west of that city. They strove hard up to the end of the year to push through to Warsaw, but were unable to get any farther than the Rivers Bzura and Rawka, where they entrenched themselves and made a series of fruitless attacks on the Russian positions on the other side of those rivers, Farther north, however, Mlawa, near the Prussian frontier, was retaken by the Germans on December 26. The German main line at the end of the Ysar ran from Mlawa to Ilow Lowicz, and Tomaszow, all of which towns were in their hands, but the Russians remained in occupation of about 8,000 square kilometres of Prussian soil.

Meanwhile in Galicia, the Russians occupied Tarnow on November 13, resuming the siege of Przemysl on the following day, and on December 2 they entered Wieliczka, the centre of the salt mines in Western Galicia, three and a half miles from the outer fortifications of Cracow, which were now invested by them. There was much fighting north, west, and south of Cracow (especially at Limanowa, where the Russians lost 40,000 prisoners), but the city itself escaped damage, none of the shots of the Russian artillery having reached it, and at the end of the year, both Przemysl and Cracow still remained free from the invaders, who temporarily abandoned the advance on them on December 12 after a series of battles in which they suffered heavy losses and[Pg 348] were driven eastward for a distance of forty miles. Although Russia had yet made little progress towards Berlin, she had conquered a great part of Galicia, and she had given valuable help to her Allies by compelling Germany to detach large forces from France in order to protect her frontier in Poland.

In November Russia was involved in another war, owing to the attack of the Turkish fleet on the Russian ports in the Black Sea (p. 352). On November 4, Russian troops entered Asia Minor and advanced for seventeen miles along the road to Erzeroum, and on November 8, they successfully resisted an attack by the Turks armed with German heavy artillery, at Kuprikeui in Armenia, from which there are mountain paths in the direction of Erzeroum. Further attacks were made by the Turks during the rest of the month, and, also in December, in the Euphrates Valley without any notable result, until they reached Ardahan and Sarakamysch in an attempt to regain Kars, when in a three days' battle with the Russians at the end of the year they were driven back with enormous losses, the whole of one of their Army corps having surrendered.

Apart from the two wars, there is little to record in the Russian history of the second half of the year. On September 1, an Imperial order was issued directing that the city of St. Petersburg should in future be designated as "Petrograd" (Peter's City). This was an outcome of the hostility in Russia to everything German, as was a decree issued in November, depriving German and Austro-Hungarian subjects of Russia of their rights to immovable property either leasehold or freehold situated in rural districts near the Russian land frontier, the Baltic, the Black Sea, and the Sea of Azoff. In November an income tax was imposed on all incomes exceeding 1,000 roubles (100l.), at the rate of from 16 roubles (1l. 15s.) up to 15,600 roubles (1,700l.) for incomes exceeding 190,000 roubles (19,700l.), together with a tax on men exempt from military service. As regards Finland and Poland there was no alleviation of the methods of Russification previously practised, although the devastation caused in Poland by the war produced a current of more friendly feeling towards the Poles among some sections of the Russian people. At Petrograd a society was formed for a reconciliation between the Russians and the Poles, which struck medals representing a Russian and a Pole shaking hands; but these were promptly confiscated by the Government, and in the Duma but little was said on behalf of the Poles. The Socialists were pursued with the utmost rigour, their members in the Duma were arrested, and when M. Burtzeff, known by the part he took in the exposure of Azeff and other Russian agents provocateurs, left Russia in 1907 with a regular passport, not having been prosecuted for any offence, returned to that country in order, as he stated in a letter to The Times, to promote "a unity of all nationalities and[Pg 349] all parties" in pursuing the war, he was arrested on his arrival in November on a charge of having insulted the Tsar in a Paris newspaper while he was living in France, and sentenced to deportation to Siberia.

As regards foreign affairs, on September 5, Russia joined in the declaration that none of the Governments of the Triple Entente would conclude peace separately; and on October 24 Russia declared to Italy that she would order the liberation of all Austrian prisoners of Italian nationality, provided that the Italian Government would undertake to keep them in Italy during the war, but Italy replied that she could not give such an undertaking, as "every Italian or foreigner arriving on Italian territory, not having been guilty of any crime, was free, and his liberty could not be restrained in any way," upon which Russia withdrew the condition attached to the offer.

II. TURKEY AND THE MINOR STATES OF EASTERN EUROPE.

While war was raging in Central and Western Europe, all the States of the Near East except Serbia and Montenegro, and afterwards Turkey, remained neutral, though they mobilised their forces so as to be ready in case of need.

The most important event in Turkey at the beginning of the year was the appointment as War Minister of Enver Bey, the hero of the Young Turkish Revolution of 1908 (A.R., 1908, pp. 323-7). As a former military attaché at Berlin, he had long been in intimate relations with German military circles, and his influence in strengthening the ties between the German and Turkish Governments soon made itself felt. On January 8 an Imperial Iradeh was issued confirming the appointment of the Inspectors-General of the four Armies and the Commander of the thirteen Army Corps into which the Ottoman Army was to be divided, and among the former was the German General, Liman von Sanders (Liman Pasha), who was also appointed Commander of the First Army Corps. Over 160 superior Army officers were at the same time placed on the retired list. Enver Pasha (he obtained this title on his appointment in the place of that of Bey) was also appointed chief of the General Staff, with a German officer as one of his assistants.

The matters dealt with by the Powers in connexion with the Balkan Wars which had remained unsettled at the end of the previous year (A.R., 1913, pp. 356-7) were the proposed Armenian reforms, the question of the Ægean Islands, and the formation of the new State of Albania. As regards the first of these, the Russian charge d'affaires at Constantinople arrived at a complete agreement in February with the Grand Vizier on the subject. The Armenian community in Turkey was to be represented in[Pg 350] the Ottoman Parliament by seventy deputies to be designated by the Armenian Patriarch, and the general inspection and supervision of the judicial and administrative officials in the two sections into which the six Eastern Anatolian vilayets were to be divided was to be confided to two foreign Inspectors-General, to be appointed by the Powers from the subjects of minor European States. Christians and Mohammedans were to be equally represented in the provincial councils of Bitlis and Van, and in proportion to the numbers of each religion in the other councils, but as regards appointments to the public service there were to be as many Christians, if possible, as Mohammedans. The Ægean question, on the other hand, nearly led to a war between Turkey and Greece. In reply to a collective European Note on the subject presented to the Grand Vizier on February 14, the Porte, knowing that the Powers had failed to obtain unanimity for the enforcement of their decisions, stated that it was indispensable for Turkey to possess not only the islands in the neighbourhood of the Dardanelles, but also those which, like Chios and Mytilene, "form an integral part of the Asiatic possessions of the Empire." While accepting, it added, the restitution by Greece of Imbros, Tenedos, and Castellorizzo, the Ottoman Government "will endeavour to secure its just and legitimate demands." Greece, on the other hand, agreed to comply with the decision of the Powers, but demanded a rectification of the proposed Albanian frontier near Argyrokastro (A.R., 1913, p. 357) on ethnological grounds, and offered in exchange a strip of coast line and a grant to Albania of 100,000l. Further, as the islands to be retained by Greece were not to be fortified, the Greek Government proposed that guarantees should be required by the Powers of Turkey against her attacking them, expressing its readiness to give similar guarantees on its part, and also to prevent contraband trade between the islands and the Continent, adding that it would protect the Mohammedans in the islands to be ceded to Greece if the Porte would give a similar undertaking as to the Christians in the islands left to Turkey. The Powers of the Triple Alliance then guaranteed equality of religion and speech in the whole of Albania and the proposed rectification of the frontier, except as regards Koritza, which was to remain Albanian, as soon as the Greek troops should evacuate the portion of Epirus which had been assigned to Albania. The period, however, fixed for the evacuation (A.R., 1913, p. 357) was allowed to pass, and a Greek Note to the Powers of the Triple Alliance, who had insisted on such evacuation, suggested in April that it should be postponed pending the acceptance by Turkey of the proposals of the Powers as to the Ægean Islands. To this the Powers replied on April 24, insisting on an immediate evacuation, and on May 14 the Sultan, in opening the Turkish Parliament, referred to the efforts the Porte was making for a pacific solution of the Ægean ques[Pg 351]tion "in conformity with the essential interests of the Ottoman Empire."

Meanwhile great indignation was expressed at Athens on learning that the Turks were subjecting the Greeks in Thrace and at Smyrna to systematic persecution in order to bring about their emigration. In reply to a Greek Note on the subject the Porte stated on June 18 that the troubles in Asia Minor and elsewhere had been caused by the arrival of 250,000 emigrants from Macedonia, and that the Government was taking steps to restore tranquillity in the disturbed districts, implying that the condition of the Greek subjects of the Sultan is a question of internal politics in which Greece has no right to interfere. Prompt steps were, however, taken to punish excesses committed against the Greek populations; sentences of from three to five years' imprisonment were passed on forty-seven Mohammedans found guilty of pillaging Greek houses, and the whole of the Smyrna district was placed under martial law. The disorders were to a great extent caused by the policy adopted by the Turkish Government of quartering Mohammedan immigrants in Greek villages, apparently with the object of interposing a barrier between the islands and the adjoining districts on the Continent in the shape of a solid mass of Mohammedan inhabitants all along the coast, thereby effectively checking the Pan-Hellenic propaganda which had been going on for many years among the Greeks in Turkey (A.R., 1913, p. 354).

Although Turkey had declared at the beginning of the war that she would be neutral, when Enver Pasha became Minister for War preparations were at once made for her taking military and naval action against the Allies. Liman Pasha was appointed commander-in-chief of the Turkish Army on August 27, the German cruisers Goeben and Breslau (p. 183) were added to the Turkish Navy and entered the Black Sea on October 20, with their German officers and crews, though the Russian and British ambassadors had stated to the Porte that they did not regard the sale of these two vessels as valid, and that the Allies would attack them the next time they came out. Meanwhile, on September 9, the Porte announced to the Powers that the judicial and financial Capitulations, under which each Christian nation was allowed to govern its own subjects within the Ottoman dominions, would be abolished from October 1. The Ambassadors of all the Powers, including Germany, protested against this step, which became practically nugatory when Turkey entered into the war. As regards the measures taken for common action with Germany, the Grand Vizier and most of the other Ministers, though resenting the retention by the British Government of the Ottoman warships building in England,[20] were opposed to them, but had to [Pg 352]yield to Enver Pasha, who had the whole Turkish Army at his back, and had adopted the view promulgated by German agents that the only way to save Constantinople and the Turkish Empire from being seized by Russia and her allies would be to enter into an alliance with Germany. Large numbers of German officers, soldiers, and sailors were imported from Germany to serve in the Turkish Fleet, the forts of the Dardanelles, and the Turkish Army, and German merchant vessels served as bases of communication and auxiliaries to the Turkish ships of war. The officers of the German military mission organised military preparations in Syria for an attack on Egypt, and the Syrian towns were full of German officers provided with large sums of money for suborning the local chiefs.

The Ottoman military action began, after a protest against the watch kept by British warships at the mouth of the Dardanelles to prevent the Goeben and Breslau from escaping, and against the British navigation of the Shatt-el-Arab, by an incursion on October 28 into the Sinai Peninsula of an armed body of 2,000 Bedouins whose objective was the Suez Canal; and on the same day the Turkish Fleet bombarded Odessa, Theodosia, and Novorossyisk, Russian unfortified harbours in the Black Sea. No reply having been given to the protest of the ambassadors of the Allies against this outrage, they demanded their passports and left Constantinople on November 1. The Dardanelles forts were bombarded by a combined British and French squadron on November 3, and the fort and troops at Akaba in the Red Sea were shelled by H.M.S. Minerva, upon which the town was evacuated and a landing party destroyed the fort, the barracks, the post office, and the stores. On November 5 "a state of war" was declared to exist between Great Britain and Turkey and the former annexed Cyprus (p. 226). On November 13 Turkey responded by a declaration of war against Great Britain, alleging that the bombardment of the Russian ports in the Black Sea had taken place because the Russian Fleet had tried to lay mines outside the Bosphorus and committed other hostile acts against Turkey. A British and Indian force also made its way up the Shatt-el-Arab to Basra (Nov. 8-22; p. 245). On November 18 another naval encounter took place in the Black Sea, in which the Russian Fleet engaged the Goeben and the Breslau off Yalta, compelling them to retire, and inflicting severe injuries on the Goeben.

The failure of the Turkish invasion in the Caucasus (p. 348) caused much friction between the Turkish and the German officers, the latter having preferred the plan of an invasion of Egypt. On December 30 the Sultan of Turkey deprived Hussein Kamel, the new Sultan of Egypt, of all his decorations for rebellion against Turkey. The attempt to start a Holy War in Egypt and other Mahommedan countries proved an utter failure,[Pg 353] as it was disregarded by the Mohammedans outside the Ottoman Empire.

Among the minor incidents which occurred in Turkey during the year was the death of "Kutchuk" Said Pasha, who was seven times Grand Vizier (post, Obit.), and the trial by court-martial in April of Colonel Aziz Ali, a distinguished Egyptian officer who had gained popularity and renown among the Mohammedans by his leadership of the Arab resistance to the Italians in Cyrenaica, on charges of having caused loss of life among his troops in Tripoli, of having provoked the enmity of the Senussi, and of having appropriated public funds to his personal needs, and his condemnation to death in consequence of the pressure put upon the members of the Court by his enemies in the Young Turkish party. The news had caused great perturbation and distress in Egypt, where Aziz Ali was well known and highly esteemed, and he was finally pardoned by the Sultan. Another court-martial, which was not influenced by party motives, showed considerable activity in dealing with offences committed by Mohammedans against public morality and the State religion. It ordered the expulsion from Constantinople of fifty Turkish women found guilty of practising or abetting clandestine prostitution, and steps were also taken against "white slave" traffickers, two Turkish women having been found guilty of selling their daughters to Egyptian houses of ill-fame.

In Albania affairs were in a very disturbed state throughout the year. In January an Austrian steamer arrived at Valona from Constantinople with Turkish troops to proclaim Izzet Pasha, the late Turkish War Minister, as sovereign of Albania, but they were at once arrested by the Provisional Government in agreement with the International Commission of Control and the Dutch gendarmerie officers. A more formidable candidate for the throne was Essad Pasha (A.R., 1913, p. 356), whose troops had a sharp fight on January 11 with those of the Provisional Government. On January 15 Ismail Kemal Bey handed to the International Commission his resignation of the Presidency of the Provisional Government, which he had held since the winter of 1912 (A.R., 1912, p. 356), and Essad Pasha then concluded an agreement with the British and German delegates on the International Commission of Control to the effect that he would resign his position as Minister of the Interior and meet Prince William of Wied as the representative of the people of Albania. On February 8, the Powers having agreed to guarantee a loan of 3,000,000l. to Albania, Austria-Hungary and Italy made an advance to the Prince of 500,000l. for immediate requirements, and Essad Pasha started from Durazzo at the head of a deputation of Albanians for Neuwied, the ancestral castle of the Prince, who was to bear in Albania the title of "Mpret," a corruption of "Imperator." The deputation, whose leader was described by[Pg 354] the Bishop of Durazzo as "a brigand in the best and worst sense of the term," and "a fox who would require an iron hand to keep him under control," were received at Neuwied by the Prince on February 21, one of its members bringing with him a small casket containing sand, earth, and water from Albania. Addressing the Prince in Albanian, Essad Pasha said that the deputation represented the whole of Albania, and that the Albanians were happy to welcome their new sovereign, to which the Prince replied in German, formally accepting the Crown. The difficulties and responsibilities, he said, had at first made him hesitate, but now that he had decided to meet them he would give all his heart and strength to Albania. He proceeded to St. Petersburg, however, on a visit to the Tsar, before taking up his new duties. Meanwhile an insurrection broke out in Epirus, the Greeks in the districts assigned to Albania demanding a Government of their own under M. Zographos as its chief.

Prince William arrived at Durazzo on March 7, and was welcomed by two members of the International Commission and Essad Pasha, whom the Prince at once appointed an Albanian general. On reaching the palace he appeared on the balcony, while deputations from the neighbouring towns and Albanian societies abroad marched in file before him, but the Albanian people were scantily represented, as the date of his coming was not generally known. The difficulties of his task were considerably greater than those with which the sovereigns of newly formed States have in past times had to contend; the northern clans of the country are totally different in character, language and religion from those of the south, the former, 140,000 in number, being Roman Catholics, and the latter, about 260,000, followers of the "Orthodox" Church, while there were 600,000 Mohammedans scattered all over the country; and the Albanians generally, who had been the spoilt children of Turkey, to whom they furnished some of her best statesmen, generals, and soldiers, had not only hitherto never been taxed, but had received substantial grants of money from the Sultan, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. Moreover, Albania is a land of barren mountains, without roads or railways, which it would require a considerable State revenue to develop. Only a week after the Prince's arrival, the Albanians attacked the Greeks at Koritza, and an intertribal feud broke out between the partisans of Essad Pasha and those of Ismail Kemal Bey; a force of 100 gendarmes under Dutch officers was sent to restore order, but the officers were imprisoned and the fighting went on, houses in the villages being ransacked and women outraged.

On March 18 the first Albanian Cabinet was formed under Turkhan Pasha. Of the other Ministers two were Roman Catholic, two "Orthodox," and the rest, including Essad Pasha, the War Minister, Mohammedans. The first task of the Minister was to deal with the rising in Epirus. The Dutch officer who had been[Pg 355] appointed High Commissioner for Southern Albania offered the Epirotes an autonomy which almost limited the union with Albania to a personal one, though he rejected their claim that the Greek language should be allowed absolute equality with Albanian; but the Government repudiated even the concessions he had offered. On March 29 the Ministry requested the Powers, through their representatives at Durazzo, to use their influence with the Greek Government in order that "the regrettable situation in Epirus" should come to an end, pointing out that while the Greek troops were being withdrawn from the districts to be evacuated their place was being taken by insurgent bands (Komitadjis) organised and armed by the Greek authorities; and as no steps were taken to put down the rising, the Prince decided to take over by force if necessary the territory occupied by the insurgents, and himself to take the command of the troops to be sent against them. Meanwhile men were arming in all parts of Albania for the liberation of the threatened territory, and a force of some 10,000 volunteers marched against them. Several encounters took place between them and the Epirotes with varying success.

Events now took a sudden and unexpected turn. Essad Pasha, Minister of War and of the Interior, and hitherto the virtual ruler of the country, was arrested by Austro-Hungarian and Italian sailors on May 19. Essad's house, which was within 300 yards of the Prince's palace, had for some time been filled with armed retainers, and it was no secret that he was planning to dethrone the Prince and take the Crown for himself. On the evening of the 18th it was ascertained that a number of insurgents were marching on Durazzo, and at daybreak on the following morning the Dutch commandant of the gendarmerie called upon Essad's men to lay down their arms. Essad then ordered his men to fire, upon which 300 Austro-Hungarian and Italian marines landed and occupied the town, sending a detachment to Essad's house to escort him to the jetty, where he was placed on board an Austro-Hungarian man-of-war and deported to Italy. The insurgents, however, who had now come within gunshot of Durazzo, assumed such a threatening attitude that on May 24 the Prince and his wife and children took refuge on board an Italian warship, though they returned to the palace two days afterwards. Negotiations were opened with the insurgents by the International Control Commission, but without result. Their demands were chiefly of a religious character, as they asked for guarantees that the Catholic Albanians (the Malissori) would not be sent against them, and they objected to the banishment of Essad Pasha, whom they regarded as a martyr to the Mohammedan religion; but the promoters of the rising appear to have been some officers of the Young Turkish party at Constantinople who were present in the insurgents' camp. One of the demands of the insurgents was for[Pg 356] the appointment of a Mohammedan member of the Control Commission. They attacked Durazzo on June 15, but were repulsed by the Prince's adherents, chiefly Mirdites. A two days' armistice was concluded between the Prince and the insurgents on June 22, but at its conclusion the fighting was renewed without any decisive result. On July 9 Koritza was captured by the Epirotes after three days' fighting, and a severe bombardment by the regular Greek Army. As no progress was made in dealing with the insurgents either before Durazzo or elsewhere, a meeting of the loyal populations was held on July 19 at Valona, at the instigation of many influential Albanians, including Ismail Kemal Bey, at which it was unanimously decided to beg the Prince and the protecting Powers to dismiss the Cabinet and place the Government in the hands of the International Commission of Control, as no Albanian Cabinet could deal with the existing crisis, and the Commission alone "can maintain the sovereign on the throne, assure national unity and territorial integrity, and save from certain death over 100,000 refugees." The Prince on his part summoned to the palace the Ministers of Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, and Italy (Great Britain and Russia having no representatives at Durazzo), and addressed them in a brief speech, stating that from the outset the Albanian problem had been complicated by the Epirote question and that the slightest sign of unrest elsewhere only increased the trouble in the South; that the Powers who had placed him on the throne had shown singularly little readiness to assist him in coping with his difficulties; they had helped all the other Balkan States, but had rendered little or no assistance to their special creation; that immediate help was imperative, and he therefore urged the Ministers to address a final appeal to their Governments for military and financial aid. A collapse of the Albanian Government seemed to be imminent; the towns of Klisura and Tepelen, as well as Koritza, were captured by irregular Greek bands with, it was said, Greek troops in disguise, the Mohammedan villages were in flames and horrible atrocities were committed upon their inhabitants. M. Venezelos, the Greek Premier, admitted that deserters from the Greek Army had assisted the Epirotes, but declared that he was powerless to prevent "Greek national sympathies being so strongly engaged on the Epirote side." He added that he thought "the Powers had taken insufficient measures for the creation of an Albanian State." On August 31 a detachment of insurgents with the Turkish flag occupied Valona without opposition, and on the same day another, with artillery, attacked Durazzo, firing several shots at the palace. Next morning they sent a letter to the representatives of the Powers, stating that they expected the Prince to leave the country, and issued a proclamation to the people declaring that as the Prince had not left, the town would be bombarded unless its inhabitants agreed at[Pg 357] once to surrender. The Prince then left Durazzo (Sept. 4), and on September 11 Burhan Eddin Effendi, son of the ex-Sultan Abdul Hamid, who was practically the leader of the insurrection, succeeded him, though in the proclamation issued by Prince William to the people on leaving he did not abdicate, but stated that he thought it was best for the task "to which he had sacrificed his strength and life" that he should go for a time to Western Europe, and that the International Commission of Control would carry on the Government during his absence. The Government, however, was taken over by Burhan Eddin, the self-constituted Prince, with Essad Pasha as his Prime Minister and Commander-in-Chief. At the end of the year Albania was under six different regimes. Scutari and its neighbourhood was governed by a local Commission composed of Moslems and Christians. Valona was also administered by a Commission. The Mirdites formed a separate State under Prenk Bib Doda. The Malissors remained isolated under their patriarchal institutions. The southern districts had been appropriated by the Greek invaders. Durazzo and the central regions obeyed Essad Pasha, who enjoyed the title of Prime Minister and was recognised by the International Commission.

On October 1 a noteworthy declaration was made by M. Venezelos in the Greek Chamber, to the effect that Greece would remain neutral, but that she had treaty obligations with regard to Serbia which she would fulfil; he hoped, however, that nothing would occur which should bind her to interfere, as Greece desired that the European War should not spread to the Balkan Peninsula, whose people required peace after the late war. Greece at any rate would not take the initiative in disturbing the peace. As to Epirus he had said on March 10 that the decision of the Powers involved a great disaster for the nation, and nobody could suggest that Greece was in a position to fight Austria and Italy. Greece considered Albania now necessary to the preservation of the balance of power in the Balkans, and, with Serbia, hoped for the success of the new State. On March 19 the Minister of Marine announced in the Chamber, amid enthusiastic cheers from all parties, that three battleships of the Dreadnought type, three armoured cruisers, and a proportionate number of lighter vessels, would be added to the Fleet. On June 13 Greece annexed Chios and Mytilene, the islands which the Powers had agreed were to be ceded to her on the evacuation of Northern Epirus and the cession of the Island of Saseno to Albania; but in October she announced her intention of reoccupying provisionally Northern Epirus owing, among other reasons, to the breakdown of the Albanian Government substituted by the Powers under the Prince of Wied and the expediency of putting an end to the sanguinary anarchy prevailing in that country, as the forces collected by the head of the provisional Epirote[Pg 358] Government, M. Zographos, had not been capable of maintaining order or security for life and property against the Albanian insurgents. The Powers not having raised any objection, Greece occupied Northern Epirus with her troops, and at the same time Italy occupied the Island of Saseno, which completely dominates the sea approaches to Valona.

In Bulgaria Parliament opened on January 1 in a new guise, as the general election which had taken place at the end of the previous year in consequence of the resignation of the Cabinet (A.R., 1913, p. 358) had been conducted under a system of proportional representation, and had resulted in a considerable increase of the number of Agrarian and Socialist deputies, doubtless due to the disastrous issue of the last war. There were ninety-nine Ministerialists in the new Chamber, forty-nine Agrarians, thirty-six Socialists, fourteen Democrats, five Nationalists, five Radicals, and one Zankovist. As the Royal party entered the Chamber a Socialist member shouted, "Down with Monarchy, long live the Republic," and when the King began to read the Speech from the throne another Socialist member interrupted him with similar exclamations, saying that 60,000 of the sons of Bulgaria had been sacrificed to the ambition of the Monarchy; after which all the Socialists left the Chamber. The Speech laid stress on the resumption of friendly relations with Roumania and Turkey, and expressed the conviction that the Bulgarian people would now "recuperate its forces in lasting peace and work, and dream only of winning victories in the domain of peaceful development and progress." On the following day the Premier, M. Radoslavoff, resigned to test the strength of his party, and on January 5 the King re-appointed him together with the whole of his Cabinet. Another general election took place to include the newly annexed districts in Macedonia and Western Thrace, which were to elect forty-one members in addition to the 204 of whom the old Chamber was formed. The result of the election was that in the new chamber there were 128 Ministerialists, fifty Agrarians, twenty-eight Democrats, twenty-one Socialists, nine Nationalists, five Radicals, and three Zankovists, giving the Government a majority of twelve over all the Opposition parties, and showing a considerable loss for the Socialists, who seemed to have few supporters in the annexed districts, where the whole Turkish population voted for the Ministerial candidates, with the result that twelve Mohammedan deputies were elected, besides four from Northern Bulgaria. A provisional budget for the months of April and May was introduced by M. Jencheff, Minister of Finance, on April 12. As a reassuring symptom he pointed to the fall in the rate of exchange from 20 per cent. at the end of 1913 to 7½ per cent. The expenditure for 1913 he estimated at 8,000,000l., and the floating debt of 19,000,000l. was to be consolidated. Diplomatic relations with Serbia were resumed on February 17. On June 9 the[Pg 359] Prime Minister conveyed the regret of the Government for the attacks which had been made on Greek churches at Sofia, Varna, and Burgas by the people, who had been incited by the priests and an official of the Russian Consulate. During a debate in the Sobranje on the subject the Premier said Bulgaria would do everything to preserve neighbourly relations with the other Balkan States, but that it was difficult to follow this policy owing to the ill-treatment suffered by Bulgarians in Greece and Serbia; a number of refugees who had been beaten and outraged had arrived only on the previous day. Both the Greek and Serbian Governments had ever since the partition of Macedonia done their utmost to destroy all trace of Bulgarian life and culture in the districts which they had annexed. As regards the European War the Premier declared on October 29 that the Bulgarian Government felt it a duty to proclaim the neutrality of Bulgaria and to preserve such neutrality strictly and loyally, in accordance with international needs and principles and the interests of the country, and on the same day the organ of the Bulgarian Foreign Office, Echo de Bulgarie, said that now the dissensions between Turkey and Bulgaria had been settled by force of arms, a bond of friendship had been created by the persecutions to which both the Turks and Bulgarians were being subjected in Macedonia.

In Roumania, which also proclaimed her neutrality at the beginning of the war, at the same time informing the Russian Government that she would not agree to the Russian troops crossing her frontier, a very drastic law was proposed by the Government in May with regard to the districts annexed by her under the Treaty of Bucharest (A.R., 1913, p. 352). It deprived the population of Parliamentary representation, which it had enjoyed for upwards of thirty years under Bulgarian rule, denied them the right of association or public meeting, deprived of his land every landed proprietor who did not accept the Roumanian nationality within one year, and provided that all the Bulgarian schools should be closed or reopened under Roumanian teachers and their revenues confiscated. On June 14 the Tsar arrived with his family on board the Imperial yacht at Constanza, the Roumanian port on the Black Sea, and was enthusiastically received, the Liberal Government and its adherents among the people being in sympathy with the Triple Entente, though the King and his Court were notoriously in favour of Germany and Austria-Hungary. One of the strongest advocates of a policy of friendship with Austria-Hungary, the Roumanian statesman and historian Demetrius Stourdza, died at the beginning of October in his eighty-first year, and King Charles, who with Stourdza was regarded as the founder of the Roumanian State, also died a few days after his old companion and friend. On October 15, as the funeral procession was on its way from the palace to the[Pg 360] railway station, an attempt was made on the life of Messrs. Charles and Noel Buxton, happily without any serious result, though both were wounded, by an Albanian Mohammedan who said he acted from political motives, as the Buxtons had been agitating against Turkey. King Charles was succeeded by his nephew Ferdinand of Hohenzollern, like his uncle a Roman Catholic, and married to the daughter of the late Duke of Edinburgh; their six children, however, are members of the Roumanian "Orthodox" Church.

In Serbia the War Minister stated to the Skupshtina on February 23 that the losses of the Serbian Army during the war with Turkey were 5,000 dead and 18,000 wounded, and in the Bulgarian War 7,000 to 8,000 dead and 30,000 wounded. In both wars 2,500 died of their wounds, 11,000 to 12,000 from sickness, and 4,300 from cholera, mostly during the Bulgarian War. A treaty of peace with Turkey was signed on March 13, under which Serbia agreed not to make any distinction as regards the franchise between her new Mohammedan and Christian subjects in the annexed territories, and to allow former Ottoman subjects residing in them three years to decide whether they would remain of the Turkish nationality or accept the Serbian, during which they were not to be liable for military service. In June a Ministerial crisis occurred in consequence of a Government decree giving the civil authorities precedence over the military in the newly annexed provinces. This measure was strongly opposed by the military party, and the Premier, M. Pashitch, asked the King to dissolve the Skupshtina in order to give the people an opportunity of expressing their views on the matter. The King refused unless the decree was first rescinded, upon which M. Pashitch resigned, but, all attempts to form a coalition Cabinet having failed, he was reinstated (June 11). On June 24 the King left Belgrade for the baths at Vranya on account of ill-health, and before leaving delegated full royal authority to his son, the Crown Prince Alexander, for the period of the King's illness.

When Austria-Hungary declared the answer to her ultimatum to Serbia (p. 330) insufficient, and her Minister accordingly demanded his passports and left Belgrade on July 26, the Serbian troops were at once mobilised. Austria-Hungary declared war on July 28, and on July 30 the Serbians partly destroyed by explosion the bridge connecting Belgrade with the Hungarian town of Semlin and attempted some raids across the frontier which were repelled by the Austro-Hungarian frontier guards. The Austrian artillery replied by a bombardment of the upper and lower forts of Belgrade, in which they were assisted by their monitors on the Danube and the Save. The war in Serbia did not really begin, however, until August 12, when the Austrian Army crossed the Save and the Drina and captured Shabatz and Lesnica. War had meantime been declared by[Pg 361] Serbia against Germany on August 6. On August 17 the Austrians continued their advance against the Serbians, the Croats in the Austrian Army, who are of the same race as the Serbians, but are Roman Catholics while the Serbians are "Orthodox" Greeks, specially distinguishing themselves in the fighting. The Austrians were repulsed, however, in a sanguinary battle in the valley of Iddar on August 16 to 19, and had to retire to Shabatz and Lesnica. The fighting in these engagements was stated to have been much fiercer and more sanguinary than any in the recent Balkan Wars. On August 26 Shabatz was retaken by the Serbians, but meanwhile an attack made by them on Wyszegrad and Rudo, in Bosnia, had been repelled with great loss on August 20 and 21. On September 8 the Austrians were defeated in an attempt to cross the Drina near Sacha, and on the 14th the Serbians captured Wyszegrad; but notwithstanding the desperate efforts made both by them and the Austrians to penetrate into the enemy's country neither had for some time any success. Another sanguinary battle, which lasted three days, was fought on the road to Valjevo on September 15 to 18, but with no decisive result. The first effective attack was made by the Austrians down the Morava; it began on November 9 and ended in the occupation of Valjevo, the former headquarters of the Serbian Army, on November 15, and the capture after much violent fighting of Belgrade on December 2. On December 3, however, fresh troops were brought up by the Serbians,[21] which inflicted a heavy defeat on the Austrians, after six days' fighting over a front of more than sixty miles; on December 8 Valjevo was retaken, the Austrian retreat became a rout, and the Serbians re-entered Belgrade, after another battle in which the Austrians were stated to have lost 60,000 killed and wounded.

On September 19 Serbia declared that she would not conclude peace alone and would not act separately from the Triple Entente.

In Montenegro the Skupshtina was opened after a general election by the King on February 11. He said in the Speech from the throne that though "the snatching of Skutari from Montenegro was an incurable wound in every Serbian heart" the Peace of Bucharest had laid the foundations for a new order of things in the Balkans and had secured Montenegrin national interests. "Further national successes," he continued, "will depend solely upon constant joint effort with Serbia and upon traditional loyalty to our powerful Russia." Accordingly, [Pg 362]when Serbia was attacked by Austria-Hungary, Montenegro mobilised her army at the request of the King of Serbia for her assistance. This entente cordiale between the Kings of Serbia and Montenegro had not long been established, the two States having been for some time estranged by an attempt of Serbian subjects, with the alleged assistance of the Crown Prince of Serbia, on the life of the King of Montenegro similar to that which had just been made, with fatal results, on the lives of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife (A.R., 1908, p. 335). The two Balkan Wars, in which Serbians and Montenegrins fought side by side, had to some extent wiped out the memory of old quarrels, and the propaganda for a union of the two countries was now equally strong in them both, though it was not much to the taste of the astute and ambitious King Nicholas, who had hoped before the war that he and not King Peter would be the ruler of Serbia as well as of Montenegro. This, after the Serbian victories, and in view of the far greater material prosperity of Serbia, had now become impossible. The Montenegrins who fought in the war and were treated with special consideration by the Serbians, and especially those who had come from the United States to join their countrymen against the Turks, and found their country as backward in all the arts of civilisation as when they had left it, while the Serbians had made great material progress, were among the most ardent advocates of the movement for a union of their people with Serbia. On the other side, such a union would gratify Serbia's dearest wish—for a port on the Adriatic; and the great popularity of the aged Montenegrin King was the only obstacle to such a union, the Crown Prince Danilo not having gained any sympathisers either in Serbia or in Montenegro.

Montenegro, as Serbia's ally, declared war against Austria-Hungary on August 3. She made several attempts to invade Bosnia together with the Serbians, but without success.

CHAPTER IV.
LESSER STATES OF WESTERN AND NORTHERN EUROPE.

I. BELGIUM.

Until the abrupt violation of Belgian neutrality by the German armies on August 3 the political antagonisms of Clericals and Liberals and of Flemings and Walloons seemed to be growing more acute. The German invasion, with its almost incredible atrocities, swept away the memory of these feuds. The Belgian nation saw all but a small fraction of its land swept by the invaders, and either found refuge and hospitality in Holland, Great Britain, and to some extent in Switzerland, or became dependent[Pg 363] for its very subsistence on the charity of the people of the United States. But it did not flinch in its determination to maintain its independence, and at the close of the year it was gallantly aiding the resistance of the Allies to the German advance on Calais and Northern France.

When the year began the Chambers were still debating the Bill for subsidising voluntary schools, and the Flemish Nationalists in both the Liberal and Clerical parties were endeavouring (unsuccessfully, as it proved) to amend it so as to promote the spread of their own tongue at the expense of French. But another question arose which tended to injure the Government. Towards the end of January a severe frost closed the waterways and blocked the State railways with their traffic. The efforts made to cope with the block showed grave defects in the management and the equipment of the lines, and the Central Industrial Committee of manufacturers and traders formally complained to the Minister of the Interior that factories had been stopped and orders and consignments diverted to foreign countries and ports. Politics were said to influence the management, and the financial administration was condemned as defective and unintelligible. A scheme of reorganisation was contemplated, under which the Railway Budget would be rearranged and the management of the system assigned to a Board of fifteen paid members, Senators, Deputies, and State officials being ineligible. This Board would be under the supervision of a Council of seven members, chosen from and by the Parliament, and subordinated to the Minister of Railways. But the scheme was left over till a convenient season.

After much debate and some critical situations, the Schools Bill finally passed the Chambers on May 20, thus terminating the struggle begun by M. Schollaert in 1911. The Liberals and Socialists in the Senate formally denounced the measure as unconstitutional, but declined to take part in the division. The debates on it had crowded out some measures of social reform, but a Bill passed the Chamber providing for the insurance against old age, sickness, or premature disablement of all employed persons, including such State or municipal officials as were not already provided for by pension or disablement funds. But all persons were exempt whose income exceeded 2,400 francs (96l.) annually, as also home-workers with more than one employer. As in Great Britain, the funds were provided by payments from workmen, employers, and the State.

This Bill was hurried through before the elections for the renewal of half the Chamber (May 31), the representatives affected being those of East Flanders, Limburg, Hainaut, and Liège. The Ministry had offended its rural supporters by the new taxes of 1913, and by making military service and school attendance compulsory, and the Moderate Liberals had begun to return to their party, which they had left in 1912 owing to its coalition with[Pg 364] the Socialists, now dissolved. Thus the Government majority in the Chamber fell from sixteen to twelve. They lost two seats to the Liberals, who lost one, however, to the Socialists. The Chamber now numbered ninety-nine Clericals, forty-six Liberals, forty Socialists, and two Christian Democrats, and the Ministerial votes in the four provinces amounted to some 570,000, while those of the Opposition—Liberals, Socialists, and Christian Democrats—were some 760,000. Assuming that the party strengths in the other provinces had remained constant since 1912, it was estimated that a Government majority in that year of 83,000 had now been converted into a minority of 7,000. The three Opposition groups, however, could scarcely have formed a coalition, but the Ministerialists had for some years showed signs of cleavage, and there were rumours that the Government were about to appeal to the Flemish vote by either substituting Flemish for French as the language of the University of Ghent or establishing a Flemish University there along with the French one; and M. de Broqueville indicated (at Turnhout, July 5) that the Senate might be invited to amend the Insurance Bill. But all domestic disputes were effaced by the war.

The growing wealth of the kingdom had been shown by an official return issued at the end of March, giving the average annual investment for the past four years in shares or debentures of companies as 870,000,000 francs, of which 450,000,000 francs had been put into Belgian companies engaged in business abroad—mainly in South America, Russia, and the Congo State. Belgium had now definitely joined the group of "creditor nations"—Great Britain, France, the Netherlands and Germany.

Though the violation of Belgian neutrality astounded the world and even upset the defensive scheme of the French Government, there had been ominous signs earlier in the year, which had attracted little notice. Thus the Stavelot-Malmedy Railway, crossing the German frontier, was opened in January without ceremony, for fear of indiscreet allusions by the speakers at the opening festivities to a possible invasion; there was some anxiety as to the fortification of Flushing (A.R., 1913, p. 364), and also as to the undefended character of the frontier of Dutch Limburg, a province which overlies part of Belgium; and in July it was reported that more troops were being sent to Hasselt and to the entrenched camp of Beverloo. Later it became known that King Albert had pressed for the reform in military service effected in 1913, and that in November of that year he had been convinced by a conversation with the German Emperor that that potentate would no longer resist the German war party (French Yellow Book, No. 6). Moreover, military measures to be taken in the event of a German violation of Belgian neutrality had been worked out in 1908 between the British Military Attaché at Brussels, Colonel Barnardiston, and the Belgian General Staff, which had previously worked out a cor[Pg 365]responding plan with the General Staff of France. The German Government discovered evidence of this after the occupation of Brussels, and alleged it as a proof of British perfidy, though the plans were purely contingent on German action.[22]

Apprehending danger, the Belgian Government decided to call up three classes of reserves (July 29), and two days later to mobilise—a step which somewhat surprised the British Minister at Brussels. On July 29 the German Chancellor told the British Ambassador at Berlin that German action in Belgium depended on that of France, whom the German Government believed to be massing troops at Givet. Thereupon the British Government asked the French and German Governments whether they were prepared to respect Belgian neutrality so long as no other Power violated it, and asked Belgium whether she were prepared to remain neutral. France and Belgium gave satisfactory assurances; Germany did not (p. 178). Meanwhile the French Minister at Brussels, M. Klobukowski, had repeated to M. Davignon, the Belgian Foreign Minister, that French troops would not invade Belgium, even if massed on the frontiers, and Herr von Below-Saleske, the German Minister, had repeated to M. Davignon an assurance given by the German Chancellor in 1911, to the effect that Germany did not intend to violate Belgian neutrality, but that to say so publicly would give France an advantage in arranging her plan of operations (July 31). He repeated this, though only as his personal opinion, on August 2; but at 5 P.M. on that day he presented an ultimatum from his Government, demanding that, in view of the massing of French troops near Givet, Belgium should observe an attitude of friendly neutrality towards Germany, and allow German troops to pass through her territory; Germany would in return maintain the independence of Belgium and her possessions, but, in the event of a refusal, she would treat Belgium as an enemy. Twelve hours were given for a reply. A Council of State was at once held, and, after some hours' discussion, a reply drafted by MM. Hymans and Van den Heuvel, was finally decided on at 4 A.M. (Aug. 3). It was presented by 7 A.M., and was a dignified and eloquent refusal. The German Government meantime had sent a Note announcing that the French attack on Germany had begun, and at 6 A.M. on August 4 sent another, announcing that a refusal would be disregarded, and on August 4 intimated that as Belgium had declined her "well-intentioned proposals," they must be carried out by force of arms in view of the French menaces.[23] King Albert on that day addressed the Belgian Parliament, amid a scene of patriotic enthusiasm, and urged a united and stubborn resistance. "A nation which defends itself," he said, "commands the respect of all. Such a nation cannot perish." The union of the nation was marked by [Pg 366]the appointment of M. Vandervelde, the Socialist leader, to be a Minister of State. Meanwhile the King had telegraphed a personal appeal for aid to King George V., and had received a reply assuring him of British support to protect the independence, integrity, and neutrality of Belgium. A moratorium was declared; fresh classes of recruits were called up; some 53,000 sappers and navvies were set to dig trenches in the wide spaces between the Liège forts; and Belgium prepared for defence.

Meanwhile the Germans were pressing on. On August 3 they entered Belgian territory at Gemmenich, near Aix-la-Chapelle, Stavelot and Francorchamps, just south of Spa, Dolhain, between Verviers and Herbesthal, and at Visé, on the Meuse between Liège and Maastricht. Their front extended from Visé southward, as far as Luxemburg. At Visé they were fired on by civilians, and the town was subsequently burnt; and on the night of August 4 they attacked the forts round Liège. They advanced in close order, and suffered enormous losses; but by August 6 they had silenced two forts and had vainly asked for an armistice to bury their dead. But passing through the gap thus made, they occupied Liège itself on August 9.

The Belgian resistance had amazed the world. The Germans had not expected it, for they had come without adequate supplies or heavy guns; and on August 9 their Government appealed vainly through that of the Netherlands to the Belgian King and Government, urging them, after their heroic resistance, to spare Belgium further suffering, and declaring itself ready for any compact with Belgium compatible with its conflict with France.

The Germans now came into contact with advanced posts of the Belgian Army, which held a line running from Namur through Ramillies, Tirlemont, and Diest. They were repulsed at Hasselt, Eghezee, and Diest, and Haelen (Aug. 12 and 13), but took Huy after a bombardment. But though they were thus unexpectedly checked, their vast numbers proved irresistible. There was a short lull while they were coming up; but on August 17 the Belgian Government hastily removed to Antwerp; the last forts round Liège fell on August 19; on August 18 the Germans entered Tirlemont, on the 19th they bombarded Louvain, and next day camped outside Brussels for the night. That day (Aug. 20) M. Max, the Burgomaster, had issued a proclamation warning the population against panic, advising them to give no information to the invaders, and promising that he, as Burgomaster, would stand by them. He met the Germans at their entrance, and declared the city undefended; they imposed a levy of 200,000,000 francs on it, and of 450,000,000 francs on the province of Brabant.

Though the French General Staff had regarded a German advance through Belgium as possible, it had made no provision against it till August 2; but it then directed its principal efforts to strengthening the northern section of the French front, and[Pg 367] awaited the concentration of the British Expeditionary Force. Meanwhile, however, French troops drove the Germans from Dinant, after a fierce battle. The main German Army (some 600,000 men) having reached Brussels, marched southwards towards Charleroi and Namur. On August 20 the French advanced towards the Sambre. The centre of the Allied Army comprised two armies, the left a third, reinforced to the extent of two army corps, a corps of cavalry, the reserve divisions, and the British Expeditionary Force (p. 189). The French were beaten back on August 22, the Germans, after heavy losses, reaching and crossing the Sambre between Charleroi and Namur, and constraining the British force, by their superior numbers, to retreat from Mons south-westwards into France (p. 190). Meanwhile the Germans had been overrunning northern Belgium; they had occupied Louvain on the 19th after a fierce fight, Alost on the 21st, and concentrated before Antwerp next day; but were driven back from Malines by a sortie of the Antwerp garrison. And, after failing to take the forts at Namur, the Germans had overcome them by bringing up their heavy siege artillery, of 42 centimetres calibre, while the Belgian field force defending it were awaiting their attack. They placed guns in position beyond the range of the Belgian guns, and, after a tremendous bombardment of ten hours, the forts were wrecked. Namur fell suddenly and unexpectedly on August 24; and on that night a Zeppelin airship dropped bombs on Antwerp, doing much damage.

In the war of 1870 the Germans had severely repressed civilian attacks on their troops; and their standard manuals of warfare recommended terrorism. This was now carried out to the full. Infuriated by the unexpected Belgian resistance, they killed wounded men, fired on the Red Cross, violated women and little girls, mutilated some of their victims, and even made Belgian civilians of both sexes march in front of them as a screen. But besides these atrocities, which were not repressed by the commanders, the latter deliberately gave up towns and villages to destruction and plunder on the ground—which was usually unsubstantiated—that their troops had been fired on by the inhabitants. Visé was burnt on August 15, Aerschot four days later, the young son of the Burgomaster, it was stated, having shot a German officer; after their defeat at Malines they retreated on Louvain, burning the villages en route; they apparently fired on one another in entering Louvain, and charged the civil population with attacking them; as a punishment they bombarded the town, looted it, and then set fire with hand grenades to the houses that had escaped, destroying the Cathedral, the University Buildings, and the famous Library, with a multitude of priceless MSS., including much early Celtic literature; and they grossly maltreated a number of priests, including two Spaniards and an American. Dinant was sacked (Aug. 22-25) without assignable provocation. Many of the men[Pg 368] were shot deliberately, and 1,200 houses burnt out of 1,400; a similar fate had befallen Andenne (Aug. 20-21) for equally unintelligible reasons. These atrocities, unmatched in Europe, except perhaps in the Near East, for nearly three centuries, finally turned the mass of European and American opinion against Germany, and seemed likely to make reconciliation impossible for many years after the war.[24]

For the first four weeks of September the Belgian Army was acting as a screen to Antwerp, mainly in the district between that city and Malines and Termonde. This latter place was bombarded and plundered on September 4, and deliberately destroyed next day; but the Belgians defeated the Germans on September 5 by opening the dykes on them, and so capturing many prisoners. From September 9 to 13 there was heavy fighting round Malines as the result of a sortie from Antwerp, intended to hamper the German advance of reinforcements through Belgium to France, and the main line of communication between Brussels and Liège by Louvain and Tirlemont was cut, thus delaying the inrush of the German troops. But eventually the superior German numbers drove the Belgians back. Again on September 25 the Belgians repulsed the Germans at Audeghem near Termonde, and that place and Malines changed hands more than once. But Malines was finally occupied by the Germans on September 7. The Germans now having brought up their heavy siege artillery opened fire on September 28 on the outer forts of Waelhem and Louvre-St. Catherine (two or three miles north of Malines) and destroyed them by September 30. Two days later the Belgians were driven by German artillery fire from the shallow and hastily dug trenches they had occupied in rear of these forts to new positions on the other side of the River Nethe, their front extending from near Boom eastwards to Lierre. Next day the German attack on this front developed; the neutral Legations began to leave; but the defenders were encouraged by the arrival of a British Marine Brigade under General Paris, which was sent into the trenches at Lierre and repulsed a German attempt to cross the Nethe, but the German artillery forced back the defenders, and on Monday afternoon, October 5, the bulk of the Belgian Army was compelled to retire westwards towards Eecloo and Ghent. Two British Naval Brigades arrived subsequently (p. 220) and assisted in the defence; but the Germans forced their way across the Nethe, and captured Lierre (Oct. 6); the remaining Belgians and British fell back on the inner ring of forts, and the King and the Allies' Legations withdrew to Ostend. To cut off the Belgian withdrawal, German troops attempted to cross the Scheldt along the line from Termonde to Wetteren, but succeeded [Pg 369]after fierce fighting only on October 7, when it was too late. On that day General von Beseler summoned the city to surrender, and on its refusal bombarded it; and on the following night, after destroying quantities of stores, including much petrol, and disabling the German merchant steamers interned in the harbour, the remaining British and Belgian forces withdrew towards Ostend; but many of the First Naval Brigade were captured or crossed the frontier into Holland, and a portion of the Marine Brigade had to fight its way through the Germans at Morbeke. On October 9 the city was occupied by General von Beseler's troops. Four German Army Corps were stated to have taken part in the attack. The fall of the city caused the utmost enthusiasm in Germany, and General von Beseler received the Iron Cross. The refugees were estimated at upwards of 400,000.

From Antwerp the Belgian Army retreated in the first instance on Ostend, its retreat being immediately covered by 8,000 men of the British Naval Brigade and 6,500 French bluejackets, and, farther off, by the British force under Sir Henry Rawlinson, operating in the neighbourhood of Ghent (p. 222).[25] But the Germans, after severe fighting, occupied Ghent on October 12; next day the Belgian Court and Government left Ostend (which the Germans occupied October 16) and proceeded by sea to Havre, where the suburb of St. Adresse became the temporary capital of Belgium. The Germans now occupied Bruges and Zeebrugge, strongly defending the latter place with a view to its conversion into a base for submarines; the Belgian Army, now reduced to some 60,000, at first had been directed to make a stand in French territory, but eventually took up a position extending along the canalised Yser, from Nieuport-Bains on the Channel by Lombaertzyde to Dixmude; from the last-named place to Ypres and the French border at Ménin the Allies' line was held by French forces and by Sir Henry Rawlinson's troops. On October 17 the German front in Belgium extended from Ostend through Thielt and Roulers to near Ménin; and their primary aim was to capture Dunkirk and Calais as bases for an attack on England. Their direct route thither was blocked by the Belgian Army in the Battle of the Yser (Oct. 16-Nov. 2) in which some French troops, including marines and territorials, took part. Three points in the front were of special importance—the village of Lombaertzyde, a bend of the river near Tervaete, projecting towards the German front, and Dixmude. After two days' fighting, the Belgian advanced posts were driven back (Oct. 10-19); for the next four days the Belgians, now behind the Yser, were fiercely attacked, those in the salient at Tervaete being enfiladed by German heavy artillery; on the night of October 22 the Germans crossed the Yser at Tervaete, and the Belgians, though reinforced and partly relieved by a French force, the 42nd [Pg 370]division, were gradually driven back (Oct. 23-30) to a front behind the railway from Nieuport to Dixmude, two or three miles from the Yser. Reinforced again on October 31, but forced back by overwhelming numbers, they opened the dykes, flooded the land with sea-water, and gradually forced the Germans back across the Yser, except from a few isolated farms among the flooded land, which were fiercely and repeatedly contested for some time. On November 16 the Germans fell back from the left bank of the Yser Canal; and for some weeks there was little change in the positions, but in December there was a renewal of activity, and on Christmas Day the Belgians were again on the right bank of the Yser.

During the Battle of the Yser and for some time afterwards—altogether from October 17 to November 9—the Belgians were supported on the left by a British squadron under Rear-Admiral Hood, consisting at first of the river monitors Humber, Mersey, and Severn (p. 224), the light cruisers Attentive and Foresight, and some destroyers, and subsequently reinforced from time to time by the battleship Venerable and a number of older cruisers and sloops, carrying heavier guns, which bombarded the German troops along the coast and prevented them from advancing on Nieuport by land, while precluding any effort to do so by sea. Machine-gun detachments were landed, German submarine attacks were repelled, and on October 30 the Admiral led a French destroyer flotilla into action off Lombaertzyde. The arrival of French reinforcements and the flooding of the country rendered further bombardment unnecessary; and the Germans, instead of showing themselves in the open, were driven to construct hidden artillery defences in the sand dunes along the coast. Some of the British ships, among them the Amazon, Mersey, Wildfire, and Vestal—the two latter old sloops of war—were damaged, and there were some British casualties from the Germans' shrapnel and heavy guns. In all thirty British vessels took part, including two submarines, and five French destroyers. The Germans were again bombarded at Westende by a British squadron on December 16; but a month earlier their efforts to reach Dunkirk and Calais by the coast route had been definitely checked by the Belgians—supported by French marines, bluejackets, and territorials on land, and by the British and French squadron at sea. Their attempts to reach the coast through Belgian territory farther south, round Ypres, had meanwhile been frustrated by the British and French forces, and the year closed amid signs that they were now on the defensive, and with a reasonable hope that they would be driven back by the Allied Forces in the spring.

Throughout the war King Albert acted as Commander-in-Chief of his Army and displayed the utmost heroism. He was visited by King George V. on December 4 (p. 245) on the only fragment of Belgian territory not occupied by German troops. The Queen[Pg 371] brought her children to England in August, but soon returned to her country.

A Belgian Mission visited the United States in August and September, and had an excellent reception from both people and Government. Much was done to shelter and provide for the 200,000 refugees in Great Britain and the 500,000 in the Netherlands, and for the comparatively small numbers which reached Switzerland; and those who remained in Belgium were actually saved from starvation by philanthropic effort from the United States, directed by an American Commission, and largely administered by Rhodes scholars from Oxford. Belgium had earned the gratitude of the non-Germanic world. Her first resistance to the invaders gave time for the British and French Armies to concentrate, the defence of Antwerp held back forces which would otherwise have been hurled at the Allies on the Aisne, and the battle of the Yser saved Calais and Dunkirk. The Allies were firmly resolved that no peace should be concluded which did not secure the Belgian people all the reparation possible for their tremendous losses, and that they should receive a due recognition of their heroic resistance.

II. THE NETHERLANDS.

Since the formation of a non-party Cabinet in August, 1913, political conflict had been suspended; and for the first seven months of the year the country had little history. In January a Royal Commission was appointed to devise a settlement of the schools question, which had been the subject of repeated controversies since 1878. It was understood that, while regard was to be paid to the interest of denominational schools, the existing State schools would be left untouched. An attempt to settle another controversial question of long standing was made by the Royal Commission on Proportional Representation, whose Report (issued in June) recommended a complicated modification of the Belgian system, treating the whole country as a single constituency, but providing for the representation of localities by allowing voters to indicate their preference for particular candidates on the list put forward by their respective parties. An elaborate and intricate method of determining the successful candidates was also recommended, but the Report was not acted on during the year. A great demonstration in favour of equal suffrage for both sexes had been held in February at Amsterdam by the extreme Liberals and Social Democrats. The heavy cost of social legislation, especially the old-age pensions, necessitated increased direct taxation and an addition to the excise duty on beer. The creation of a new Navy for colonial defence was also proceeded with (A.R., 1913, p. 365). The anxiety set up in France and Belgium by the projected fortifications at the entrance to the Scheldt (A. R., 1913, p. 364) was enhanced early in the year by the announcement that[Pg 372] the new fort would not, as had been expected, be situated on a shoal opposite Flushing, where it would have prevented the occupation by an enemy of that town or the coast opposite, but would be placed higher up the Scheldt: so that it might conceivably serve to block that river against the approach of a fleet sent to relieve Antwerp in the event of the violation of Belgian neutrality. Just before the war broke out, again, it was stated that the German Vulkan Company, which owned a huge shipyard at Stettin and was controlled by a well-known millionaire, Herr Thyssen, had acquired a site for a harbour on the Nieuwe Waterweg, one of the chief approaches to Rotterdam. This it was feared might ultimately be used as a German naval base. Questioned on the subject in the House of Commons, Sir E. Grey stated that he was informed that the place would only serve for the transfer of iron ore from sea-going ships to river barges. But anxieties as to German influence in Holland were swept away by the events of the war.

On the outbreak of the war the Government issued a declaration of neutrality (Aug. 3); it had already mobilised its army, to the extent of some 125,000 men, with remarkable efficiency and speed. The export of coal, food, horses and vehicles was prohibited, and an opening of the dykes was contemplated so as to protect the land frontier of the "Holland Fortress," or defended area of the kingdom, if necessary, by inundation. This, however, was not done, since no attempt was made to violate Dutch territory—except, indeed, that a German airman dropped bombs on Maastricht, probably by mistake. The financial disturbance set up was serious for a time; there was a run on the savings banks, and a tendency to hoard coin. The Post Office Savings Bank exercised its right to defer payments to depositors for a fortnight—a step which caused some comment. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange was closed, and a Bill was passed empowering the Bank of the Netherlands to reduce the proportion of specie it was bound to hold against liabilities to 20 per cent. Small paper money was also created, in the form of "silverbons" of one, two and a half, and five florins, and fresh silver was rapidly coined; but some of the towns issued their own "silverbons," to make good the lack of change. A Credit Bank was formed by the retail traders, to enable them to meet the demands of manufacturers and wholesale dealers for payment in cash, and arrangements were made for advances by the Bank of the Netherlands on approved security, under a guarantee from a group of banks against possible loss. A Bill was passed in September, after considerable opposition, enabling the courts to extend the time allowed for payment of debt. The Bourse was placed under Government supervision. A loan of 275,000,000 florins (about 22,000,000l.) was issued in November, subscription being compulsory on persons whose fortunes exceeded 75,000 guilders (about 6,500l.).

The Queen's Speech at the opening of the States-General (Sept.[Pg 373] 14) appealed confidently to the nation to avoid endangering neutrality in trade and traffic, and expressed satisfaction at the success of the mobilisation and the union of the people, noting also some improvement in certain branches of trade.

The war, however, did grave injury to industry, notably to the Amsterdam trade of diamond cutting, and to shipping, and food prices rose sharply. Moreover, the country was burdened with the support of some 1,560 British marines and bluejackets and some 22,000 Belgian soldiers who accidentally entered Dutch territory after the fall of Antwerp, besides half a million Belgian refugees. But the burden was borne nobly, and though there was an active German propaganda, the fate of Belgium estranged Dutch sympathy from the German cause.

Luxemburg. The visit of the King and Queen of the Belgians (April 27-29) was entirely successful, and their Majesties received a most cordial welcome. It was thought likely to open the way to closer commercial connexion between the two countries, thus tending to counterbalance the growth in the Grand Duchy of German industrial and trade interests. A projected visit from the Queen of the Netherlands in August was prevented by the war.

The general election, held in June, was fought mainly on the School Law, condemned by the Bishop and clergy, and was a great success for the Government. To some extent, too, it was said to be a demonstration against German influences.

On Saturday evening, August 1, a small body of German troops arrived in motor cars at Trois Vierges, and seized it, but were presently called back as having exceeded their instructions. Next morning, however, a trainload of German soldiers reached Luxemburg itself, seized the station and the bridges on the lines to Trèves and Spa, and proceeded to the barracks, thus violating the neutrality guaranteed by the Powers by the Treaty of London, 1867. But the far more conspicuous case of Belgium drew off attention from this German outrage. The Grand Duchess and the authorities protested, but in vain. For the rest of the year the Grand Duchy was occupied by German troops; and it was, for a time, the residence of the Emperor. Swiss papers stated that numerous citizens were arrested at the instance of German residents, but, as no resistance could be made to the Germans, there were no cruelties. The Grand Duchess was very active in Red Cross work. An indemnity was paid by Germany of 1,600,000 francs, of which 1,283,000 represented damage done to crops and real property, and the remainder the use of roads and public buildings by German troops. It was said to be quite inadequate. The civil administration was allowed to go on under the native authorities, but there was a strict German censorship of the postal, telegraphic, and telephonic services.

[Pg 374]

III. SWITZERLAND.

Before dealing with the great difficulties imposed on Switzerland by the European War a brief summary must be given of domestic politics during the first seven months of the year. In the spring session the Federal Legislature completed the revision of the factory law, passed the scheme of reorganisation of the Federal Council, and decided to institute a Federal Administrative Court. The National Council had pronounced by a large majority against the Initiative demanding the establishment of proportional representation; but another Initiative, aiming at the prohibition of the games of chance permitted in the Casinos at tourist centres, obtained the requisite number of signatures required for its submission to a popular vote.

The National Exhibition at Berne, opened auspiciously on May 15, was a superb collection of manufactures, of works of art—which gave rise to much discussion—and of exhibits of all sorts representing the actual condition and social and industrial development of the Swiss nation. On July 7 the King of the Belgians visited Berne and was received by the Federal Council. He joined the Queen in the canton of Vaud, and then went on to the Alps of the Valais.

The elections and popular votes in the various cantons made no appreciable difference in the position of parties, or in policy, but in two cantons—Ticino and Uri—financial mismanagement entailed serious consequences. In the former the failure of the Credito Ticinese, of the Banco Cantonale, and of a third and private banking establishment involved losses estimated at 40,000,000 fr. (1,600,000l.) and the arrest of several prominent persons. It necessitated the intervention of a Syndicate of Swiss banks, formed under the auspices of the National Bank. In Uri the Savings Bank, guaranteed by the canton, had invested several million francs in industrial enterprises, and almost the whole of this sum was lost.

Early in July the canton of Geneva celebrated the centenary of its admission to the Swiss Confederation. Of this memorable celebration the climax was the representation in a large and specially constructed theatre of a pageant, arranged by MM. Daniel Baud-Bouy, A. Malsch and Jacques Dalcroze, entitled "La Fête du Juin."

The Federal elections, it may here be added, took place at the end of the year. By common consent they were uncontested, except in a few districts where attempts were made to force on the electorate supporters of the St. Gothard Convention (A.R., 1913, p. 368). The President of the Confederation for 1915 was M. Motta of Ticino, the Vice-President M. Decoppet of Vaud, while another citizen of Vaud, M. F. Bonjour, was elected President of the National Council. The chief work of this body dur[Pg 375]ing the year was the passing of the Budget and (in December) of certain fiscal measures designed to cope to some extent with the immense deficit caused by the war in the Customs revenue and the Federal railway receipts. The cost of the mobilisation alone by the end of the year amounted to 104,480,000 francs. At first the Federal Council had considered the immediate establishment of a Federal monopoly of tobacco, or, alternatively, of a special tax on it, and a special levy on capital and earned income; eventually both were postponed for further examination, and also as necessitating an amendment of the Federal Constitution. Provisionally, therefore, new revenue was obtained by an increase of existing taxes and of telephone, telegraph, and certain postal rates. The requisite legislation was formally declared urgent, and was thereby exempted from possible submission to a popular vote.

On the outbreak of the war it became the primary duty and effort of the Swiss nation to preserve its integrity and independence. On July 31 the whole Swiss Army received notice to hold itself in readiness; on August 3 a general mobilisation was ordered, which was most satisfactorily carried out. On the latter day the Federal Chambers assembled, and elected Colonel Ulrich Wille to the chief command of the Army, and Colonel Sprecher von Bernegg Chief of the General Staff. They also invested the Federal Council with the widest possible powers.

For the rest of the year the Federal Administration had to face a very difficult situation. Its declaration of neutrality was followed by a long series of measures necessitated by one of the most critical situations in Swiss history.[26] Besides the purely military measures originating especially with the General Staff—the mobilisation and training of the troops, the war time-table (involving a reduced service) of the Federal Railways, and the construction of fortifications, the deficiency of grain had to be supplied from abroad by the Federal Council, and a kind of monopoly of cereals became inevitable.

On the declaration of war the stocks of grain and flour in hand, together with those in the hands of traders, secured the food supply of the country for three months at most. With the home crop there would be enough, with strict supervision, to last till mid-December. Refraining from sequestration of home-grown grain, the Federal Council confined itself to demanding its sale at the price of imported grain, though its yield was lower. This step had not the desired effect, but fortunately in the spring the Federal Council had made arrangements for a supply with Germany and France. The arrangement concluded with Germany proved ineffectual, the war stopping the transit of grain up the Rhine. Cargoes on their way to Rotterdam were intercepted by the British Fleet. But as compensation Switzerland obtained the delivery of the 2,600 [Pg 376]carloads of wheat and some hundreds of carloads of oats stored in German warehouses or in transit by the Rhine at the outbreak of the war. Meanwhile the Federal authorities made considerable purchases in America. The arrangement with France permitted the daily discharge and despatch to Swiss territory of quantities of wheat and oats representing the daily Swiss consumption, but in fact the ports of St. Nazaire and Bordeaux, which were to secure the maintenance of this service, at no time did so, and the average supply continuously fell short of the normal need. As it happened, the deficit could be made good through Genoa, notably in December, when the importation reached its maximum. In January, 1915, the crowded condition of the port of Genoa caused a decline, but the French authorities just then gave permission for importation to Switzerland through Marseilles. Charges were made that the export of wheat to the belligerents had been permitted; but they were unfair and baseless.[27] The supply of fuel was a still greater difficulty; but the courtesy of the neighbouring countries enabled it to be maintained.

The Federal Council had also to prohibit the exportation of commodities indispensable to the nation, and to attempt to obtain the raw materials necessary to the continuance of Swiss industries, it had also to induce the Press as far as possible to observe neutrality so as not to hamper it in negotiation. It had to repress espionage, to regulate the relations of debtors and creditors so as to avert a financial crisis, to enable payments to be deferred, to lessen unemployment, to regulate the relations of workmen with employers whose business was affected by the crisis; it had specially to supplement the stock of silver coin, to issue notes and Treasury bonds of 5, 10, 20, 25 and 40 francs, to create a Loan Bank, and to contract two Federal Loans, of 25,000,000 francs and 40,000,000 francs respectively, and to prepare legislation enabling the repayment of part of the expenditure incurred, which would reach 200,000,000 francs early in 1915.

Immense services were rendered to the country in all financial operations by the National Bank. Under the earlier system of a number of cantonal banks of issue, the crisis would have been far more serious. Nevertheless a host of industries were paralysed, beginning with the hotel industry (p. 187) and the building trade. Fortunately agriculture has remained important in the national economy.

After a few days of panic on the outbreak of the war among certain classes, with a run on the banks and the provision shops, the public reverted to a saner view of the position. The establishment of military rule and the total prohibition of demonstrations of all sorts contributed largely to this result. Apprehension [Pg 377]was quieted by the publication of a statement of the resources of the country and by the means taken to assure fresh supplies of food, and, up to the end of the year at any rate, the gravest results of the economic crisis had been averted by a judicious administration of relief. The public services were put to a severe test, but their immediate difficulties had been overcome. The military organisation had proved to be excellent; so had the railway administration. The financial administration had emerged but slowly from its difficulties. Despite its honesty, soundness and prudence, the crisis seemed to have shown that it needed some additional mechanism.

Protests were made by the Federal Government against the seizure of grain cargoes destined for Swiss use and against an alleged violation of Swiss territory during the air raid on Friedrichshafen (Nov. 21; p. 245). The first difference was arranged amicably; the violation of territory was denied by the British Government.

Finally, the country recovered itself and rallied when confronted by the immensity of the misery demanding relief. The Red Cross Society was unsparing in its exertions. Conclusive reasons prevented the despatch by it of ambulances to the seat of war, but many medical men and nurses went abroad to devote themselves to the care of the wounded. The International Red Cross Committee at Geneva created an Agency for Prisoners of War, which collected the names and addresses of French prisoners in Germany and of German prisoners in France. It transmitted to them letters or parcels sent by their relatives, and though, eventually, direct communication became possible, the Agency was still receiving thousands of demands for information daily after the New Year had begun.

An Agency to deal with interned civilians was also established at Berne, and was assisted by a Committee at Geneva for the Germans and at Schaffhausen for the French. It was indefatigable in its exertions. It served as an intermediary between the belligerents for the repatriation of the persons interned. It took thousands of them under its charge at one or other frontier and conducted them to their own country.

In offering hospitality to Belgian refugees Lausanne led the way. By the close of the year some hundreds of them had arrived and the stream was continuing. They were received by the whole people with a thrill of sympathy, and were distributed throughout the French-speaking cantons. The wave of pity for them spread to German Switzerland; gifts for them poured in; subscriptions were opened for them by the Press; workrooms were filled with clothing and underclothing, and much work was done for them in private houses. While the ingenuity of their hosts was taxed on their behalf and on that of the wounded, it was necessary also to provide for the Swiss who had been deprived[Pg 378] by the occupation of the frontiers of their means of subsistence. Here also the Red Cross organisation lent its aid, distributing clothing, boots, underclothing and relief. In charitable work the nation recovered its unity, which for a short time had been compromised by sectional differences of opinion and reciprocal violence of language. The alleged divergence of view between French and German Swiss was largely generated by the allegations in the Press that it existed, and was misinterpreted as a manifestation of cantonal antagonism. Facts may be differently appreciated and feelings may vary in degree, but in the hour of danger the unity of the Swiss people is complete.

IV. SPAIN.

The first days of the year saw the opening of an electoral campaign of a kind entirely novel in Spanish history. By a decree of January 4 the electors of the kingdom were summoned for March 4 to choose the members of the Cortes; the renewal of the Senate was fixed for a slightly later date, in conformity with a precedent dating from the period of the Sagasta Ministry. The various parties had thus two whole months for their propaganda; not too much, considering their strange complication on entering the contest. The old historic parties were irremediably broken up. The former Liberal group was divided into Romanonists and Prietists, who were violently hostile to each other; the Conservative adherents of the Prime Minister were treated by Señor Maura's supporters as renegades, and, with their leader, were advancing by imperceptible stages towards a broad conception of social progress which was destined to win them the sympathy of the King and eventually the Romanonists' support. Señor Dato did not entirely give up the advantages traditionally possessed by Spanish Ministries, but he did not desire to abuse them, and he bid for support for his cause by showing fair play, inasmuch as he allowed his opponents full freedom of speech, of the Press, and of public meeting, so far as was compatible with the preservation of order, and met them, not with prosecutions and arbitrary interferences, but with arguments and projects of reform. As a security that this judicious policy would be continued, he was bold enough to cut short the constant advance towards decentralisation, which had been retarded for years by Parliamentary trickery, by procuring the issue of a Royal decree authorising mancomunidades or combinations of local authorities for public purposes (A.R., 1912, p. 372). That the time was ripe for this reform was proved by the fact that the provinces forming the ancient Kingdom of Castile immediately combined for poor-relief and public works; their example was followed by Valencia and Catalonia. This step visibly discomfited the Opposition. The Carlists and Maurists even accused the Government of stealing other people's plans. The King loyally supported its efforts to combine order with[Pg 379] freedom. A few brief periods of temporary difficulty were easily surmounted. The railway strike in Portugal in the middle of January occasioned a careful watch of the whole Western frontier; and through this vigilance the movement was prevented from spreading to Spain. Colonel Labrador, a Protestant, had been condemned by court martial to six months' detention in a fortress for having refused to attend a Mass of the Holy Spirit; the King pardoned him. The increasing popularity of the Ministry exasperated the Opposition to such a degree that it led them into a blunder. They decided to organise a great electoral demonstration at the very heart of the region where their leader had most influence. Don Ossorio Gallardo, who when Governor of Barcelona had mercilessly suppressed the rising of 1909, went there to preside at a great Conservative meeting and banquet. As he was proceeding to the place of meeting at the head of a very demonstrative procession, he was attacked by a band of counter-demonstrators; revolvers were fired, and one of the organisers of his campaign who was beside him was wounded. The Acting-Governor, Señor Andrade, tendered him his condolence; he refused it, and exhibited his irritation even more decidedly by declaring in public that the government of the province had been put up to auction and had gone to the least deserving bidder. These denunciations the Liberal Conservatives and their allies decided to disregard, and these tactics were successful. Order was gradually restored at Barcelona. It was disturbed at Valencia by causes which were not political but social. A general strike was set up (Feb. 25) by a fresh increase of the municipal taxes; as a precaution, all the shops, warehouses, and offices were closed; the troops had to intervene forcibly to restore order.

The result of the general election of the Chamber was considered as a victory not only for the Ministry, but also for the King. He had made himself the mediator between the parties, and it was his delight to enter into relations with all the more important personages of the Kingdom either at the great open receptions at the Royal Palace, or in private interviews, which he granted freely. According to the official figures, of the 404 members elected 356 were Liberals, Liberal Conservatives, or "Reformist" Republicans, the last named having practically come to support, not perhaps the monarchy, but at any rate the monarch. The Ministerial organs, and even the Romanonist, exulted in the success; but the figures were disputed by the Opposition, and eventually the divisions following the more important debates in the Cortes showed that the seats won by the Carlists (or rather Jaïmists), by the Ultramontanes or Integrists, and by the Maurists on the Extreme Right and the Republicans and Socialists on the Extreme Left might be estimated at a third of the total. The elections to the Senate had been completed on April 22. The results were: Conservatives ninety-two, Liberals fifty-one, Catholics ten, of whom eight were[Pg 380] prelates, Regionalists six, Republicans seven, Integrists and Jaïmists two each. The session formally opened on April 2, when the newly elected deputies and Senators attended to hear the Royal Speech. But the Chamber adjourned almost immediately for Easter, and then proceeded leisurely to examine whether its members were duly elected; it was not definitively constituted until April 28. Señor Besada was elected President without a dissentient vote, and it was not till May 5 that the debate on the Address was begun. This policy of gaining time seemed to have quieted the Maurist ardour for attack. In the Senate three days sufficed for the debate; the Address was passed by 145 to 71. A much longer time was required in the Chamber; the Ministerial text was passed by 184 to 90 on June 18. But several debates on other subjects had taken place meantime, and had resulted in disorder. That on the interpellation on Morocco introduced by Don Gabriel Maura, son of the ex-Premier, had been especially uproarious, and had led to encounters in the lobbies between deputies and journalists, and to street fights, with bloodshed, between the supporters of the different parties, which compelled the police to take vigorous measures to restore order. Meanwhile a shipping strike was met by the owners with a lock-out, and they refused the arbitration offered by the Government. The strike lasted more than a fortnight, but ended on June 22, without the strikers' demands being satisfied. During this time the Government introduced a naval programme into the Chamber, in the shape of a Bill providing for an annual grant for nine years of 36,000,000 pesetas (1,440,000l.) for the construction of two battleships, two fast cruisers, and a number of submarines; it also secured the passing of a Treaty of Commerce with Italy.

The end of the session was comparatively calm. The Chamber adopted the Treaty of Commerce already voted by the Senate, and the Republicans, by proposing a lengthy series of amendments, prevented the discussion of the naval scheme. As soon as the only measures remaining to be considered were not purely political, the two Chambers were overcome by fatigue. But interesting questions were raised nevertheless. Thus Don Rogelio de Madariaga proposed that a Commission of experts should be appointed to study the question of reducing the gauge of the railways of the Kingdom so as to make it uniform with that of Central and Western Europe. The change became imperative in view of the impending connexion of the French system with the lines of Northern Spain by two new railways through the Pyrenees. The matter was postponed, and the Cortes separated for the recess, first, however, passing (July 9) a slight modification in the concession for the Morocco railway from Tangier to Fez in respect of the part traversing the Spanish zone.

During the recess, the question arose of the attitude to be observed by Spain in the war in Europe. This gave rise to active[Pg 381] discussion. The geographical position of the kingdom assured it great advantages, whatever side it might take, unless indeed it should become engaged in a war with France. On July 30 Señor Dato emphatically contradicted a statement to the effect that Spain had undertaken to send an army to relieve the French expeditionary corps in Morocco, and declared that Spain was not bound to any Power whatever by either an offensive or a defensive alliance. As the various declarations of war were issued, the Government intimated its intention to remain neutral, and its behaviour up to the close of the year was in accordance with this decision. The Liberals and Republicans set up an active agitation in favour of Spanish support for the Triple Entente; but the great mass of the priesthood, the Carlists, and a section of the Maurists, demanded a benevolent neutrality towards Germany and Austria-Hungary. The King observed strict impartiality; but he combined the attitude of reserve taken up by him as monarch with a chivalrous recognition of the help given to Spain on various occasions by France. The diplomatic representatives of Spain in Germany and Austria-Hungary were instructed to undertake the protection of French subjects and interests in those countries, and fulfilled their mission with conspicuous dignity. In Spain itself economic measures had to be taken; at the beginning of August a moratorium was established by decree, and the export of cereals and cattle for slaughter prohibited. The censorship was not revived, but the President of the Press Association and the editors-in-chief of the Madrid newspapers were summoned to the Ministry of the Interior, and Don Sanchez Guerra explained to them very clearly the conditions on which the Government would allow the system of freedom for the Press to continue. It was forbidden to cause assemblages or demonstrations by announcing news through the medium of illuminated notices; to circulate false news relating to the events of the war or to diplomatic action; and to insert articles insulting to any of the belligerent Powers. At the same time an active supervision was exercised over the agencies established in Spain to support the interests of Germany, and it disclosed strange manœuvres, both at Barcelona and on the Atlantic coasts. Thus wireless stations were discovered, surreptitiously established in monasteries; they were suppressed, but people were not so optimistic as to hope that there were no others. From the middle of September, and especially after the bombardment of Reims, Spanish opinion gradually turned to open support of the Allies; but the Government remained faithful to its original determination, and the Minister of Public Instruction, Señor Bellarmin, who had gone beyond the reserve imposed on him by his office, was obliged to resign. On October 2 a decree was issued summoning the Cortes for the autumn session, which was a very busy one. The business was, in fact, the Budget of 1915, which had not been dealt with in the spring, being crowded out by the debates on[Pg 382] Morocco. The Opposition made some attempts at obstruction, but in vain. Count Romanones loyally and effectively supported the Ministers in limiting the debates on political and diplomatic questions to a few sittings each week, so as to devote the rest of the time to the Finance Bill. The method was straightforward and its effects were happy. The Chamber and Senate approved the Ministerial declaration of neutrality, and took note of Señor Dato's promise to consult them if the course of events should necessitate exceptional measures. Meanwhile, Spain performed her duties with courtesy, and reminded her foreign guests, when necessary, of the respect due to her laws. The German Consul-General at Barcelona had the presumption to demand the prohibition in that city of the sale of all French newspapers whatever, on the pretext that they contained insults to the Emperor and the German Army; he was met with a categorical refusal. On November 15 the Chamber discussed the shooting of Spanish subjects at Liège by the Emperor's troops. The Marquis of Lerna replied for the Government that explanations had been demanded at Berlin, and that an inquiry had been promised by the Secretary of State. In the same sitting the Minister informed the Chamber that France no longer proposed to claim for her members the maintenance of the rights and privileges resulting from the capitulations in Morocco, on condition that they should be treated by the Courts on a footing of equality with subjects of Spain. Two days later the Chamber approved the proposed amnesty for political offenders, in spite of the opposition of the Right. The Maurists did not relax their hostility, but their agitation in no way helped their cause, nor that of their Germanophil allies. A Jesuit, Father Ricardos, great-grandson of the General who invaded Roussillon in 1793, undertook, in a sermon at Alicante, to defend the German Armies; he was hooted by his hearers and compelled to leave the pulpit. A newspaper started by the Hamburger Nachrichten to carry on the pro-German propaganda in Spain insulted the ex-Empress of the French; it was seized by the Spanish police and suppressed. King Alphonso XIII saw his popularity and prestige increasing daily; the Republicans themselves paid homage to his loyalty to the country and his patriotism. When the session of the Cortes closed on December 1, the political and economic situation of Spain was more satisfactory than it had been for a long time past. The rate of exchange had undergone a remarkable improvement; still, great circumspection was necessary, and the Government appealed to the Spanish capitalists who had subscribed for the Treasury Bonds, of which 250,000,000 pesetas were repayable at the end of December, urging them not to require repayment, in order that there should be no interruption in the public works undertaken to relieve unemployment.

[Pg 383]

V. PORTUGAL.

The complicated mechanism of the Republican Constitution of Portugal could only have worked regularly if a small number of parties, well organised and under strict discipline, had secured the support of the immense majority of the electorate for simple programmes, leaving the form of Government entirely outside discussion. But things did not stand thus. The Monarchists remained irreconcilable and active; the rural classes, whose ignorance was extreme, cared little about the Republic; in the great towns the syndicalist propaganda threatened even the first principles of social order; the middle-class political parties were hardly more than coteries, whose leaders struggled amid personal intrigues. Some excellent people felt anxiety at this condition of affairs, and strove to form homogeneous parties; their efforts were paralysed by the bad habits which were a legacy from traditions that were already ancient. Thus, when on January 5 the session opened, there was reason to apprehend grave complications. However, Señor Affonso Costa, the Prime Minister, made the best of a bad situation. He announced extensive schemes; a Bill forbidding members of the Cortes to hold their seats together with certain offices; reforms in the Budget, securing a surplus of 3,400 contos or 17,000,000 francs (680,000l.), of which 2,400 contos would be spent on national defence. But the majority of the Senate declared itself opposed to him, and on January 10 the Evolutionist Senator Joâo de Freïtas addressed an interpellation to the Prime Minister on a personal question, charging him with having placed his influence as a Minister at the service of clients who consulted him as a barrister. The Minister refused to reply to a calumny. His supporters opposed the nomination of a Committee of Inquiry, and left the House. Other incidents became associated with this scandal; grave Senators sent one another challenges, and for three days a tumult hitherto unheard of converted the Senate Chamber into the semblance of a revolutionary club let loose. Along with this disturbance in the Senate there was a serious strike among the men employed by the Portuguese Railways Company. Seven thousand men left work on a question of pensions. They demanded that the age limit of sixty should be lowered to fifty. Every railway service to Spain was disorganised. The movement rapidly took on a revolutionary aspect. Trains and engines were taken into Spain, and the staff refused to bring them back into Portugal. The Government had the stations occupied by troops; it protected the works of art and, after a week of vigilant efforts and of negotiations, induced the men to resume work (Jan. 21). But it was constantly harassed by the Senate, and the Prime Minister refused to appear in that body until satisfaction had been rendered for the insult offered him. He was supported by the Chamber. The Senate then appealed to the President of the[Pg 384] Republic to intervene, by asking him, as guardian of the Republic, to invite his Ministers to observe its orders. The President declared that the settlement of this difficulty lay with the legislative power. The two Chambers met in a joint sitting to vote the adjournment of the session. The Ministerialists proposed a vote of confidence, which was adopted by 114 to 93. The Opposition Senators and deputies then withdrew, and by their withdrawal precluded the regular passage of the other measures before the House. The Ministry found its course hopelessly blocked. It resigned (Jan. 24).

The two Chambers were in conflict. The Democratic Left had the majority in the Lower House; the Unionist and Evolutionist groups of the Opposition in the Senate. Each group, by leaving the House, prevented the other from having a quorum and taking a valid division. The President of the Republic made lavish efforts at conciliation. He selected as Prime Minister Senhor Bernardino Machado, who had come back from Brazil; on February 8 a Ministry was formed, on the 9th it presented itself to the President of the Republic, and on the day following to the Cortes. Its programme comprised an amnesty for political offences, pardons, sufficiently wide in their range, for other convicted persons, the revision of the law separating Church and State, impartiality in electoral contests, and abatement of party strife. As a security that these pacific declarations would be carried out, the new Ministry met the wishes of the Senate on a subject which had brought that body into conflict with the preceding Cabinet, viz. the right of exercising a check on the appointment of Colonial Governors; in return, it obtained from the Senate the passing of a Bill re-establishing the Lisbon Labour Exchange, and, after some days of delicate negotiation, it induced both Houses to vote the proposed amnesty (Feb. 23). The day following, the railwaymen again went on strike, and for some days there was reason to expect disturbances of the gravest kind. The crisis, however, was terminated without resort to force; and, for some months, the Ministry followed a prudent policy of conciliation which diminished the violence of controversy and kept matters going till June. But this temporising method was violently attacked, especially by the Democrats. Senhor Machado decided that the time had come to obtain a new confirmation of his power. On June 20 he resigned, and, when re-appointed by the President of the Republic, he formed an entirely non-party Ministry, to proceed with complete impartiality to new elections; and it secured the passing of the Budget. The election campaign was marked by considerable disturbance, and was abruptly interrupted by the declaration of war by Great Britain on Germany. Portugal found herself involved in the conflict, and was obliged to repel German attacks on Angola. The elections were postponed; the Cortes were summoned for August 7, and were requested by the Government to empower it to take all the[Pg 385] measures necessary to guarantee the maintenance of public order, to secure national defence, and to provide for the expenditure that would have to be undertaken in view of the international situation. The Chamber voted urgency and unanimously adopted the Bill laid before it; the day following, the Senate likewise passed the measure unanimously, and the Chambers were prorogued. It must be acknowledged that thenceforward the attitude of the Republican parties was perfectly correct. The Monarchists hesitated to follow their example, although King Manuel wrote on August 20 to his chief representative, Don Azevedo Coutinho, that he had personally placed himself at the disposal of King George V., and the Portuguese Monarchists must think first of their country and the defence of its sacred soil. In the course of October a few irreconcilables attempted a rising, which was a miserable failure; its only consequence was to cause the chief of their party, Don Joâo de Azevedo Coutinho, to write to the President of the Republic demanding permission to serve in the Army should Portugal take part in the European War. His goodwill was not put to the test. The Government contented itself with sending reinforcements to Angola; it suppressed without difficulty a disturbance at Oporto caused by the high price of provisions; and on November 25 it convoked the Chambers in extraordinary session. They unanimously and promptly passed a resolution giving the Government full power to take part in the war in conformity with the national interests and obligations. This resolution differed from that adopted in August, inasmuch as at the earlier date the question had only been one of defensive measures, while this time participation was contemplated in the war in Europe. But Great Britain did not call on her ancient ally for assistance, and it was well she did not, the more so inasmuch as the Germanophil parties in Spain were carrying on an agitation for "Iberian Union," which distinctly involved a menace to the independence of Portugal.

The Machado Ministry did not long survive its triumph. At the beginning of December it decided that its mission was fulfilled, and that party politics again claimed their rights. It therefore resigned, and on December 11 a new Cabinet took office. The Prime Minister was Dom Victor-Hugo Azevedo Coutinho, President of the Chamber, who also took the Ministry of Marine; Dom Augusto Soares took that of Foreign Affairs, Colonel Cervera de Albuquerque that of War, and Dom Alexandro Braga that of the Interior. The Ministry was dominated by the influence of the Democrats and of Dom Affonso Costa, and was commended by the alliance with Great Britain, which was indicated as part of its policy by its organs in the Press. The Ministerial declaration (Dec. 14) contained three essential articles: (1) Defence of the Republican system of government; (2) execution of the measures determined on by the vote of November 23 regarding the war; (3) a general election as soon as possible. These elections were to[Pg 386] take place in conformity with the method established by a decree of the Provisional Government, unless the Cortes preferred rapidly to pass a law sanctioning the schemes then before it. The Chamber approved these declarations, and passed a vote of confidence in the Government by 63 to 39. The Senate passed a vote of want of confidence by 27 to 26. Thus at the close of the year the Parliamentary situation was precisely what it had been at the opening; but, given the state of things in Portugal, it was much to have gained a year without a catastrophe or a sanguinary convulsion, for a system as frail as that of the young Republic. The fact that it had lived in spite of pessimistic predictions and hostile attacks afforded some assurance that it would last.

VI. DENMARK.

Whilst in Sweden the war effected a happy solution of an all-important question, which for years had been prominent above all other matters, it had in Denmark the very opposite effect. Instead of the determination which made the Swedes put aside their party feuds in order to arrive at a final and adequate settlement of the question of national defence, the Danish legislators agreed, in view of the war, to suspend the consideration of their leading issue, the reform of the Constitution; but, until this determination was arrived at, the reform dominated the session.

On January 8 Dr. Edward Brandes, the Minister of Finance, introduced the Supplementary Budget for the current year. It showed an additional expenditure of some 11,000,000 kroner (611,111l.), and, as usual, the report on the Budget for the next year was presented the same day, at the first sitting after the Christmas recess. The three political parties supporting the Constitutional reform, the Left, the Radicals, and the Social Democrats, had agreed to a kind of armistice, and although the Report contained 199 amendments, it was exceptionally free from matters likely to cause dissent. The Exchequer Reserve Fund on November 30 had amounted to 15,750,000 kr. (875,000l.), and the sum lent to banks, etc., to 34,364,000 kr. (1,909,111l.). On March 14 the Folkething passed the Budget. For the first time the vote was unanimous. The Social Democrats had never before accepted a Budget.

On March 17 M. Claus Berntsen, the former Premier, as Chairman of the Sub-committee on the Constitution, stated that the most important parts of the Constitutional reform were those referring to the election of members of the Rigsdag. In the Folkething the Government proposal had been maintained, viz., that the vote should be accorded to all citizens of either sex who had completed the twenty-fifth year of their age, and that proportional representation should not be established. As to the Landsthing, the discussion had shown that not only the Conservatives, but also several members of the Left in both Houses would not accept the[Pg 387] Ministerial proposal that this House should be elected by the municipal councils. It was therefore now proposed to adopt "the principle of age," allowing all citizens of either sex to vote who had passed the age of thirty-five, and to introduce proportional representation. But persons who already possessed a vote and had completed their thirtieth year would be allowed to vote at the first election to the Landsthing. The Landsthing was to comprise ten members for Copenhagen and the adjoining municipality of Frederiksberg, forty-two would be elected by the larger divisions of the kingdom, one by the Island of Bornholm, one by the Faröe Islands, and twelve were to be appointed by the King after selection, under proportional representation, by the fifty-four elected members. The members appointed by the King under the existing system were still to retain their seats for a further term of eight years. The King would have the power to dissolve the Folkething, and might also dissolve the Landsthing, when the latter had twice rejected a measure twice passed by the Folkething, provided that a general election had taken place between its first and second passing by the latter assembly. Some questions were left open in order to leave room for discussion with the Conservatives and concessions to them. The Radicals and the Social Democrats accepted the proposal now set forth, whilst the Conservatives expressed great disappointment and surprise at the "alliance" between these two parties. Prior to this decision a number of discussions had taken place, the Premier declaring the Conservative amendments to be impossible, and a debate on them futile. The Conservatives desired that the electoral qualification should be determined by income, that the minimum age of voters should be higher, that alterations in the Constitution and in taxation should only be carried by specified majorities, and that the Landsthing should in no circumstances be subject to dissolution.

On April 7 the definitive constitutional measure was introduced in the Folkething. It was on the lines of the above proposal; and, as regarded the respective position of King and Government, it followed in the main the existing Constitution. The number of members of the Folkething is to be fixed by a special law—it must not, however, exceed 140—and this measure is also to determine the different constituencies and the mode of election. The members are to be elected for a period of four years. The Landsthing is to comprise seventy members, fifty-four elected as in the proposal above referred to, and sixteen to be co-opted by proportional representation by the fifty-four elected members, detailed rules for the proceedings to be embodied in the forthcoming Elections Bill already mentioned. Henceforward a deputy will be elected for each member of the Landsthing, to take his place if absent or succeed him in the event of his resignation or death. All persons are to have a vote in the elections to the Landsthing who have completed the thirty-fifth year of their age, and any person will be eligible for election to the[Pg 388] Landsthing who has a vote in the election for it, provided he resides within the division for which he is a candidate. This last restriction does not apply to the sixteen co-opted members. The last clause dealt with future alterations in the Constitution, which may be introduced both during ordinary and extraordinary sessions. Should an alteration in the Constitution be accepted by both Houses and the Government desires to advance the matter, the Rigsdag is to be dissolved and a general election to both Chambers held. Should the measure be passed both by the Folkething and the Landsthing during the next ordinary or extraordinary session, in unaltered wording, and be sanctioned by the King, it will become law.

On April 17, M. Rode, Minister of the Interior, introduced the new Elections Bill in the Folkething, at the same time announcing the withdrawal of the election measure passed by the Folkething the previous autumn, and then before the Landsthing. The number of constituencies for the Folkething was fixed at 120; besides their representatives, twenty members were to be elected as follows: When the results of an election of the 120 members are known and the number of votes recorded for each party has been added up, the total number of votes recorded for the whole country is then divided by 140. The aggregate votes of the different parties are then divided by the quotient of the above-mentioned division by 140, and by this method it is determined to how many out of the 140 members each party is entitled by the aggregate number of votes cast for its candidates. It is then ascertained how many members each party has returned in single divisions and it is then calculated to how many additional members each party is entitled. Parties which have not returned any candidates are debarred from obtaining any additional members, as are parties which at the general election have returned their full number of members or more. The additional seats due to each party go to those of its candidates who were not returned, but who obtained the highest percentage of votes within a constituency.

As for the Landsthing, the fifty-four members elected by a general election are divided amongst nine electoral divisions. The mode of election resembles that existing at present, inasmuch as it is indirect, and conducted by chosen electors. At present, however, each rural municipality only chooses one elector, but for the future at least three must be elected. The rule is, one chosen elector for each 350 inhabitants, and the election is by proportional representation. Should a municipality not have the 875 inhabitants which is the minimum entitling it to three electors, it combines with its neighbouring municipality to form one electoral division. The d'Hondt method of election is used in the municipalities. The sixteen members of the Landsthing referred to above are elected for eight years, as are the other members, of whom half are elected every fourth year as at present.

[Pg 389]

The Bill came up for first reading on April 21 and was supported by spokesmen of the Left, the Radicals and the Social Democrats, although the spokesman of the first mentioned gave it a somewhat reluctant support, as his party did not favour proportional representation or an increase in the numbers of the Folkething. The Conservative spokesman was not at all satisfied. The Bill was referred to a Committee of fifteen.

On April 28 the so-called constitutional parties—those in favour of the new Constitution—held meetings confirming their agreement of April 4 and extending it to the Election Bill, "the faithful follower" of the constitutional measure. On May 6 the Folkething passed the Elections Bill with some modification as to the distribution of constituencies between the different parts of the country. It was passed by ninety-seven votes to one. The single opponent was one of the seven Conservatives, the other six abstaining, and seven members were absent. The Bill then went to the Landsthing.

In the Landsthing the spokesman of the Left, on May 13, stated that some members of his party were not greatly in favour of the Bill; the representative of the Conservatives was still less so, but the measure was promptly referred to a Committee of fifteen. The Left in the Landsthing framed a fresh Elections Bill, which, after several party meetings, was accepted by the Left, the Radicals, and the Social Democrats of both Chambers, on May 22. The new proposal, which was more provisional in character, did away with the twenty additional members of the Folkething and introduced proportional election in Copenhagen and the three largest provincial towns.

The three "Constitutional parties" now thought that all difficulties had been removed and that both Bills would be promptly passed, but on June 2 the Conservatives stopped progress in the Landsthing by leaving the House in a body before the third reading of the Elections Bill. When the division was taken thirty-three votes were recorded for the third reading, but the Chairman ruled that the division was invalid, thirty-four votes, or at least one above half the number of the Landsthing being required. The Conservatives similarly obstructed the Constitutional reform when the measure, coming from the joint committee of the two Houses, was introduced in the Landsthing for final reading on June 8. None of them were present; but the two groups (thirty-two members) forwarded a communication to the President, stating that they did not propose to attend and giving their reasons for their decision. Their chief reason was that the Elections Bill and the Constitutional reform had been linked together by the three other parties, and that the Conservatives held that the former Bill ought to be laid before the constituencies at a general election. Again thirty-three votes were recorded in favour of the Bill then before the House, and the President again declared the vote invalid.

[Pg 390]

On June 13 the Landsthing was dissolved in a Council of State, for the first time since the Constitution of 1866 came into operation. The King and the Premier differed on the question whether the dissolution also applied to the members appointed by the King for life, the King maintaining that they could not be affected by a dissolution. Eventually the Government agreed that the question should be left in abeyance until after the election, as the voting might produce a majority in the Landsthing for the measures in question independent of the life members, in which case the question might remain an open one until disposed of otherwise. Should it, however, prove necessary for the Ministry to propose to the King that he should nominate other members in order to effect the object of the dissolution—a prompt and clear decision as to the two measures—His Majesty's attitude to this proposal would decide whether the Ministry should retain office or not.

The election to the Landsthing took place on July 10. The Left gained three seats, the Radicals two, twenty-nine supporters of the two measures and twenty-five opponents being returned. The Landsthing now, with the retention of the Crown nominees as before, contained thirty-eight supporters of the two measures and twenty-eight opponents. The new Landsthing met on July 21. M. A. Thomsen was elected President, an office which the Conservatives now had to relinquish after forty-eight years of undisputed sway. The Constitutional reform and the Elections Bill were both promptly reintroduced on that day and referred to committees on the day following. On July 29 the seven Conservative members of the Landsthing Committee produced twelve amendments which the Government could not accept. Then, before a final result had been achieved, the war broke out. By mutual consent it arrested the progress of these much-discussed measures.

On August 1 the King issued a message to the nation, emphasising the strict neutrality of the Government and all responsible persons, and urging the people collectively and individually to act accordingly. On the same day, as a precautionary measure, 19,000 men were called to the colours; Danish neutrality was safeguarded by placing mines in the Belt, and the German frontier was guarded by Danish troops.

Within a few days several emergency measures were passed by the Rigsdag, including a first extraordinary vote of 10,000,000 kr. (555,555l.) for the War Minister, laws empowering the Government to prohibit the export of a number of articles and to regulate the price of articles of food, and providing State grants in support of municipal aid funds. Three of the above measures were passed by both Houses in one day, August 6, at a series of sittings, the fourth the day following. It may here be added that though great efforts were made to influence Danish opinion in[Pg 391] favour of Germany in the war—a work in which M. Bjorn Björnson, son of the famous author, was prominent—they were by no means successful.

On August 19 the Folkething passed new rules of procedure, under which the President and the two Vice-Presidents are elected by proportional representation and a permanent financial committee is established.

The extraordinary session closed on September 22. Although the Government had determined that the Constitutional reform and the Elections Bill should be passed during the session and thus made ready for the general election, which was required in order to confirm them, the two measures were left undisposed of. A number of minor measures regulating various matters in view of the war had been passed in the meantime.

The Rigsdag assembled again at the usual time, the first Monday in October. The Budget for the next financial year was introduced in due course. The revenue side had risen to 124,930,000 kr. (6,940,555l.) against 121,337,000 kr. (6,740,944l.) in the Budget for the current year; the total expenditure amounted to 111,380,000 kr. (6,187,777l.) against 108,768,000 kr. (6,042,666l.) for the current year. From the apparent surplus of 13,500,000 kr. must, however, be deducted about 10,700,000 kr. to cover expenditure under the "acquisition of capital" clause, the final surplus thus being some 2,800,000 kr. The Minister of Finance stated that it had been difficult to draw up a Budget, in view of the uncertainty as to the development of the political crisis in Europe; he had tried to steer a sober middle course.

In a Council of State on November 30, the Minister for Iceland laid before the King proposals from the Althing for alterations in the Constitution and the flag for Iceland, asking the King to sanction them. The Althing desired that measures concerning Iceland should not be introduced, as under the existing system, in a Danish Council of State, but should be laid separately before the King as a purely Icelandic matter. This the King refused to sanction and the Minister for Iceland then withdrew the proposals.

The King next refused to sanction the proposal for a separate flag for Iceland, as he desired first to confer personally with leading politicians of the island, whom he intended to summon to Copenhagen, about the different proposals. The Minister for Iceland, M. Sigurd Eggers, then tendered his resignation, which the King accepted.

The royal meeting in Malmö (Dec. 18 and 19) caused sincere satisfaction in Denmark; King Christian and King Haakon both expressed to King Gustaf their lively pleasure in accepting his invitation. The official announcement subsequently issued briefly stated that not only had the meeting further cemented the existing good relations between the three northern kingdoms, but the negotiations had confirmed the mutual agreement existing as[Pg 392] regarded the various special questions raised, and it had been decided to continue the co-operation so happily inaugurated when circumstances made it desirable, through renewed meetings of representatives of the respective Governments.

VII. SWEDEN.

In the political history of Sweden 1914 will stand out as remarkable in more respects than one, many anticipations were upset, and one very vital problem was at last satisfactorily solved. It afforded the Swedish nation further opportunities of manifesting its fervent patriotism, and its different phases produced dramatic incidents of singular interest. That the European War also set its stamp on much of the history goes without saying.

The great speech delivered by M. Staaff, the Premier, at Karlskrona (Dec. 21, 1913), had further stimulated public interest in the problem of national defence, and M. Staaff's disinclination to grapple promptly with the entire question excited an opposition which was encouraged in many ways and grew rapidly, manifesting itself especially amongst the ancient and proud class of freehold peasant farmers.

The Riksdag was opened as usual on January 16. The new Budget caused some apprehension, inasmuch as it reached the formidable total of 311,461,200 kroner (17,303,400l.), an apparent increase compared with 1913 of some 37,000,000 kr. (2,055,555l.). The revenue comprised 212,367,600 kr. from taxes, etc., 50,733,800 kr. from the State's productive funds (railways and other investments), 7,500,000 kr. share of the Rigsbank's profit for 1913, 1,226,100 kr. sundry minor items and 39,633,700 kr. loans. The increase was mainly from taxes, etc., viz. about 35,000,000 kr., new items of importance being the tobacco tax and the yield from spirits under the new system. On the debit side the ten different departments accounted for 167,718,271 kr. ordinary and 46,362,729 kr. extraordinary expenses, making a total of 214,081,000 kr. (11,893,388l.). Interest on national debt, etc., amounted to 27,042,000 kr., fund reserved for defence expenditure to 5,000,000 kr., and expenditure for increase of capital 63,807,100 kr., etc. Most branches of expenditure showed an increase.

The chief question which marked the year, that of national defence, became prominent almost at once. On the first day of the so-called "Remisse" debate, January 23, in a crowded house, with the Crown Prince and Prince Eugen amongst the listeners, Professor Trygger in the First Chamber and the ex-Premier, Admiral Lindman, in the Second, severely criticised the Government policy of defence. Professor Trygger vehemently denounced it as lacking in clearness, energy, and consistency, the two features he most condemned being those relating to the period of drill for the infantry and to the increase of the number of ironclads. The[Pg 393] defence tax the Conservatives would gladly bear, if the money were effectively applied. Admiral Lindman spoke in a similar vein, pointing out that the Riksdag could never wish for a higher task than the satisfactory solution of the defence question, but things did not promise well. An unprecedented responsibility, said M. Lindman, at this moment rested upon the Government. If it would, it could really solve the defence question, but would it? Was it altogether a vain hope, that the Government and a majority in the Riksdag might be seen working together on this question, firmly resolved to raise it above other questions, above party ties, in unity for the sake of the Fatherland? M. Staaff spoke in both Chambers, reiterating the substance of his Karlskrona speech, and he was supported by the Liberal spokesmen, the Social Democrats speaking in their usual vein. The proceedings gave little hope of the desired solution.

Meanwhile the preparations for a national demonstration, such as had rarely, if ever, been witnessed, were progressing, and on February 6 some 30,000 "peasants" (the Swedish peasant has always been ready, when his country called upon him) from all parts of the country arrived in Stockholm—admirable arrangements being made for their journey, reception, and accommodation—to wait upon the King and give expression to their patriotism and zealous desire to see the defence of the country promptly and adequately provided for. From time immemorial, it must be remembered, the Swedish peasant has frankly gone to his King when he was in trouble or had something special at heart. King Gustaf's reply to the effect that he would abide by the demands of the naval and military experts raised a twofold storm, of loyal enthusiasm within the defence parties, of dissent and anger amongst the Liberals and Social Democrats. The supporters of the Government maintained that the King had gone beyond the purpose of the great peasant demonstration, and that he wanted to bring his personal influence to bear upon the development of the question, irrespective of the Constitutional Government. The Liberal party at once held a meeting, and determined that the Ministry should in any case await further developments, and the next day the Social Democrats in the Riksdag demonstratively showed their displeasure in the debate on the King's civil list.

Demonstration now followed upon demonstration. Two days after the imposing peasant procession the Social Democrats arranged a counter move, and had no trouble in mustering a similar number, aided, to some extent, by their women and children. M. Staaff and some of his colleagues received a deputation from the Social Democratic procession, headed by Mr. Branting as spokesman, who handed an address to the Premier, demanding a reduction of the military burdens and insisting that the Swedish people never would yield to demands from a personal Monarchy; only the will of the people should rule in Sweden.[Pg 394] M. Staaff in his reply maintained the necessity of national defence, declaring that the principles of democracy were as sacred to him as to them.

The day following a vast number of the leading representatives of Swedish science, art, and literature decided to present an address to the King, thanking His Majesty for having, through his firm words to the peasants' procession, maintained the King's ancient and constitutional right to represent the country's highest interests, irrespective of party politics.

Sooner, probably, than was expected came the result of the King's message to the peasants. M. Staaff, the day after the Royal speech, forwarded to the King a lengthy communication, to the effect that the measures of defence which the Government was about to lay before the Riksdag, though very comprehensive, yet might not fulfil all the expectations or demands of the military authorities. The King, however, in his message to the peasants, had said that he "would not abandon the demands as to the efficiency and readiness of the field army," "which by the experts within my army are stated to be indispensable." M. Staaff wanted to know whether the King would refuse to sanction any proposal which did not fully comply with these demands, and whether His Majesty in any respect had made up his mind beforehand as regarded the impending proposals, before his constitutional advisers had had an opportunity of humbly submitting their proposals and the views which had prompted them. The King replied that, as he had not seen the Government proposals or the experts' opinion upon them, he could not yet answer that question. (Hence the King could not have made up his mind beforehand.) To the second question the King's reply was to the effect that it was evident that he had not beforehand made up and could not make up his mind in any question, without first hearing the statements of his constitutional advisers or their proposals in Council.

This answer was not considered satisfactory by M. Staaff, who again addressed a communication to the King containing a drafted reply to be signed by His Majesty, stating amongst other things that his speech to the peasant procession was in no way intended to have the character of an act of State. The King's reply was in the main a short repetition of his answer to the former communication. A third letter from M. Staaff asked the King, when he intended to make any public statement of a political nature, to communicate it beforehand to the Government. The King replied, that he could not consent to this, as he would not deprive himself of the right to speak untrammelled to the people of Sweden.

The Staaff Ministry then resigned (February 10). On the day following some 5,000 Swedish students, in a great and enthusiastic procession, waited upon the King, and were greeted on[Pg 395] their way to the palace with the utmost enthusiasm. In answer to their loyal and patriotic homage the King made a lengthy reply, maintaining at the outset his constitutional right and duty to state openly and without restraint his opinion of what he thought was for the good of his people; and, having urged the youth of the nation to assist him in his labours, the King wound up by saying: "Forward to our goal; a free and strong Sweden!" The proceedings were altogether marked by the most spontaneous enthusiasm.

The same day M. Staaff made a lengthy statement in the Second Chamber; the Liberals placed the responsibility upon the new Cabinet, and M. Branting, on behalf of the Social Democrats, thanked the retiring Government.

The formation of a new Ministry, as might have been expected, did not prove easy. Baron de Geer tried, but failed, and on February 13 the King entrusted M. Hammarskjöld with the task. Whilst Baron de Geer had tried to form a purely Liberal Ministry, M. Hammarskjöld, who had been a member of two previous Governments and Swedish Minister in Copenhagen, favoured the formation of a Conservative Ministry; the King, however, asked him to attempt the formation of a Liberal Government. On the 16th M. Hammarskjöld had his list ready as follows: M. Hammarskjöld, Premier and War Minister; M. K. Wallenberg, a well-known banker, Foreign Affairs; M. B. Hasselrot, President of one of the Courts, Minister of Justice; M. D. Broström, a large steamship owner, Minister of Marine; M. O. P. von Sydow, Interior; Baron J. G. Beck-Friis, Agriculture; M. A. F. Vennersten, Finance; Professor G. Westman, Ecclesiastical Minister; and Colonel B. Murcke, M. S. I. Stenberg, and M. S. N. Linner, Consulting Ministers. It may be noted that M. Wallenberg is the first Swedish Foreign Minister not of noble birth. The Hammarskjöld Ministry, admittedly, counted amongst its members some very able and distinguished men. It was formed solely to solve the defence problem.

The Riksdag was promptly dissolved (March 5), the Government at the same time publishing its manifesto or defence programme. The latter contained the various items embodied in the proposals of the defence committees, with the so-called "winter-line,"[28] coupled with the adoption of the Sverige type of warship. On the 11th the Liberal Union issued their manifesto, also containing the Defence Committee's proposals, but with the "summer-line" and leaving the naval plan in abeyance, as the committee had not completed its report on the Fleet; this programme consequently kept all which had been promised in the Karlskrona speech.

Ultimately the Ministerial programme was substantially as [Pg 396]follows. The period of training for the Army was extended to 250 days (Nov. to July) with courses of thirty days each in four subsequent years. To the Navy were to be added two new divisions of four warships each for coast defence, the Sverige being included in the first; sixteen destroyers, two divisions of sea-going submarines, and two divisions of torpedo-boats.

An electioneering campaign followed, more violent and passionate than Sweden had ever witnessed, and perhaps rather disproportionate to the actual differences between the combatants. But there were, no doubt, deeper political instincts and influences at work. The result was a most serious set-back for the Liberals; most of the seats they lost went to the Conservatives, the rest to the Social Democrats. The respective strength of parties in the former or "A" Riksdag had been: Right 65, Liberals 101, Social Democrats 64; in the new or "B" Riksdag, the Right took the first place with 86 seats, the Social Democrats had 73, whilst the Liberals had become the smallest party, with but 71. The Left or Liberal joint majority in both Chambers, however, had not disappeared, though reduced from 76 to 34.

The new Riksdag assembled on May 18, and was occupied solely with the question of national defence. M. Staaff presided over the deliberations of the Defence Committee in a manner for which even his staunchest opponents felt it right to compliment him. Meantime no progress could be made, no solution reached, and even distinctly Liberal organs urged a speedy settlement, even if the demand for strictly Parliamentary Government must be postponed. The defensive programme set forth by the Social Democrats found no support whatever outside their own party.

On June 13 the Government introduced the Bill imposing a special tax for national defence. This tax is charged on income and capital jointly, according to a comprehensive sliding scale, the taxed sum comprising 10 per cent of capital; an income of at least 5,000 kr. is taxed on its full amount; on smaller incomes the tax is degressive, on larger it is progressive, the limit being reached at incomes exceeding 250,000 kr. (13,888l.), a sum which is increased, for purposes of taxation, by 1,250 per cent. The tax is 1 per cent. of the taxed amount; in other words, instead of increasing the percentage, the amount is increased. The measure in question devoted about 37,000,000 kr. (2,055,555l.) to land defence and 24,000,000 kr. (1,333,333l.) to naval defence, the expenditure being non-recurrent. The entire revenue from the defence tax was estimated to amount to 75,000,000 kr. (4,166,666l.).

Eventually the Liberals went a considerable way towards meeting the Government, declaring themselves ready to accept the ironclads of the Sverige type and to extend the "summer-line" drill period from 280 to 310 days, the additional thirty days to be applied, ten for the extension of winter drill and the balance to the drill of the older classes in accordance with the[Pg 397] Ministerial proposal. The Ministerial party, or rather the distinctly Conservative section, declined to accept this offer, which gave a month less for the period of drill than that of the Government. The offer of the Liberals to go beyond the Karlskrona programme was made just as the European War began; the Social Democrats now also rallied to the support of the Government. Their leader, M. Branting, at a large meeting of his party, telegraphed to M. Hammarskjöld, offering his support in the efforts to preserve and defend the neutrality of Sweden, and assuring the Premier that he might "reckon upon the confidence of a united people." M. Hammarskjöld at once telegraphed back an appreciative acknowledgment.

An interesting incident of the controversy was the exchange between M. Staaff and M. Hammarskjöld of open and exceedingly friendly letters, truly Swedish in tone and essence. The former gave hopes of a speedy settlement of the defence question, which soon were to be realised. Towards the end of August the delegates of the different parties, who had discussed the question with the Premier, arrived at an understanding; it only remained for the entire Defence Committee to give its sanction, which was a foregone conclusion, and on September 12 the great and all-important defence question was happily solved, the Government proposal, with immaterial modifications, was passed in the First Chamber without any division, and in the Second by 127 to 70, 23 votes being void. When fully established the new scheme will involve an annual expenditure on the Army of some 64,500,000 kr. (3,583,333l.) as against 55,250,000 kr. (3,069,444l.) and on the Navy of 26,000,000 kr. (1,444,444l.), an increase of some 4,000,000 kr. (or 222,222l.); besides this, some 4,000,000 kr. were applied to the coast artillery.

At the same time as the defence question engrossed the interest of the Riksdag, the necessary measures were passed to emphasise and support the neutrality of Sweden. On August 12 the Riksdag unanimously voted 50,000,000 kr. as extraordinary expenditure for defence on account of the international situation, and the Ministerial declaration as to the observance of strict neutrality met with the fullest support.

The dissolution of the Second Chamber and the consequent election were followed by a general election in September, the existing Riksdag, however, remaining in function. This general election confirmed the trend of the spring election by further reducing the Liberal members; the seats they lost were gained by the Social Democrats, who now constituted the largest party, 87, the Right remaining at 86 and the Liberals being reduced to 57. As a result the Social Democrats at a party congress somewhat vaguely declared, by 90 votes against 58, their willingness to accept the responsibility of government, jointly with the Left.

[Pg 398]

Some other military measures were disposed of, as were several railway bills, a Schools Inspection Bill, and other legislation. The most important bill passed was one making the tobacco industry and trade a State monopoly, calculated to yield a very material revenue. The scheme is to be worked through a huge limited company, beginning operations about the middle of 1915, and in which the State is to be heavily interested financially and will exercise the necessary control. The great total abstinence reform, which had a warm defender in M. Staaff, was frustrated through the inability of the Chambers to agree upon the question of local veto, but the temperance movement is being furthered in many ways. The same fate befell the Women's Suffrage Bill; the Second Chamber had passed it by 107 to 84, whilst the First Chamber negatived it by 76 votes to 46.

After an unusually long session, lasting nominally seven months, though from the end of September there had been no regular sittings, the "B Riksdag" was prorogued on December 17.

A Germanophil movement was headed by M. Sven Hedin, the famous explorer (A.R., 1913, p. 386), and found support in the fear inspired by Russian military preparation for some years past in Finland, in the propagation of war news from German sources, and in the close commercial relations subsisting with Germany. But there were indications of a change of feeling before the end of the year.

Sweden, like her Scandinavian neighbours, has jealously guarded her neutrality, large portions of the reserve and other classes being promptly called under arms. Her declaration of neutrality was followed within a few days by an undertaking with Norway that the one country should not take hostile action against the other.

The feeling of cordiality and joint interests between Sweden, Denmark and Norway was further emphasised and consolidated by the meeting of the three Kings, accompanied by their Foreign Ministers, in Malmö (Dec. 18), at the invitation of King Gustaf, an act of the Swedish King which caused the deepest satisfaction in the three countries. It was called partly to deal with the economic hindrances set up by the war to the trade of the three countries, and the official communication announcing its results stated that it had been agreed to continue the co-operation.

King Gustaf underwent a serious operation on April 9, with eminently satisfactory results. His severe illness and subsequent recovery afforded opportunities for the display of their abundant loyalty by his people.

VIII. NORWAY.

The centenary of the recovery by Norway of her independence as a kingdom made the year notable in other respects than the[Pg 399] political. The centenary exhibition demonstrated most effectively the wonderful growth of Norway's resources during the past century.

The Storthing assembled on January 12. M. Lövland was re-elected President of the Storthing and M. Mowinckel of the Odelsthing. On the following day the King in person opened the sixty-third ordinary Storthing. After a reference to the centenary and the century of peace enjoyed by the nation, he stated that the past year had been satisfactory in most departments of home enterprise, and announced a number of measures for the furtherance of industry and commerce; the Budget had been framed without resort to fresh taxation. It showed an ordinary expenditure of 154,900,000 kroner (8,605,555l.) and an extraordinary of 15,081,000 kr. (837,833l.), a total of 169,981,000 kr. (9,443,388l.). The ordinary expenditure showed an increase of 12,880,000 kr., reduced by certain counter-items to 7,300,000 kr. On the revenue side certain taxes and other sources of income exhibited an increased yield over that of the previous year. Even thus early M. Castberg, the Minister for Commerce, expressed views diverging from those of his colleagues: he desired a higher income tax and legacy duties and a reduced Customs tariff.

On January 20 the Government introduced a proposal to appoint a Defence Commission of fourteen civilian members, with the right, however, of calling in military experts. The Commission was to investigate all questions connected with national defence, both military and financial, and examine into the possibility of adopting a system on Swiss lines in order to effect a closer connexion between the Army and the nation.

During the debate on the Customs tariff in February the Premier caused some surprise by not attending the Storthing, and it was understood that on this subject M. Castberg had managed to override his chief. In the debate on the Labour Arbitration Bill, again, M. Knudsen, the Prime Minister, had to humour his troublesome colleague by stating that, in view of the undoubted divergences of opinion on the arbitration clause, he felt sure that both the Government and the Storthing would be most careful in resorting to compulsory arbitration. They would let the contest between employers and employed go on until both sides felt that the struggle must be ended and that the authorities must interfere. M. Castberg declared himself much reassured, and hoped that the statement meant that the new institution should be used, when the men themselves demanded it, for the protection of their interests. Nevertheless he continued to emphasise his divergent views as against the more moderate members of the Government, more especially the Premier, not only in the House but at public meetings; and on April 16 this very Radical Social Minister resigned his seat in the Cabinet, preferring to work as a private member for his aims and ideals. He differed also from M. Gunnar Knudsen[Pg 400] on the question of maximum working hours, insisting on a nine hours' day and a fifty-one hours' week, whereas the latter would not go beyond a ten hours' day and fifty-four hours' week.

On February 28 the Storthing rejected the proposal of M. Bryggesaa, the Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs, to annul Clause 7 of the Constitution, empowering the King to propose a successor, should there be no heir. In the same sitting the Storthing also rejected the proposal to make women eligible as Ministers of State, although M. Abrahamsen, the Minister of Justice, defended the proposal. The adverse minorities were respectively 41 and 44.

On April 23 the Storthing considered the exploitation of the large Nore waterfalls, owned by the State; general disappointment was felt when M. Urbye, the Minister of Public Works, stated that the plans had not yet been finally dealt with, and therefore would not come before the House in the current session.

In the beginning of May the Military Committee of the Storthing handed in their report on the Army Estimates, amounting to 17,550,500 kr., an insignificant fraction less than the sum proposed by the War Department. There were to be no more Generals, the field artillery regiments were each to be divided into three, and the extension of the regimental drills from twenty-four to thirty days would be dealt with in a separate Bill.

On May 13 the Storthing, by 78 votes to 44, decided to divide the Parliamentary session, in accordance with the decision in the Union of the Left, the Government stating that they, too, were in favour of an autumn session, although they did not give their reason. Several Committees were to continue their labours during the recess.

On June 9 the Storthing, by 85 votes to 25, passed a resolution, requesting the Government to see that all alcoholic drinks were prohibited at all military and naval practices, for all ranks alike. The resolution, however, was not acted upon.

On June 26 the Storthing decided that the principal naval dockyard should be extended and that two submarines should be built at Norwegian yards. On July 4 the proposal to appoint a Defence Commission was passed by the Storthing, the adverse minority being 35. The Premier stated that the most important question for the Commission to consider was whether more effective results could not be obtained for the actual military expenditure. More especially the Swiss system should be borne in mind. On July 6 the Storthing unanimously passed the new extraordinary defence tax on income exceeding 4,000 kr. (222l.) and capitals exceeding 100,000 kr. (5,555l.). The tax is to be levied according to a sliding scale, which deals somewhat leniently with incomes not exceeding 10,000 to 15,000 kr. (555l. to 832l.). The measure is subject to revision as regards the fourth term of the tax, and will thus come up for further consideration hereafter.

Just before the close of the session (July 3), the Premier made[Pg 401] a Cabinet question of a vote of some 250,000 kr. for the instruction of small holders, a question to which he had given much time and attention. M. Hagerup-Bull, the Conservative spokesman, complained that Cabinet questions were getting rather too frequent. The measure was duly passed.

The session was closed on July 8. The Storthing was to meet again on October 19, but the war altered its arrangements entirely. The results of the six months' work were very moderate, and some of the Government measures were severely criticised and left for subsequent revision.

The war, however, necessitated a short extraordinary session, and the Storthing met again on August 8, a circumstance which was in itself a telling comment on an unfortunate reference by the Premier in the spring "to the cloudless sky of Europe." The War Minister (M. Keilhart) resigned the same day and was succeeded by General Holtfodt, Norway's youngest General. A vote of 10,000,000 kr. (555,555l.) for extraordinary military measures was promptly passed and other measures were adopted in view of the situation. A general moratorium had already been proclaimed; the Government was empowered to extend it, and to render the notes of the Bank of Norway temporarily inconvertible into gold. Much satisfaction was expressed at what might be described as a declaration of confidence between Norway and Sweden. Before the members separated the President emphasised the spirit of unity which had marked the proceedings during the short extraordinary session, all contentious questions being for the present left entirely in abeyance. Under these circumstances the work done later on was confined to some committees which meet in October. All the important measures, including a revision of the law on insurance against sickness, an extension of the Bank for workmen and small holders, and a comprehensive measure of reform of factory legislation, were left for a more favourable season, politically and financially. Naturally a drain on the Treasury is set up in many ways, directly and indirectly, by the war.

The Storthing of 1914 formally closed its session at a meeting on January 8, 1915. In spite of a very active German propaganda, the national feeling tended to favour the cause of the Allies.

The Spitzbergen Conference was opened in Christiania on June 16. Twenty-three representatives were present from nine countries (Great Britain, the United States, Russia, France, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway). The conference had not completed its labours when the war broke out, and separated with the understanding that it would again meet early in 1915.

[Pg 402]

CHAPTER V.
SOUTHERN ASIA.

I. PERSIA.

The Viceroy of India, in his speech closing the Imperial Legislative Council on March 24, in which he reviewed briefly foreign affairs in connexion with India, was able to speak of the work of the Swedish officers and the gendarmerie organised by them as eminently successful. The force was employed during the winter in patrolling the roads, and it dealt with the robber bands which infested them. The improvement in the returns of British and Indian trade in Southern Persia was the best evidence of the efficiency of the work of the gendarmerie. Another force dealt with the situation on the trade route between Bunder Abbas and Kerman, and, although it had some serious engagements with the Perso-Baluchi tribes, there was every reason for confidence in its ability to establish order in the near future.

The young Shah Sultan Ahmad Shah, now a youth of sixteen, was crowned with considerable ceremony at Teheran in July, and took the oath of fidelity to the Constitution before the Mejliss. He was only a child of eleven when his father, Mahomed Ali, was driven into exile, and no opinion can yet be formed of his character or abilities.

When Turkey joined in the war against England and her Allies the Persian Government, on November 4, issued a Proclamation declaring a strict neutrality. This however did not prevent a Turkish force from advancing on Tabriz during the last days of the year. The local Persian authorities were not in a position to offer any resistance; they could merely record a formal protest, to which the Turks replied that they would evacuate Persian territory when the Russians did so.

II. THE PERSIAN GULF AND BALUCHISTAN.

An agreement was concluded with the French Government by which France recognised the new arms traffic regulations drawn up by the late Sultan of Muscat at the instance of the British Government, and abandons the privileges and immunities secured by ancient treaties. It is hoped that this will effectually stop gun-running on the Mekran coast.

III. AFGHANISTAN.

The relations between the Government of India and His Majesty the Amir continued to be cordial.

Representations had to be made regarding serious outrages on the Frontier by residents of Afghanistan and by outlaws from[Pg 403] British territory who had taken refuge in Khost. These representations were met by the Amir in the most friendly spirit, and he issued stringent orders to his officers on the Frontier to deal severely with all offenders. It was reported that the Khost outlaws implicated had been arrested and sent to Kabul for trial.

In his reply to the Viceroy's letter, announcing the outbreak of hostilities between Great Britain and Turkey, the Amir expressed his deep regret at the step taken by the Turkish Government, and declared his firm intention to maintain a strict neutrality, and added that he had issued a proclamation enjoining the same on all his subjects.

IV. NORTH-WEST FRONTIER.

Apart from the raids from Afghan territory already mentioned, the Frontier remained quiet with two exceptions. An outrage by the Utman Khels in the north of the Peshawar District led to a blockade of the tribe, which produced the desired effect.

There were two serious raids by the Bunerwals in which eight British subjects were killed and considerable property taken. On February 23 a column was sent to punish the villages mainly at fault. In spite of the most trying conditions of weather and roads the operations were carried out most successfully. The force met with little serious opposition, and returned without loss after inflicting exemplary punishment on the offending villages.

V. BRITISH INDIA.

(1) FINANCE.

At the meeting of the Imperial Legislative Council on March 2 Sir William Meyer, the new Financial Member, reviewed at length the annual Statement which had been presented a few days previously. After paying a warm tribute to his predecessor, Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson, he pointed out that, owing to the disappearance of the Chinese opium revenue and other causes, the prosperity budgets and large surpluses which had marked the latter's term of office, and had enabled the Imperial Government to distribute doles to the Provincial Governments, could no longer be looked for. It was, however, a matter for congratulation that the ordinary revenue had been sufficient to provide for the necessary expenses of the Government without imposing additional taxation.

Revised Estimate, 1913-14.—The Budget Estimate, given in millions sterling with decimal points, showed Revenue, Imperial 53.044, Provincial 29.280, Total 82.324; Expenditure, Imperial 51.718, Provincial 32.193, Total 83.911. The result was thus an Imperial surplus of 1.326, and a Provincial deficit of 2.913, or a total excess of Expenditure over Revenue of 1.587. A Provincial[Pg 404] deficit is, however, not a real deficit; it is met by the Local Governments drawing on the large balances already in hand.

The figures of the Revised Estimate were: Revenue, Imperial 53.619, Provincial 30.643, Total 84.262; Expenditure, Imperial 52.291, Provincial 31.384, Total 83.675, giving an Imperial surplus of 1.328 and a Provincial deficit of ·741, or a total surplus of ·587. The Imperial surplus was thus almost exactly the same as that entered in the Budget; the decrease in the Provincial deficit was due partly to underspending and partly to an improvement in the sources of revenue allotted to Provincial Governments.

On the Revenue side certain sub-heads showed a material difference between the Budget and the Revised Estimate. Under Customs there was an improvement of 492,000l., reflecting the prosperous conditions which had prevailed over the greater part of the country. Busy trade in the early part of the year necessitated an addition to the currency and the seigniorage on the consequent coinage amounted to 136,000l.; an increase in small coinage likely to be required in the famine districts raised the total improvement under Mint to 164,000l. The net receipts from Railways were expected to be 104,000l. less than the Budget Estimate, owing to dull trade in the closing months of 1913, increased expenditure on rolling stock, and the repair of damage to lines. There was a falling off of 276,000l. in Land Revenue, due to the failure of the kharif crop in the United Provinces and adjacent areas and the consequent remissions or suspensions. The greater demand for canal water in the United Provinces, and the revision of rates in parts of the Punjab, produced an increase of 149,000l. under Irrigation. There was an improvement of 156,000l. in the Income Tax Receipts, chiefly due to the large profits realised by banks and industrial concerns in Calcutta and Bombay in the preceding year. Miscellaneous receipts gave an increase of 127,000l. In the Excise Revenue there was an increase of 454,000l., owing to general prosperity, especially in Madras and Bombay. The income from Forests was expected to be better by 177,000l.

Reviewing the Revenue as a whole, the Financial Member was of opinion that it showed satisfactory progress. Excluding opium altogether, the receipts for 1912-13 were 81,738,000l., whilst for 1913-14 they were expected to be 82,656,000l.

The Imperial Expenditure was expected to be 573,000l. in excess of the Budget Estimate, whilst the Provincial Expenditure would be 809,000l. less. The Military Charges accounted for 392,000l. of the Imperial increase; the main cause of this was the rise in prices of food and fodder.

Budget Estimate for 1914-15.—The figures were: Revenue, Imperial 54.261, Provincial 30.772, Total 85.033; Expenditure, Imperial 52.981, Provincial 33.981, Total 86.962. The result[Pg 405] anticipated was thus an Imperial surplus of 1.280 and a Provincial deficit of 3.209, or on the total account a deficit of 1.929.

The total Revenue given above was 750,000l. in excess of that shown in the Revised Estimate, 1913-14. The heads under which the chief improvements were expected were Land Revenue, Opium, Post Office, Stamps, and Excise, whilst a falling off was allowed for under Customs, and in the net receipts from Railways owing to continued increase in the working expenses. The aggregate improvement budgeted for amounted to 771,000l., of which the Imperial share would be 642,000l. and the share of the Provincial Governments 129,000l.

Although the Expenditure provided for showed a total increase of 3,287,000l. the increase in the Imperial Expenditure was only 690,000l. The increase under military charges, due mainly to continued rise in the price of food and fodder and to the provision for the extra pay of officers in British regiments granted by the Home Government, accounted for 487,000l. of this total. The estimated Imperial surplus of 1,280,000l. was not more than should be held in reserve as a margin of safety to meet unforeseen calls, but it was proposed to make grants from it to Local Governments amounting to 240,000l. in all, of which 100,000l. would be for the improvement of communications in Burma, and 100,000l. for Education and Sanitation.

Ways and Means.—The capital requirements for 1914-15 were estimated at 12,000,000l. for railways, 1,200,000l. for irrigation, 700,000l. for Delhi, 700,000l. for repayment of India Bonds, 3,200,000l. for outlay from Provincial balances, and 100,000l. for Local Loans, Imperial and Provincial—giving a total of practically 18,000,000l.

The assets by which these requirements would be met were 4,600,000l. to be taken from balances, 1,300,000l. forming the Imperial surplus, 3,300,000l. representing the Rupee loan of 5 crores, 6,200,000l. sterling borrowings, 1,800,000l. of unfunded debt, 700,000l. from famine insurance allotment and minor items. Total 17,900,000l.

The Rupee loan of 5 crores was the largest hitherto raised in India, but it was warranted by the success which had attended the last loan, and by the fact that the price of rupee paper in England stood higher than that of the sterling loan.

Sir William Meyer gave a full account of the proceedings of the Imperial Delhi Committee constituted on April 1, 1913, and the progress that had been made in the work on the new capital. The question of expense was dealt with in great detail by the Viceroy in his speech closing the session on March 24. His Excellency admitted frankly that the estimate of 4,000,000l., mentioned in the Government of India's despatch of August 25, 1911, to the Secretary of State, was based on insufficient data. A most careful and complete estimate had now been framed by the[Pg 406] Delhi Committee and was under the consideration of the Government of India. Subject to modifications that might be made, the total cost amounted to 5,113,620l., to this another million should be added to provide for contingencies and unforeseen expenditure. The strictest economy and supervision would be exercised over all branches of the work, and some returns might be expected. The Government of India was of opinion that, even if the estimate were accepted in full, the total cost of the new capital would not exceed 6,000,000l. This would be spread over a period of twelve years from the commencement of the work in 1912.

In presenting the Budget in its final form on March 21, the Financial Member stated that the changes in the figures of the Statement originally laid before the Council were small and unimportant. The net result in the Revised Estimate of 1913-14 was to raise the Imperial surplus by 159,000l. and to reduce the Provincial deficit by 139,000l.

As regards the Budget for 1914-15, it was now expected that the Imperial surplus would be less than the original Estimate by 24,000l., and that there would be a small reduction in the Provincial deficit.

Under Ways and Means there was no material change in the original figures. It was calculated that on March 31, 1915, the cash balances would stand at twelve and one-third million pounds sterling in the Indian and at about five millions in the Home Treasury.

(2) FAMINE.

In reviewing the state of the area affected by famine at the close of 1913 it was observed that, although there was a considerable amount of distress, the stage of actual famine had hardly been reached, but, if the winter rains failed, the prospect would be very serious. They did fail to a very great extent, and the little rain that fell only slightly mitigated the existing distress. In his speech in the Legislative Council on March 24 the Viceroy observed that the state of things, though serious, was not nearly so bad as in the famine of 1907-8. There were also other circumstances which tended considerably to improve the situation. The people had enjoyed a series of good harvests in previous years and in the present year there was a prospect of an excellent spring harvest in the Punjab. Past experience had enabled the Government to deal with famines far more efficiently, suspensions and remissions of land revenue had been promptly and generously granted, advances to agriculturists had been made on a large scale, arrangements had been carried out for securing a supply of fodder, and the railway rates for its carriage had been reduced. There had also been a great improvement in the spirit of the people themselves; they were more hopeful and self-reliant, and more ready to move to other districts in search of work. There[Pg 407] was still a large class of the population which had to be supported by gratuitous relief, but the number seeking employment on relief works was far less than in previous famines.

At the end of July the number of persons employed on relief works was 4,684, whilst 102,338 were receiving gratuitous relief. The monsoon of 1914 was, on the whole, good, and the condition of the famine districts soon became the same as that of the rest of India, throughout the whole of which prices continued high till the close of the year, causing considerable distress amongst the poorer classes.

(3) PLAGUE.

As was to be anticipated from the returns for the last quarter of 1913 the plague statistics showed a considerable increase. The total number of deaths from October 1, 1913, to September 30, 1914, was 264,760, against a total of 181,668 for the corresponding months of 1912-13. The highest monthly total was 57,577 in March, the lowest 1,439 in July.

(4) BRITISH INDIA—GENERAL.

In closing the Legislative Session on March 24 the Viceroy was able to announce that a satisfactory settlement of the very intricate question of the treatment of Indians in South Africa had been reached, and that a telegram had that day been received from General Smuts that a Bill would be introduced into the Union Parliament to give effect to the report of the Commission. Unfortunately an equally satisfactory statement cannot be made regarding Canada and British Columbia. Here the grievance is not the manner in which Indians are treated within the Colony, but the almost absolute refusal to admit them at all. Although this attitude of the Colonies was perfectly well known, a steamer, the Komagata Maru, was chartered by certain Indian leaders, some of whom were known to be agitators and are believed to have been acting under German influence, for the conveyance of some 300 Indians, mostly Sikhs, to Vancouver. They were not allowed to enter the Colony (May 21), and it was with great difficulty that they were persuaded to re-embark and return to India. On the arrival of the Komagata Maru at Budge Budge, a station on the Hooghly near Calcutta, they were met by officers deputed to arrange for their dispatch by special trains direct to their homes at Government expense. The first train, with about sixty passengers, was despatched quietly, but, whilst the second train was being prepared, the men who were to be sent off suddenly fired on the police with revolvers which they had concealed, and one European officer was killed and three or four others wounded. The police were compelled to fire on the rioters, of whom sixteen were killed (Oct. 2).

[Pg 408]

Last year reference was made to the existence of widespread conspiracies (A.R., 1913, p. 400) the object of which was the overthrow of British power in India by any possible means, including murder and outrages of all kinds. Early in 1914 the Punjab police succeeded in discovering one of the most important of these. Eleven men were placed on their trial on a charge of conspiracy to commit murder, before a special court of sessions at Delhi, which began its proceedings in May. These lasted for three and a half months and resulted in three of the accused being sentenced to death and four to transportation for life, whilst four were acquitted. It is impossible to go fully into the details of the case, but a general outline of it affords an excellent illustration of the manner in which the work of sedition is carried on in India and who are engaged in it. In 1904-5 one Har Dayal, a resident of Delhi and a student of great promise in the Punjab University, was sent to St. John's College, Oxford, on a State scholarship of 200l. a year. He visited India in 1906 and delivered lectures, chiefly to students at Lahore, on the supposed needs of India. In 1908 he resigned his scholarship, and, returning to India, commenced a further course of lectures, openly advocating sedition, but not yet murder. Not long afterwards he left for America, where he is believed to have remained, making over his work to Amir Chand, accused No. 1, who carried it on zealously. In October, 1912, a Committee was formed at Lahore with the object of promoting anarchy on the lines followed in Bengal and the United Provinces, namely the distribution of inflammatory literature, teaching the art of manufacturing bombs, planning outrages, and engaging tools to commit them. If the attempt on the life of the Viceroy on December 23, 1912, was not actually planned by these conspirators they certainly knew who were engaged in it. Leaflets approving it were issued by them and distributed broadcast, and were even posted up in the colleges at Lahore. On May 17, 1913, a bomb was exploded in the Lawrence Gardens, Lahore, with the intention of killing Europeans, but, owing to the failure of the courage of the man engaged, the only result was the death of an Indian orderly. Various other outrages were planned, but miscarried from one cause or another. In October, 1913, there was a fresh outburst of activity and publication of leaflets. It was the search for these that led to the discoveries which resulted in the eleven accused being brought to trial. Most of them were young men who had received their education in Government schools and colleges, and some of them had obtained good posts in the public service. Although these conspiracies may be described as widespread, they were so only in the sense that they were carried on by agents in all parts of India. The men who actually took part in them were confined almost entirely to the class already mentioned. The great mass of the people of India are too much occupied[Pg 409] with the task of providing themselves with their daily bread to take any interest in general politics.

The appeal of Mr. Channing Arnold, editor and proprietor of the Burma Critic, from his conviction by the Chief Court of Lower Burma in 1912 was dismissed on April 7 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (A.R., 1912, p. 403). Their Lordships were of opinion that there was no misdirection on any point of law in the Judge's charge and that the jury had sufficient evidence to justify their findings on the question of fact.

The expectation of Germany that the entrance of Turkey into a war with a great Power in Europe would be the signal for a revolutionary outbreak in India was completely falsified. Instead of an outbreak of disloyalty there was one of fervent loyalty. Throughout the whole country from all races and all classes there came professions of attachment to the Government and offers of support of every kind (p. 200). At the commencement of the war the Indian Government was able to send to Europe two complete Divisions of British and Indian troops, and these were followed a little later by the despatch of a third Division. This sending of Indian troops to fight side by side with their British comrades in a great European War aroused enthusiasm not only in the Indian Army, but also in the country generally.

The second expectation of Germany that, when they had succeeded in dragging Turkey into the war as their ally, there would be an outbreak of religious fanaticism throughout the world of Islam in general and of India in particular, was even more ill-founded than their expectation of a general Indian revolt. As soon as it was clear that Turkey was joining Germany the Viceroy (Oct. 31) issued a note pointing out the true facts of the case, how no interests of Islam were involved, and how completely England, France, and Russia had assured Turkey that, if she maintained her neutrality, her independence and integrity would be upheld at the close of the war. The truth of this was at once apparent to all educated Mohamedans; they knew well not only that no interests of Islam were threatened, but also that the Sultan himself was not a free agent. The Government of Turkey was really in the hands of the Young Turks, men hated and despised by all true believers, and who were truly described by Mr. Asquith in the House of Commons as possessing all the vices and none of the virtues of the old Turkish official class. The ruling Mohamedan Chiefs, from the Nizam to those of the Protected Malay States, issued proclamations pointing out to their subjects the true facts, and enjoining loyalty to the British Government as a thing required by the precepts of their religion and by their own true interests. Similar action was taken by all the important Mohamedan associations, and by leading Mohamedan gentlemen, including the Agha Khan.

The first act of any importance in the war between England[Pg 410] and Turkey east of Suez was a visit by H.M.S. Minerva to Akaba, a fortified town at the head of the gulf of that name, where the Turks were collecting troops and supplies for an expedition against Egypt. The town was occupied, the fortifications were destroyed, and the Turkish force captured or dispersed with little loss.

A more serious operation was carried out in November by an expeditionary force both naval and military sent from India to the head of the Persian Gulf. The Turkish fort at Fao, on the right bank of the Shatt-el-Arab, was silenced on November 8, and after minor successes on the 11th and 15th, a decisive battle was fought on the 17th. The Turkish troops, some 4,000 in number, were found in an entrenched position which could only be attacked by an advance in the open. This was made and the position captured with some guns and a large supply of ammunition and stores. The British loss was five officers killed and fifteen wounded—of the rank and file the killed were thirty-five and the wounded about 300. The Turkish troops were completely routed and made no attempt to defend Basra, which was entered by the British on November 22. The whole Delta of the Euphrates and Tigris, which join about seventy miles from the coast and form a single stream known as the Shatt-el-Arab, was occupied and may prove a position of great value for further operations.

On November 10 great rejoicing was caused in Calcutta and in all the seaports of India by the receipt of the news that the German cruiser Emden had at last been caught in one of the islands of the South Pacific, and had been sunk after a sharp engagement by H.M.S. Sydney of the Australian Navy. Besides her visit to Madras, where she set the oil tanks on fire by her shells and did other damage, the Emden had been for a considerable time the pest of the Indian Ocean, and the value of the merchant ships and cargoes she had destroyed was estimated at over 2,000,000l. sterling.

VI. NATIVE STATES.

Nowhere was the general loyalty evoked by the war manifested more strongly than in the Native States. One and all came forward with contributions of men and money to the extent of their ability and even beyond it. In addition to this many members of the ruling families gave their personal service. To enumerate in detail the part played by the several States would make a record greater than the "Catalogue of Ships" in Homer.

VII. TIBET.

The Conference of Tibetan and Chinese delegates under the presidency of Sir H. McMahon, Foreign Secretary to the Government of India, concluded its sittings at Delhi, but the result has not yet been made known. The usual rumours of conflict be[Pg 411]tween Chinese and Tibetan troops on the Eastern Frontier were repeated at various times during the year, but no importance was attached to them.

The Dalai Lama showed in many ways a greater desire for friendly relations with the British Government, and it was reported that on the outbreak of the war in Europe he offered to raise a force of 1,000 Tibetans to assist the Allies. Much useful survey work and exploration was carried out in the unknown country to the north of Assam and the north-east of Burma, and this will enable the Government of India to lay down a natural boundary line in those regions when the question is ripe for settlement. It had been decided to extend administrative control over a part of the tribal area in North-East Burma, and the new district of Patas had been peacefully established.

Charles A. Roe.

CHAPTER VI.
THE FAR EAST.

I. JAPAN.

The opening of the year 1914 was attended by many disasters. In Hokkaido and the North-East Provinces of Hondo owing to the failure of the rice crop of 1913, famine existed on a scale which was reported by missionary associations to demand all the assistance that could possibly be given. The Government made appropriations amounting to 830,000l. towards the relief of the sufferers, who were unofficially stated to number some 9,000,000 persons, and while its attention was being given in this quarter of the Empire, a calamity of a most alarming nature occurred in the south-east.

On 9 and 10 January an eruption of the volcano of Sakurashima, an island in Kagoshima Bay in Kiushiu, took place. The island was soon aflame, nearly half the houses were burnt and the inhabitants fled as best they could to Kagoshima. Streams of lava and dense bodies of ashes poured into the sea and over the island. The Japanese Government was prompt in rendering assistance. Two squadrons were at once despatched to the spot and measures were organised for the relief of the sufferers. The number of deaths which took place was not so great as might have been expected, but the devastation caused was such that over 10,000 persons were forced to emigrate. Apart from the assistance given by the Government a relief fund of over 50,000l. was raised by Japanese. Further disturbances were feared but nothing on a large scale took place, though the field of disturbance extended to Akita in Hondo.

Following on these great natural and physical disasters there occurred on April 9 the death of the Empress Dowager, a calamity[Pg 412] felt to be as much of a national nature as the others. Preparations for the forthcoming Coronation were at once cancelled and the country joined in genuine mourning for the lady who had held so high a place in their affections and who had as Empress exhibited sympathy with the nation in all its joys and troubles. The unfailing dignity and tact shown by the Empress in the novel circumstances arising out of the introduction of a Western atmosphere into her Court had won her also an admiration abroad intensified by her grace and sympathy.

While suffering under these misfortunes, the nation was at the same time burdened with a scandal arising out of a contract for the battleship Kongo. Proofs of bribes given by the firm of Siemens & Schuckert were produced in the course of a long trial which included the representatives of that firm as well as other foreigners and Japanese of high standing in naval departments. Indignation meetings were held in Tokyo and a vote of no confidence in the Government which was moved in the House was lost only by 205 to 163 votes. As a result of the vote, the mob outside tried to break down the gates of the Houses of Parliament, and order was restored only by a display of military force.

The trial of the persons accused extended over two months. Admirals Fujii and Matsuo were severally sentenced to four and a half and two years' imprisonment, the managing and three other directors of the Mitsui Bussan Kaisha received sentences varying from two years to three months' imprisonment, Reuter's Agent, Pooley, was sentenced to three years, Siemens' manager, Herrmann, and other Japanese and foreigners to minor terms. How bitterly the scandal was felt was shown not only by the popular outcry, but also by the attempted suicide of Vice-Admiral Yamamouchi and the surrender by the Mitsui Bussan Kaisha of 75,000l. received illegally as commission on the Kongo and the devotion of that sum to charitable works.

The Government had been seriously affected by the disclosures attending the discovery of this scandal in the early part of the year, and the Budget introduced in January failed in consequence to receive necessary support. Under the Budget Revenue and Expenditure, ordinary and extraordinary, balanced at yen 641,000,000, and a naval programme entailing an expenditure of 16,000,000l., spread over seven years, was provided. Of the revenue yen 75,000,000 was furnished from a surplus in 1912-13, and economies effected by administrative reform in 1913-14. A reduction in taxation to the extent of yen 10,200,000 was also granted. But the Budget met with no favour in either House. In the Lower House an amendment was passed involving a reduction of yen 18,000,000, and in the House of Peers the Naval Vote was further reduced by yen 40,000,000. This action was followed by a joint Conference of ten members of each House, in which the Peers' reduction was rejected by one vote. Parliament[Pg 413] was prorogued three days later (March 23) and the Ministry resigned.

Great difficulty was experienced in forming a new Cabinet. Prince Tokugawa, the head of the old Shogunate, was the first to be asked, but he declined the task. Viscount Kiyoura then attempted to form a Ministry, but failed. Finally Count Okuma, in spite of his age, seventy-six, accepted office and appointed a Ministry in which Baron Kato was Minister of Foreign Affairs, while Admiral Yashiro and General Oka took over the Admiralty and War Offices.

In June the Naval Budget passed the House of Peers with an additional appropriation of 600,000l. passed by the Lower House to cover ten years' expenditure on ships under construction.

Thus, to Germany's misfortune, all the difficulties and disasters of the year had been mastered and overcome in Japan when Germany declared war upon Great Britain, and when applied to by her ally for assistance in protecting her trade in the East, Japan loyally responded to the request. But the existence of Germany's naval base at Kiao-chou in Shantung made protection impossible until this base was abandoned. Accordingly on August 17 an ultimatum was issued by Japan to Germany, demanding the withdrawal of her fleet from the Far East and the surrender of Kiao-chou, and an answer was requested before noon on August 23. The ultimatum was based on the importance of the preservation of peace—the reason assigned by Russia, France and Germany for requiring Japan to retrocede Liao-tung, after that Province had been ceded to her under the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895. Germany's pride permitted of no answer to this ultimatum, and the Kaiser telegraphed to Kiao-chou: "It would shame me more to surrender Kiao-chou to the Japanese than Berlin to the Russians."

On August 23 war was declared against Germany by the Emperor of Japan, and his Minister left Berlin. The war was popular in Japan as a war of revenge for the part played by Germany in 1895, and the arrest of Japanese in Germany and the insults offered to the Ambassador when leaving Berlin intensified the feeling. The blockade of Kiao-chou was announced on August 23 and in a special session of the Diet, opened on September 5, a war appropriation of yen 53,000,000 was unanimously voted.

An Austrian cruiser, the Kaiserin Elisabeth, chanced to be in Kiao-chou at the beginning of August and the Austrian Ambassador at Tokyo had proposed that she should be disarmed and interned at Shanghai, but on Japan's taking action against Germany he left Tokyo and the vessel was left to her fate.

The time which had been allowed to lapse before the declaration of war had given time for the German garrison in Peking and German reservists in China to come to Kiao-chou to strengthen[Pg 414] the garrison there. Enormous sums of money had been spent on the defences, and the capture of the place was generally recognised as a difficult feat. The landing of the Japanese at Laoshan Bay was effected on September 2, but the British contingent, under General Barnardiston, did not land until September 23-24, and arrived at the front as the Japanese were finishing their first engagement on September 28. General Kamio, the Japanese Commander-in-Chief, began the bombardment of the fortress on October 31, after the exodus of non-combatants had been permitted. The bombardment lasted a week, during which several forts were silenced and captured, and on November 7 as the Japanese were preparing to rush the fortress, the white flag was run up. In the early stages of the siege there had been considerable waste of heavy ammunition by the besieged, but the early surrender of the place was a surprise to the besiegers. The force under General Kamio numbered 22,980 officers and men with 142 guns, while the British contingent consisted of 910 officers and men of the 2nd South Wales Borderers and 450 of the 36th Sikhs. The German force was estimated at 5,000 men, and over 4,000 were made prisoners. The escape of the German cruisers early in August had deprived the harbour of some of the defences which had been expected, but extensive mine-fields had been sown which interfered with the activity of the attacking fleets. The German vessels which remained in harbour, as well as the Austrian cruiser, had all been sunk before the surrender of the fortress.

The news of this success excited great enthusiasm in Japan and General Barnardiston, who visited Tokyo shortly afterwards, received high honours from the Emperor and city. Much consideration was shown towards the prisoners from Kiao-chou and much liberty was granted them in their movements.

The satisfaction of the country in the feat performed by her army did not, however, prevent severe criticism of the new Budget in the Diet which was opened on December 7. Under the Budget provision was made for an expenditure of yen 556,000,000, and a decrease in revenue of yen 81,000,000 was forecast. No special provision was made for war expenditure, as it was intended to meet this from accumulated surplus of previous years under authority which would be asked for when required. A specially obnoxious clause provided for the increase of the Army by two divisions, a project which had already occasioned the fall of several Ministries, and which now in a division on December 24 in Budget Committee led to the defeat of the Government by 213 votes to 148. The Diet was dissolved the next day.

Gloomy as had been the scenes which ushered in 1914, the year closed with a record of achievements of which the nation might well be proud. Her enemy Germany had been driven[Pg 415] from the fortified position which she had prepared in Shantung, the German railroad from Kiao-chou to the provincial capital was in Japanese hands, and obligations towards her ally, Great Britain, had been nobly fulfilled. Not only had British trade in the China Seas received such protection as to enable it, after a short interval, to be carried on without fear of molestation, but in the Pacific work had been done which greatly strengthened Great Britain. The Marshall Islands and some others in German possession had been seized and handed over to the Australian Commonwealth; and the strength of the Japanese fleet had assisted towards the safe convoy of Australian troops and probably also towards the rounding up of the German squadron off the Falkland Islands and its destruction there.

Those countries which had long harboured suspicion of Japan's action had to acknowledge the disinterestedness of her conduct. Her retention of Kiao-chou was the only point on which attacks were still made, ignoring the fact that Japan's offer in August to surrender the port to China after the war was conditional on Germany's acceptance of the Japanese ultimatum.

II. CHINA.

In October, 1913, Yuan Shih-kai had been elected President of the Republic by the National Assembly. In November of the same year both Houses decided to suspend their meetings, as a quorum could not be obtained, owing to the action of the Government which had declared void the seats held by the Kuo-min-tang party, in consequence of their continuous opposition to all Government measures. The action of the President in dissolving Parliament (Jan. 11) created no new situation, but somewhat strengthened his position. At the same time it was felt that some kind of a quasi-representative body was needed, not only to temper criticism of the Republic as such, but also to furnish the President with information. In November a Central Administrative Council had been called into existence by Yuan Shih-kai, and though its birth had been greeted with contempt owing to its lack of legislative powers, this or other similar bodies under different names with slightly altered functions usurped the place of a representative Council, not without advantage to the country, throughout the course of 1914.

Yuan Shih-kai, after cancelling the draft Constitution drawn up by the Committee appointed by the National Assembly, commissioned in January a new body of sixty members to draft a fresh Constitution. This appeared in March. Under it, the future National Assembly was to consist of one Chamber, styled Li Fa Yuan; the Cabinet was to be abolished and a Secretary of State, on the model of the United States of America, was to take the place of the Premier, under the President as the supreme head of the State. Cabinet Ministers were to be con[Pg 416]verted into Heads of Departments and an Advisory Board was to be established. Some of these recommendations were at once acted upon, and in May an Advisory Council of seventy members, including the Vice-President, was appointed. But it was not until December that the scheme for the formation of the Li Fa Yuan, now spoken of as the Legislative Council, was finally adopted. Under it the Council consists of 275 members, of whom those representing the Provinces and Peking will be elected by Electoral Colleges, elected by qualified electors, but the remainder will be elected by the Central Electoral College direct. The session of the Assembly will extend from September 1 to December 31, unless the President sees fit to order an extension of two months, and members will hold their seats for four years.

The President, when promulgating the law for the constitution of the Assembly, acknowledged that it would not be strictly representative nor possessed of full powers, but he considered that the condition of China was not such as yet to warrant the grant of such representation or powers.

An act of the President's which excited more attention abroad was his announcement that the worship of Heaven and the honours paid to Confucius would be continued as of old time, and that he himself would represent the nation in the worship of Heaven and wear the robes of ceremony in use by the Dukes of Chou. Some of the foreign missionary bodies seemed to regard this as a cruel answer to the prayers which they had offered at Yuan Shih-kai's instance for the welfare of China.

In January the town of Liu-an Chou in An Hui was sacked by a body of brigands, who attacked the French missionary station, murdering Père Rich and making prisoners of two other priests whom they afterwards released. The success which attended this exploit encouraged further attempts, and the line which separates successful brigandage from rebellion in China soon became difficult to distinguish. Their leader Pai Lang Chai, known in Europe as White Wolf, took his followers next to Lao-ho-kou, an important mart in Hupeh, pillaged the place—again a missionary was murdered, M. Froyland, a Norwegian—and struck north into Shensi, gathering many adherents and looting Ching-tzu-kuan on the way. In Shensi he was joined by some leaders of the late revolution. He then plundered Lung-chü-chai, in the south-east of the Province, and soon afterwards fought an engagement with troops at Shang-chou where he set the city on fire. Panic followed, and he arrived soon after within a few miles of Si-an Fu, the capital. Some towns in the north of Honan were the next to receive his attention, but a concentration of troops from the north-west of Szechuen forced him to retire into Kan-su. The seventh Army Division under General Lu Chien-chang was then ordered to proceed against him, and he suffered some defeats at the hands of Mohammedan troops which drove him back into Shensi with a[Pg 417] small number of followers, and in September the rebellion was finally crushed. The success which attended his arms is said to have attracted much support from revolutionary emigrés in Japan, and among them of Sun Yat-sen, who saw in this movement an opportunity of weakening, if not of overthrowing, the President.

But Yuan Shih-kai showed himself able to weather this storm as well as the financial difficulties which arose out of the war in Europe and the consequent attack on Kiao-chou. Following the example of Europe and Japan, China declared a moratorium, and as foreign loans then under contemplation became impossible made arrangements for domestic loans of 2,000,000l. at 6 per cent. The issue of the loan was attended by very fair success, and, after a short interval of panic, trade resumed its normal course, except that exports were greatly interfered with by the adverse rate of exchange, a circumstance which seriously affected the payments by Government of interest on existing foreign loans.

The conduct of the campaign by Japan against Kiao-chou occasioned strong protests by Germany against the landing of troops in Shantung outside the Kiao-chou zone, and also against the seizure of the German railroad in the Province. The protests were met by declarations that China was acting on the same lines as in the Russo-Japanese War, and that she was powerless to prevent Japan's action. It was also pointed out that Germany had in a measure created the situation through her unauthorised fortification of the port.

An interpellation by the State Council on the subject of Japan's violation of neutrality and the countenance which had been given to this by Great Britain was answered by a statement that protests had been made to the two Powers concerned.

The financial position of the country continues to remain a problem which taxes the brains of those who desire to ascertain on what resources China can rely for further development. An able report by the Maritime Customs on the foreign trade of 1913 places its total at 146,000,000l., and admits that not only is there a heavy trade balance against China, but that an annual deficit of 21,000,000l. is totally unaccounted for, even after taking into consideration remittances of 7,000,000l. from Chinese abroad. An adverse balance has been a constant feature of her foreign trade for years past, but does not seem to affect China's power of purchase to the extent that would seem natural. In the national revenue and expenditure an adverse balance also appears; in 1913-14 this amounted to $84,940,000; but the State continues to run its system of government, even when, as in 1914, loans which were under contemplation with foreign countries were abruptly cancelled owing to the European war. In some respects 1914, in spite of a falling off in Maritime Customs of 1,400,000l., showed an improvement, for remittances from the Provinces to[Pg 418] Peking set in pretty steadily, and the Salt Tax, as newly organised by Sir R. Dane, gave a return which exceeded all estimates made in 1913 and surpassed the Customs Revenue. Another satisfactory feature was the success which attended the internal loan of 2,000,000l. at 6 per cent. The exact amount of the loan which was taken up is unknown, but the fact remains that the country showed sufficient confidence in the stability of the Government to allow this measure to meet the needs of the hour. Railway receipts also were good, and the obligations of the Government abroad have been met.

But revolutionaries have not ceased to do their best to weaken the Government, and after "White Wolf's" death plots were discovered in the Yangtse Valley, at Peking and at Canton, which had as their object the death of the President and his Ministers, and the subversion of the Government. The restoration of the Manchu dynasty was aimed at by one of these movements.

CHAPTER VII.
AFRICA (WITH MALTA).

I. SOUTH AFRICA.

A Boer rebellion instigated by Germany is the outstanding fact of the year in the South African Union. It was, however, confined to a section of the rural population, and, thanks to the loyalty and energy of General Botha and his supporters, was suppressed by the end of December. Authority for the statement that the origin of the revolt is to be sought in German intrigue is to be found in the proclamation of martial law throughout the Union, though this was not issued until October 12. The first overt act of treachery was known on the 8th, when Lieutenant-Colonel S. G. Maritz, commanding the force in the North-West of the Cape Province, being suspected by the Government, was relieved of his command and ordered by his successor, Colonel Conraad Britz, to come in and report to him. He replied, according to Lord Buxton's despatch to the Secretary of State, that "all he wanted was his discharge and Colonel Britz must come himself and take over his command." Colonel Britz sent Major Ben Bouwer to take charge. Maritz made him and his companions prisoners, but then sent him back alone with an ultimatum to the effect that unless the Union Government "guaranteed to him that before 11 o'clock on Sunday morning, October 11, they would allow Generals Hertzog, De Wet, Beyers, Kemp, and Muller to meet him where he was, in order that he might receive instructions from them, he would forthwith make an attack on Colonel Britz's forces and proceed further to invade the Union." Major Bouwer reported that Maritz had German guns and a[Pg 419] German force with his command, that he held the rank of General commanding the enemy troops, and that he had sent as prisoners into German South-West Africa all of the Union officers and men who had refused to betray their oath. Major Bouwer had also seen an agreement between Maritz and the Governor of German South-West Africa "guaranteeing the independence of the Union as a Republic, ceding Walfisch Bay and certain other portions of the Union to the Germans, and undertaking that the Germans would only invade the Union on the invitation of Maritz." He had also been shown German telegrams and helio messages dating from the beginning of September, and Maritz boasted that he had ample guns, ammunition and money from the Germans and that he would over-run South Africa. On these facts, and presumably on others not disclosed by the Government, the proclamation justified the imposition of martial law under three heads: (1) "a widespread secret propaganda" by Germany "to seduce citizens of the Union and the officers and members of the Defence forces of the Union, from their allegiance and to cause rebellion and civil war"; (2) that Maritz and a portion of his forces "had shamefully and traitorously gone over to the enemy" and with the enemy forces "had invaded the northern portions of Cape Province"; and (3) there was "grave reason to think that the Government of German South-West Africa had, through its numerous spies and agents, communicated with and corrupted also other citizens of the Union under the false and treacherous pretext of favouring the establishment of a Republic in South Africa." Therefore it was "necessary to take effective measures to protect and defend the interests of the Union and its loyal and law-abiding citizens against these insidious and treacherous attacks from within and without and to that end to declare martial law."

That being the evidence of a German plot to seduce the Boers from their allegiance, the optimistic news from South Africa between August 4 and October 12 was discounted by events. Scanty as the news was it gave the impression, at least until mid-September, that though the Hertzogite party in Parliament opposed military attack upon the German territory, Dutch patriotism was sound. The line taken by General Hertzog was that the Union should commit no act of aggression; and there were some supporters of General Botha who had to be won over by their leader to the view that a neutral attitude was impossible. The Government had at once made up their minds to act with the Imperial authorities. In reply to the King's Message to the Dominions they declared that "the Message had been received with great enthusiasm and deep loyalty in all parts of the Union" and that His Majesty's subjects there were "firmly resolved to fulfil their sacred duty of assisting with all resources at their disposal to bring the terrible war which has been forced[Pg 420] on His Majesty to a speedy and successful conclusion." But this resolve was not universal in Parliament or in the country. The sacred duty was disputed by the Hertzogites, and General Botha's lead was apparently accepted with reluctance by some of those who were opposed on other grounds to General Hertzog. It seems to have been assumed that as the Germans had not then attacked, non-intervention was the preferable course. This issue was, however, brought to a head on September 12 by a declaration by General Botha in the Senate that South Africa, being part of the Empire, could not remain neutral, and that the Government had therefore decided to accede to the request of the Imperial authorities to occupy for strategic reasons certain parts of German West Africa. "The Government had come to this decision (according to The Times report) because they wished to preserve the name and reputation of South Africa for uprightness. They were under the British flag and had all the freedom they could have.... Let them assume their responsibilities in the fullest sense of the word. It had been stated that the reports of the German invasion of the Union were baseless, but he declared with authority that the Union had been invaded. Their English-speaking friends must not expect quite the same enthusiasm amongst the Dutch-speaking section about the war as among themselves. There was not, however, the slightest disloyalty, and even among those who perhaps were least enthusiastic, there was no idea of preferring to live under the German flag." In saying that "there was not the slightest disloyalty" General Botha was probably affecting to ignore reports to the contrary and refraining from attaching any sinister significance to the parliamentary action of the Hertzogites, or to those among his own supporters who deemed it impolitic and unnecessary to take the offensive against the Germans. On September 15 General Beyers, Commandant General of the Union Defence Forces, resigned his post. In a letter to General Smuts, the Minister of Defence, he complained that Parliament should by resolutions have confirmed the decision of the Government "to conquer German South-West Africa without any provocation towards the Union," and asserted that the majority of the Dutch-speaking people decidedly disapproved of crossing that frontier. He cited the resignations of three English Ministers (p. 173) as evidence that there was a minority in England not convinced of the righteousness of the war with Germany: "It was said that war was being waged against the barbarity of the Germans. He had forgiven, but not forgotten, all the barbarities perpetrated during the South African War.... At this critical moment it was made known in Parliament that their Government was granted a loan of 7,000,000l. by the British Government. This was very significant."

In accepting his resignation General Smuts pointed out[Pg 421] that the plan of operations decided upon had been recommended by General Beyers, and the officers who were to carry it out were appointed on his advice. It was well understood between them that he (General Beyers) was to take chief command in German South-West Africa. Yet he (General Smuts) never received the impression that resignation was intended, though he knew General Beyers entertained objections against the war. He rebuked General Beyers for his "bitter attack" on Great Britain, and for having first communicated his resignation in a letter of political argument to the Press. "The attack was not only entirely baseless but the more unjustifiable coming as it does in the midst of a great war from the Commandant General of one of the British Dominions. Your reference to barbarous acts during the South African War ... can only be calculated to sow hatred and division among the people of South Africa." After further castigation of General Beyers, General Smuts characterised the insinuation about the loan of 7,000,000l. to the Union Government "as of such a despicable nature" that it needed no comment. "It only shows to what extent your mind has been obscured by political bias." General Smuts could not conceive anything more fatal and humiliating for the Dutch-speaking people than a policy of lip-loyalty in fair weather and of neutrality and pro-German sentiment in days of storm and stress. He was convinced that the people would support the Government in carrying out the mandate of Parliament, and would fulfil their duty to South Africa and to the Empire.

By that time, September 15, a strong German force had advanced on Raman's Drift (on the Orange River) and had garrisoned a blockhouse commanding the drift. Thus the report of an invasion early in August was confirmed. A force of South African Mounted Rifles under Colonel Dawson crossed the waterless region and captured the blockhouse. On the next day the Germans, who were in force in the Uppington Kopjes within the British side, attacked the Union frontier post at Nakob and overpowered the small garrison. Swakopmund, on Walfisch Bay, had been seized, without resistance, by Union forces coming by steamer, and on the 19th Lüderitzbucht, midway between Walfisch Bay and Capetown, had also been surrendered to the Union, after the enemy had destroyed the wireless station there. The Union successes on the coast were counterbalanced by German captures of frontier posts. General Botha decided to take the field himself against the enemy and made a call for volunteers. The response was reported to be all that could be desired, particularly in the district where General Beyers had influence; but, in the language of Lord Buxton to the Secretary of State, "ever since the resignation" of General Beyers "there have been indications that something was wrong with the forces on the north-west of Cape[Pg 422] Province" under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Maritz. What was wrong has been told in the opening paragraph; whether General Beyers was a party to the conduct of Maritz at this time may be judged by the use of his name by Maritz and by the circumstances of his resignation. Of Maritz it was reported that, after serving in the South African War, he had taken service with the Germans, and had fought for them against the Herreros. Returning to the Union he was said to have made himself conspicuous by ostentatious dislike of the Germans. On the outbreak of war he was given a commando of irregulars on the strength of his knowledge of the frontier. He was believed to have 500 men with him near Uppington. One effect of the rebellion was to rally opinion to the support of General Botha and to demonstrate that the bulk of the Dutch population had little sympathy with Maritz. Recruiting was vigorously stimulated. On the other hand there was evidence of a seditious propaganda among the backveld Boers, notwithstanding very drastic regulations under the proclamation of martial law, which included in the definition of sedition opposition to the policy of hostilities against the enemy. The rebellion appeared to have profoundly stirred the people. On the native population it had no discernible and immediate effects. As Minister for Native Affairs General Botha sent a message urging on them prompt obedience and cheerful submission to the restrictions of martial law.

According to a correspondent of the Cape Times, who had been travelling in German West Africa just before the war, the Germans had a force of 10,000 mounted infantry and artillery, many machine guns and sixty-six gun batteries. They had also a Camel Corps of 500 for use in the desert region. The correspondent saw 192 guns at Keetmanshoop and described the country as being dotted with police posts, with two guns in each and manned by artillerymen. Railways and roads had been made to facilitate the invasion of the Union and this account of the enemy suggested long and costly preparation for war.

Obviously the military situation was difficult enough for General Botha without the complication of internal rebellion. Thus far it seemed, on such news as the censorship permitted to come through, that Maritz stood alone. On October 26 it was announced that he had been completely defeated at Kakamas, was wounded, and had fled into German territory. Colonel Britz sent to Pretoria an agreement which Maritz had asked him to sign. It was a pact between the Governor of German South-West Africa, as representing the Emperor, and traitors prepared to declare the independence of South Africa. The German Emperor undertook to take all possible measures to get the independence of any State or States of the Union recognised under the terms of peace. On the other side, the middle of the Orange River was to be the boundary between German South-West Africa[Pg 423] and the Cape Province. Maritz had himself entered into this agreement. It was reported that before the engagement of the 26th, Maritz, being hard pressed, had offered to surrender on condition of a free pardon for himself and his followers, the Germans with him to be sent across the border. No reply was made. On the 27th many of Maritz's followers surrendered.

At the moment of the collapse of his commando rebellion broke out in the Northern Orange Free State and in the Western Transvaal. On October 28 the Union Government announced "with deep regret" that "at the instigation of certain prominent individuals," burghers in these districts had been "misguided enough to defy the authority of the Government and to make preparations for armed resistance and rebellion." Armed rebellious commandoes, under the authority of General Christian de Wet in the Orange Free State, and of General Beyers in the Western Transvaal, were in existence. The town of Heilbron had been seized and the Government officials imprisoned. A train had been stopped at Reitz and armed citizens of the Defence force seized and disarmed. "The very great majority of the citizens in every province are thoroughly loyal," said the Government statement, "and detest the very idea of rebellion." The Government had been aware of the rebel preparations and had "spared no efforts to preserve the peace without bloodshed." They called upon all loyal citizens to be on the alert and give the Government every assistance. "Citizens who have been, for some reason or other, guilty of disobedience under the Defence Act"—continued the announcement—"need not fear any action against them on that ground on the part of the Government so long as they remain quietly at home and abstain from acts of violence or hostility against the authority of the Government of the Union." The former Commandant-General of the Union forces had thus taken the field, in concert with General Christian de Wet, the Commander-in-Chief of the Orange Free State forces during the three years' war. De Wet was one of the signatories to the peace of Vereeniging, and had since held Ministerial office. Action had preceded the issue of the Government statement, for there was published on the 29th a telegram from Lord Buxton to the effect that General Botha had on the 27th searched out Beyers' commando and "driven them in headlong pursuit the whole of the day, capturing eighty of them fully armed." The engagement took place near Rustenburg and was a flight, not a battle. "General" Kemp—one of the names mentioned by Maritz—escaped into the Lichtenburg district, where there appear to have been many rebels under a Boer named Claussen; but the gathering here was put to flight by a force under Colonel Alberts. In the Calvinia district also there were bodies of rebels, who, however, made no serious fight against Colonel van der Venter's forces. General Botha followed the rebel commandoes to Zouts[Pg 424]pansdrift and they were there again scattered. Early in November the Minister of Defence stated that the Maritz rebellion was over and in the Transvaal the movement was then quite insignificant. Only in the northern district of the Free State had the rebellion "assumed certain dimensions." On October 29 De Wet had entered Vrede with a body of rebels and addressed the townspeople in front of the Dutch Church. He spoke of "the miserable, pestilential English" and described the attack on German South-West Africa as a dastardly act of robbery. "Some of my friends," he was reported to have said, "have advised me to wait a little longer until England received a bigger knock, but it is beneath me and my people to kick a dead dog." He ordered the commandeering of supplies and threatened obstructives with the sjambok. At another place he was reported as saying: "I am going through to Maritz, where we will receive arms and ammunition, and from there we are going through to Pretoria to pull down the British flag and proclaim a free South African Republic." On November 12 it was announced that General Botha had got into touch with De Wet's forces and soundly defeated them. The rebels numbered 2,000. There were losses on both sides, but the rebels did not make a serious stand. They lost 255 prisoners here, among them Commandant Muller—also named in Maritz's message—and most of their transport.

The Government issued a proclamation calling upon all rebels to surrender voluntarily, and saying that all persons who did so would not be criminally prosecuted but allowed to return to their homes on condition that they took no further part in rebellion, and gave no information or assistance to rebels, and did and said nothing likely to disturb the peace. But the amnesty would not apply to those who had violated the rules of civilised warfare. All rebels who did not surrender forthwith would be liable to be dealt with according to the rigour of the law. The notification was signed by General Botha and was an appeal to good sense rather than a menace. On November 8 a rebel commando believed to be under the leadership of an ex-Major on the Union Defence Staff, was heavily defeated some thirty miles west of Warmbaths, the rebels losing 120 killed and wounded. At Winburg (Nov. 9) De Wet is alleged to have behaved with brutality towards the Mayor. He had lost his son in a fight a few days earlier and seemed to be out of control. The rebels looted the chief store. His commando numbered about 2,000, and were frequently harried by the Union forces. Meanwhile Beyers was severely handled to the south of the Vaal River, east of Bloemhof, and in an engagement on December 7 lost 364 prisoners, besides killed and wounded. It is impossible to keep count of the commandoes; the cables during November are too scanty and confusing. The rebel forces were daily suffering attrition by captures and surrenders and[Pg 425] minor fighting. On December 2 Colonel Britz reported that he had captured De Wet at a farm at Wartenburg, 100 miles east of Mafeking. De Wet had crossed the Vaal as a fugitive on November 21, but had got together a small commando. Though pursued by motor cars, he managed to escape hither and thither for several days, until his commando was broken up and he was run to earth by Colonel Britz. There were four others in the farm where he took refuge. Finding themselves surrounded they surrendered. De Wet was taken to Pretoria. With his capture the Free State rebellion collapsed. The operations directed by General Botha had brought in over 800 prisoners.

In the Transvaal Beyers was caught and his force driven towards the Vaal at Greyling (Dec. 7). Beyers and others tried to cross the Vaal, and were fired on. Beyers was seen to fall from his horse, but managed to grasp another by the tail. He was next seen drifting down stream, shouting for help. His body was recovered. Lord Buxton reported that the rebellion was everywhere practically at an end. A few small bodies might continue to give a little trouble. De Wet, Muller, Wessel Wessels, as well as other leaders (including three members of the Union Parliament and members of the Provincial Councils) had been captured or had surrendered. Beyers was dead and Maritz and Kemp—the latter erroneously reported captured—had joined the Germans. About 7,000 rebels had been captured or had surrendered—an official figure which for the first time gave a clue to the extent of the rebel movement. General Botha issued a statement on December 9. He said that "the speedy and successful termination of what promised at one time to be a formidable and widespread rebellion, led by some of the best known South Africans," was due to the energy and ceaseless efforts of the forces in the fields. He then thanked them on behalf of the Government and people of South Africa. "Our sacrifices in blood, treasure and losses of population have been considerable, but I believe they are not out of proportion to the great results already achieved or which will accrue to South Africa in coming years. For this and much more let us be reverently thankful to Providence, which has once more guided our country through the gravest perils, and let that spirit of gratitude drive from our minds all bitterness caused by the wrongs suffered and the loss and anguish which has been caused by this senseless rebellion." He spoke of the rebellion as "a quarrel in our own South African household," and urged the cultivation of a spirit of tolerance and "merciful oblivion of the errors and misdeeds of those misguided people, many of whom took up arms against the State without any criminal intention and without any clear perception of the consequences of their action. While just and fair punishment should be meted out, let us also remember that now more than ever it is for the people of South Africa to practise the wise policy[Pg 426] of forgive and forget." Their next duty was to deal with the German danger and make it impossible for German South-West Africa to be again used as a base from which to threaten the peace and liberties of the Union. "I hope and trust the people will deal with this danger as energetically as they have done with the internal rebellion."

During the rebellion little information had been forthcoming about the situation on the frontier. Presumably the Union forces had been sufficiently engaged in suppressing the rebellion, the extent and gravity of which are measurable by General Botha's language when the peril had been surmounted. What activity the Germans displayed, if any, in co-operation with the rebels was not disclosed by the authorities. The position of affairs as it presented itself to General Botha was thus described by him in an interview given on December 17: "In suppressing the rebellion the Government have had the most hearty co-operation of both races. Let us have the same co-operation in German South-West Africa. The undertaking before us is difficult, but if we all do our duty it will be carried to a successful conclusion. Now that German territory has become a refuge for Maritz and the other rebels it is more than ever necessary that we should persist in our operations there. We cannot tolerate the existence of a nest of outlaws on our frontier, a menace to the peace of the Union." In that interview General Botha paid a warm tribute to General Smuts, whose "brilliant intellect, calm judgment, amazing energy and undaunted courage had been assets of inestimable value to the Union in her hour of trial." His own services to the Union and to the Empire cannot fitly be appraised until events have fallen into perspective; but the language applied to General Smuts, generous and eloquent as it is, would be inadequate as an expression of gratitude for the labours of General Botha. To review the events of the rebellion is to wonder whether South Africa would not temporarily have ceased to be a British Dominion in 1914 had not General Botha given a strong lead in loyalty and policy, and had the frustration of the German plot fallen to a man less influential than himself with the Dutch-speaking people or to one less skilful in military generalship.

The total casualties in the Union Defence Forces up to December 23 were 755—334 during the fighting with rebels and 369 from the fighting with the Germans. The killed in the rebel campaign numbered seventy-eight and in the German engagements sixteen. The rebels killed in action numbered 170. The rounding up of rebel parties was still going on. On December 30, however, it was reported that Maritz, with Kemp second in command, had successfully attacked a Union force, 480 strong, near Schuit Drift on the 22nd, and had compelled it, with its reinforcements, to retire with the loss of ninety prisoners, a maxim, 80,000 rounds of ammunition, an ambulance and twenty-six empty[Pg 427] waggons. As Maritz's force was described as 800 rebels, with four field guns and four maxims, and as the Union force lost only one man killed and one wounded, though it offered "a vigorous resistance," the despatch was clearly incomplete. On December 31 the Government put in force the provisions of the Defence Act, empowering them to commandeer men for military service, and it was officially admitted that dependence on voluntary service was inadequate in view of the German menace.

The war and the rebellion have reduced other events of the South African Union to relative insignificance. But there are matters of permanent interest which cannot here be left aside; and first in importance is the renewal of the strife between white Labour and Capital, a strife which shook Johannesburg to its foundations in the summer of 1913 (A.R., 1913, p. 416 sq.). The superficial cause of the renewal in January was the dismissal of sixty men from the Government railways, men paid by the day and subject to twenty-four hours' notice of dismissal. The real question, however, was whether the Trades Federation should control such dismissals and the administration of the railways. The dismissals were due to a policy of retrenchment. Mr. Poutsma, the secretary of the Railwaymen's Union, failing to get satisfaction at the hands of Mr. Burton, the Minister for Railways, threatened a strike. The Railway Union resolved to strike and the Executive of the Federation of Trades called upon all unionists and non-unionists to support them. Much anxiety was felt in view of the previous riots, when Imperial troops had to be brought into Johannesburg and there was serious rioting and loss of life; but by this time the Union Defence Forces had been organised and when the plans of the strikers were put into operation on January 9 the Government were prepared for emergencies. Simultaneously with the stoppage of the railways they called up the Citizen Defence Force in certain areas and let it be known they would call out the entire force if needs be. They also arrested a number of labour leaders, including Mr. Poutsma, on charges of having used seditious language, and lodged them in jail. By the following day there were 60,000 burghers under arms. The Trades Federation threatened a general strike of all trades and ordered a ballot to be taken. The Government, through the Railway Minister, reiterated their refusal to reinstate the men and drop the policy of retrenchment. They attempted to run a partial service, with which the strikers interfered where it was possible. The trouble spread throughout the Union and was complicated by an outbreak of Basutos at Jagersfontein Mine, the cause being the death of a Basuto, the result, it was alleged, of a kick by a white man employed by the management. The dismissal of the man was demanded and refused. The Basutos broke out of the compound, which they wrecked, and caused a panic in the town. Troops were brought[Pg 428] on the scene and in the fighting eleven Basutos were killed and thirty-six wounded. A Committee of Public Safety was set up in Johannesburg, and the Government took a very serious view of the situation. There was a two-thirds majority of the Federated Trades for a general strike, which was proclaimed on the 13th. The miners were to come out the following day. The Government at once proclaimed martial law and mobilised 20,000 men on the Rand. Trouble was apprehended in the native compounds. The town was full of troops. Ministers went about with armed guards. Business was suspended. The president and secretary of the Federation of Trades, with some 200 of their supporters, barricaded themselves in the Trades Hall and successfully resisted arrest. There was an affray outside the hall in which the police used bayonets. The Trades Hall was besieged by a force of burghers with machine guns, and means were taken to impress the besieged with the Government's determination to effect the arrest of the leaders. On a field gun being placed in position the secretary of the Federation appeared at a window and after protesting against the display of force offered an unconditional surrender. With the arrests thus accomplished the situation became less alarming and in a few days the strike collapsed. Normal industrial conditions were quickly resumed and the citizen force demobilised. On the 21st the general strike was formally declared "off." By this time there was scarcely a Labour leader anywhere in the Union who was not under arrest. Among those arrested was Mr. Cresswell, a member of Parliament, who was sentenced to a month's imprisonment and a fine of 20l. for publishing a pamphlet; but this sentence was remitted on the ground that the Government did not desire to deprive the Labour party of its spokesmen in Parliament in the coming discussions. On the 27th it was announced that the Government had decided to deport ten of the principal labour leaders, Mr. Watson, president of the federation, Mr. Poutsma, secretary of the Railway Men's Society, Messrs. Bain, Mason, Crawford, Waterson, Kendall, McKerrell, Livingstone and Morgan. The men were secretly conveyed to Natal and put on board a steamer—the Umgeni—which sailed forthwith for England (pp. 12, 24, 35). Application on behalf of the men was made to the courts but without result. The deportation had taken place and the restraining power of the courts forestalled. The illegality caused profound resentment in South Africa.

The South African Parliament was opened by Lord Gladstone on January 30. The Governor-General's inaugural speech dealt with the strike in cautious but yet definite language. The extension of the trouble to all trades "finally convinced my Ministers that the safety and well-being of the whole Union made the declaration of martial law imperative.... The measures taken and the effective display of force by the citizens of the[Pg 429] Union happily succeeded in preventing any serious disturbance and in restoring order without bloodshed. Certain measures will be submitted to you in connexion with the action taken by my Ministers during the exceptional conditions to which I have referred." Nothing, however, was said of the deportations. On February 2 a Bill was introduced by General Smuts indemnifying the Government and its servants for all acts done under martial law and prohibiting the return of the deported persons. Sir Thomas Smartt, the leader of the Opposition, who had supported the Administration during the trouble, asked for an explanation of the Government's acts. Mr. Cresswell, the leader of the Labour party, condemned the deportations and accused the Government of a conspiracy with the capitalists to run the country in their own interests. A Ministerial statement was made on the second reading, which was moved by General Smuts. It occupied several hours in delivery. As to the first part it was an elaborate and rhetorical survey of the industrial troubles of the country and an indictment of the Labour party as "Syndicalists." General Smuts suggested that the natives on the Rand had been drawn into the movement. On one mine 1,500 assegais had been found. He made no attempt to dispute the illegality of the deportations. There had been three revolutionary attempts within six months, and after anxious consideration Ministers resolved to strike down by deportation ringleaders whose acts and speeches and associations showed they had committed themselves to a conspiracy against constituted order. Why not a trial? His reply to that was that the situation was novel and not less treasonable and perilous because the acts had not come within the law of treason. Having regard to the supreme interests of the State the Government "could not run the ordinary risks of the law courts." He acquitted Lord Gladstone of any responsibility for the deportations; the decision to deport was that of the Cabinet alone. At a later stage General Smuts issued a return of thirty-eight outrages during the January disturbances, in several instances dynamite and other explosives being used. The leader of the Opposition, while criticising the Government, declined the responsibility, seeing that deportation was accomplished, of giving a vote which would enable the deportees to return to the country. The debates were continued until February 24, when, after an all-night sitting, the second reading was carried by 95 votes to 11. Meanwhile the deportees had landed in England (p. 35). After a hard fight in Committee the Indemnity Bill was passed.

Among other legislation passed were a Riotous Assemblies Act, an Act for the Protection of Workmen's Weekly Wages and an Industrial Dispute Act, setting up a system of conciliation. During the Session the Report was issued of the Commission on labour, wages and economic conditions in the Union. This[Pg 430] document showed that the cost of living on the Rand was 40 per cent. higher than in the United States and 80 per cent. higher than anywhere in Europe; wages were put at 40 per cent. higher, than in the United States and 225 per cent. higher than in any European country. The Commission recommended the establishment of an Advisory Council to deal with native questions, and an Industrial Commission to administer labour legislation, the extension of which was advised. The Commission found that competition of skilled white workers with natives and Indians is negligible, and advised that barriers should not be placed in the way of non-white labour by the State. They concluded that the Government ought not to lay down a minimum subsistence wage and that employers should "recognise" trade unions. They advised legal protection for non-unionists and declared that strikes among the white workers had caused unrest among the natives. One effect of the deportations and the debates on the Indemnity Bill was to be seen in the stimulation of political activity among the Labour men, who gained a majority of one in the elections for the Transvaal Provincial Council.

At a Party Congress in January General Hertzog, who seceded with his followers from the National party, decided to form a new party. This was done. A general election is due in 1915. General Hertzog's position as a party leader was unassailable in the Orange Free State until the time of the war.

The Budget of the Union showed that the expenditure for 1913-14 was 16,481,000l. and the revenue 15,794,000l., a deficit of 687,000l. The Finance Minister said the funded debt on March 31, 1914, amounted to 117,671,000l., and the floating debt to 7,308,000l., against 105,856,000l. and 11,972,000l. respectively. On March 31, 1913, the total debt was 124,980,000l., as compared with 116,502,000l. at the time of the Union. He estimated the expenditure for 1914-15 at 16,668,000l., an increase of 187,000l. as compared with 1913-14, for which the service of the public debt and the provincial administrations were largely responsible. He estimated the revenue at 15,707,000l., excluding the Bewaarplaatsen, leaving a deficit of 961,000l. Half of the Bewaarplaatsen, however, would be available to meet this, and the actual deficit would be 711,000l. These estimates were made in April—before the war, when the finances of the Union were strengthened by a loan of 7,000,000l. from the Imperial Government. The Government policy of economy and retrenchment was checked by the January industrial troubles and later in the year by war and rebellion.

The Times Capetown correspondent reported on December 26 that Treasury figures indicated that the deficit at the end of the financial year 1915 would be between 2,500,000l. and 3,000,000l., apart from war expenditure. The deficit was mainly due to the stoppage of the diamond industry and the heavy fall[Pg 431] in customs and other revenue. The cost of the war and the rebellion in November was over 1,000,000l., and the 2,000,000l. voted in September for operations against German South-West Africa had been exhausted by the end of that month.

The Indian grievances, which assumed dangerous proportions towards the end of 1913 and continued to be an embarrassment during the early months of 1914, were composed by the passing of a relief measure through the Union Parliament before the Prorogation in July. The Bill was founded on the recommendations of the Commission appointed in consequence of the strike disorders in Natal and the passive resistance movement under the leadership of Mr. Gandhi. At the outset the Commission met with Indian hostility, Mr. Gandhi taking the view that some of its members were partisans; but he modified this attitude when Lord Hardinge welcomed the appointment of the Commission and sent an Anglo-Indian of distinction, Sir Benjamin Robertson, to follow the proceedings in the interests of India. The Report advised the abolition of the 3l. licence and made recommendations on the marriage question and administrative matters. It created a favourable impression in India as well as in South Africa and the Act founded upon it was regarded by Mr. Gandhi as the Magna Carta of Indian liberty in South Africa. On leaving Africa in July he told the Indians that their difficulties were not over, but spoke of the settlement as "generous." He appealed to Europeans to take a humanitarian view of the Indian question and told the Indians that their future under the settlement depended on themselves. There was no further news, the war obliterating the subject.

In Rhodesia the elections to the Legislative Council in March resulted in the return of pro-Charter candidates. As the six non-elected members are appointed by the British South Africa Company the Council was thus pledged to the maintenance of the existing form of Government, subject to the action of the Imperial authorities, who had the right to review, on October 29, 1914, the administrative powers of the Company. The anti-Charterists were composed of groups in favour of responsible Government, or of Crown Colony Government as a step to that, or of inclusion in the South Africa Union, though this last expedient had few advocates. The groups combined on a "common platform," the chief feature of which was "to make an immediate and definite move in favour of responsible Government by urging the Imperial Government as an initial step to assume provisional control of the Executive, preliminary to arranging with the British South Africa Company the price to be paid for such public works and buildings as would be required, and granting a Constitution, in accordance with the wishes of the people." The pro-Charter candidates received 3,324 votes and their opponents 1,733. The elections were a complete[Pg 432] victory for the Company and were held to demonstrate the unripeness of the country for a responsible system. On October 8 the Secretary of State for the Colonies issued a document saying that the question of the future administration of the territories had been under the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government. The Charter, dated October 29, 1889, reserved to the Crown the power at the end of twenty-five years, and at the end of every successive period of ten years, to add to or repeal any of the provisions, but only in relation to so much of the Charter as related to administrative and public matters. Failing the exercise of this power the Charter was automatically extended for another ten years. His Majesty's Government were advised that there was no power in the Charter or elsewhere to shorten or vary the periods. The Directors of the Company had, however, informed the Secretary of State that they would not regard the non-exercise of the right to review by His Majesty's Government as any bar to the establishment of responsible Government should the time appear to be ripe for such a step within the ten years ensuing, and that if, during those ten years, the inhabitants of Southern Rhodesia should find that they were, financially and in other respects, strong enough to assume, with the concurrence of the Imperial Government, the burden of administration, they, the directors, "would be most willing that effect be given to that desire." In view of that statement and the desire of the newly elected Legislative Council for a continuance of the Company's administration, His Majesty's Government had decided not to advise His Majesty to exercise the powers reserved under Article 33 of the Charter, and its provisions would not accordingly be modified. His Majesty would, however, in due course be advised to issue a Supplemental Charter giving effect to the arrangement to which the Directors had agreed and to render possible the establishment of responsible Government in Southern Rhodesia, should the Legislative Council desire it and the Imperial Government concur within the ten years. This announcement closed the controversy, with what satisfaction to Rhodesians is not yet known. The settlers have since had more important matters in hand. Some returned to this country to join the forces of the Crown and many were formed into contingents for the prosecution with the Union of the war in South Africa.

The vexed question of the Chartered Company's claim to the ownership of all land not already transferred to other proprietors, and the contrary claim that the Company holds such land only as trustee for administrative purposes, was put in the way of judicial settlement. The Imperial Government had declined to pronounce on the matter, holding that it was one of the laws determinable only by the courts. In March, however, Mr. Harcourt, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, proposed to the Company[Pg 433] that the claim should be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The newly elected Legislative Council of Southern Rhodesia therefore passed a resolution on April 17 contesting the Company's claim to all unalienated land. It appointed a Committee of three to collect evidence and voted 5,000l. for Counsel's fees and other expenses. On July 16 the Order of Reference to the Judicial Committee was published. It recited that the Secretary of State for the Colonies had that day communicated the resolution passed by the Legislative Council of Southern Rhodesia on April 17, 1914, claiming on behalf of the inhabitants and people: (1) that the ownership of the unalienated land in Southern Rhodesia was not vested in and had never been acquired by the British South Africa Company as their commercial or private property, and that any powers of dealing with land that were possessed by it belonged to it solely as the governing body of the territory; (2) that any ownership of the said land that the Company might have acquired was vested in them as an administrative and public asset only; and (3) that on the Company ceasing to be the Government of the territory, all unalienated lands should become the property of the Government, taking the place of the Company as public domain.

According to the Parliamentary White Paper [Cd. 7,325] the administrative accounts of the Company for the year ending March 31, 1913, showed that the Customs receipts and native tax for Southern Rhodesia amounted to 769,978l. and the expenditure 889l. in excess of that sum. The revenue of Northern Rhodesia was 126,336l., and expenditure 178,044l. The total deficit was therefore 52,597l. The annual meeting of the Company was deferred pending the decision of the Government as to the Charter and was held on December 17. The report referred with satisfaction to the action of the Government and the prospect of a decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as to the ownership of the unalienated lands. The accounts for the year ending March 31, 1914, showed a credit balance of 102,271l. as compared with 85,882l. the previous year. The Southern Rhodesia administrative account showed a surplus revenue of 17,125l. The administrative accounts for Northern Rhodesia showed a deficit of 48,177l. The Directors were of opinion that steady progress was being made in building up a stable and growing revenue. The total receipts from land from all sources were 134,700l., "likely to be largely increased in future years." The mineral estate yielded 63,041l., and the total gross income, exclusive of administrative revenue but inclusive of net receipts from land, amounted to 422,532l. While it was impossible to predict what the effects of the war might be the Directors thought that the disturbance of the Company's operations in certain directions and the shrinkage of the capital value of its investments were not likely to do more than "retard the fulfilment of their hopes."

[Pg 434]

The total gold production of Rhodesia in 1914 was of the value of 3,580,207l., as against 2,903,267l. in 1913.

II. EGYPT AND THE SUDAN.

At the outbreak of the war the Khedive Abbas Hilmi was at Constantinople, the guest of the Sultan, and Lord Kitchener was home on leave in England. Up to that time the affairs of Egypt had followed a normal course. The Khedive did not return to Cairo. Such information as was permitted to reach England indicated that agents of enemy Powers were engaged in intrigue against us in Egypt, and that emissaries of Turkey were also actively hostile. No news was forthcoming of military changes. There was an ominous silence, broken by occasional messages of reassurance as to the friendly attitude of the Egyptian people. With the advent of Turkey among the combatant Powers at the end of October a new situation arose which had swift and dramatic results. Martial law was proclaimed at Cairo and wholesale arrests of Turkish agents were made. It appeared that Germans and Austrians had been interned and the crews of enemy vessels at Alexandria deported to Malta. Egyptians of dangerous tendencies had also been restrained. On November 2 Lieut.-General Sir John Maxwell assembled at the British Agency a number of Bedouin Sheikhs and informed them that Germany had been successful in inducing the men in power at Constantinople to quarrel with the Allies. "The Government," he is reported to have added, "has therefore convoked the Arab notables, enjoining them that their duty is to remain calm and enjoy the peace and tranquillity on Egyptian soil which the British forces ensure. If the Government finds it necessary to appeal to their devotion to serve the country the Government is fully confident of their reply to its appeal." The notables assured Sir John of their loyalty. By this time it had become known that British Territorial regiments and Indian and Australian troops were in the country, and were being reinforced, and it also appeared that a Turkish Army had entered Egyptian territory in the Sinai Peninsula. British patrols were in touch with advance parties of the enemy thirty miles east of the Suez Canal in December, and nothing further was reported by the close of the year. On December 2 the censorship permitted an official statement that Australian and New Zealand contingents "had disembarked in Egypt to assist in the defence of that country and to complete their training there. When their training is completed they will go direct to the front to fight with other British troops in Europe." These arrivals increased the forces in Egypt by about 20,000, but how many troops we had in the country was not discovered.

A period of official silence and strict censorship of news was broken by a Foreign Office announcement in London, through[Pg 435] the censorship, that in view of the state of war arising out of the action of Turkey "Egypt is placed under the protection of His Majesty and will henceforth constitute a Protectorate. The suzerainty of Turkey over Egypt is thus terminated and His Majesty's Government will adopt all measures necessary for the defence of Egypt and the protection of its inhabitants and interests." Lieut.-Colonel Sir Arthur Henry McMahon was appointed High Commissioner. Next day there was a further announcement that, in view of the action of Abbas Hilmi, "lately Khedive of Egypt," who had adhered to the King's enemies, His Majesty's Government had seen fit to depose him from the Khediviate and had offered that high dignity, with the title of Sultan of Egypt, to his Highness Prince Hussein Kamel Pasha, eldest living Prince of the family of Mehemet Ali. The Foreign Office also announced that the French Republic having recognised the British Protectorate over Egypt, His Majesty's Government gave notice of adherence to the Franco-Moroccan Treaty of March 30, 1912. The Foreign Office published simultaneously a letter addressed to the new Sultan by the Acting High Commissioner, dated Cairo, December 19. It was a review of the circumstances preceding the outbreak of war with Turkey, and the consequent changes in the status of Egypt. The letter drew Prince Hussein's attention to the fact that there were two parties in the Turkish Cabinet—a moderate and reforming party who welcomed the assurances of His Majesty and his Allies that neither in Egypt nor elsewhere would the war in Europe be used as a pretext for any action injurious to Ottoman interests, and "a band of unscrupulous military adventurers" who looked to find in a war of aggression waged in concert with His Majesty's enemies, "means of retrieving the disasters, military, financial, and economic into which they had already plunged their country." His Majesty and his Allies, in spite of repeated violation of their rights, had abstained from retaliatory action until the crossing of the Egyptian frontier and the unprovoked attack on Russian ports by Turkish naval forces under German officers. His Majesty's Government possessed ample evidence that since the outbreak of the war with Germany Abbas Hilmi Pasha, the late Khedive, had definitely thrown in his lot with His Majesty's enemies. The rights of the Sultan and the Khedive over the Egyptian Executive were therefore forfeited to His Majesty, whose Government, through the General Officer commanding the Forces, "accepted exclusive responsibility for the defence of Egypt during the present war. It remains to lay down the form of the future Government of the country, freed from all rights of Suzerainty or other rights heretofore claimed by the Ottoman Government." For thirty years His Majesty's Government had regarded themselves as trustees for the inhabitants of Egypt, and they now decided that Great Britain could best fulfil the responsibilities incurred by the formal declaration of a British Protectorate and by the government[Pg 436] of the country under such a Protectorate by a Prince of the Khedivial family. "By reason of your age and experience," the letter proceeded, "you have been chosen as the Prince of the family of Mehemet Ali most worthy to occupy the Khedivial position with the title and style of the Sultan of Egypt.... With Ottoman Suzerainty there will disappear the restrictions heretofore placed by Ottoman firmans upon the numbers and organisation of Your Highness's Army.... As regards foreign relations His Majesty's Government deem it most consistent with the new responsibilities assumed by Great Britain that the relations between Your Highness's Government and the Representatives of Foreign Powers should be henceforth conducted through His Majesty's representative at Cairo." With regard to the system of treaties known as the Capitulations, "revision may most conveniently be postponed until the end of the present war." It was the intention of His Majesty's Government to remain faithful, in internal administration, to the policy of reform and economic progress and to associate the governed in the task of government in such measure as the enlightenment of public opinion permitted. They were convinced that the clearer definition of Great Britain's position in the country would accelerate progress towards self-government. Religious convictions would be scrupulously respected; "nor need I affirm," added Sir Arthur McMahon, "that in declaring Egypt free from any duty of obedience to those who have usurped political power at Constantinople, His Majesty's Government are animated by no hostility towards the Khalifate. The past history of Egypt shows indeed that the loyalty of Egyptian Mohammedans towards the Khalifate is independent of any political bonds between Egypt and Constantinople." His Majesty's Government relied with confidence upon the loyalty, good sense, and self-restraint of Egyptian subjects to facilitate the task of the General Officer commanding the forces, who is "entrusted with the maintenance of internal order and with the prevention of the rendering of aid to the enemy."

His Majesty appointed Prince Hussein honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath and also of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, and sent to him the following message:—

The Sultan replied as follows:—

A Rome message stated that the proclamation of the deposition of the Khedive and the elevation of the Sultan on December 19 was made the occasion of an imposing military display. Cairo was tranquil. In a rescript addressed to the Prime Minister the Sultan said that he himself had aspired to repose after a life of service. But it was his duty in the particularly delicate situation events had created "to assume the weighty charge and, faithful to our past, to continue to place our energy at the service of the country. We owe it to Egypt and to our glorious ancestor Mehemet Ali, whose dynasty we desire to perpetuate." He outlined an internal policy of reform and progress, and on that subject and on representative institutions, paraphrased the language of the Foreign Office letter summarised above. Rushdy Pasha was asked to continue in office as Prime Minister and consented to do so.

Prince Hussein, the second son of Ismail Pasha, was born on December 20, 1853, and was educated in France, where he enjoyed the friendship of Napoleon III. and his family. He was Chamberlain to the Empress Eugenie at the opening of the Suez Canal. Returning finally to Egypt during the Franco-Prussian War, he became Inspector-General and held successive administrative offices. He accompanied his father to Naples on the latter's abdication in 1878, and was abroad for three years. Returning to Egypt after Arabi's rebellion he identified himself with Egyptian interests under the British regime and held various offices. He made a special study of the economic conditions of the peasantry and of Egyptian agriculture and thus earned the name of "the Father of the Fellah." He has a son, Kamel-el-Din, now in his thirtieth year. The new High Commissioner took up his duties late in December.

Events antecedent to the war need only a brief narration. In January the late Khedive opened the first session of the New Legislative Assembly (A.R., 1913, pp. 434, 435), amid great public interest. The inaugural speech expressed satisfaction that the representative institutions of Egypt had been brought into conformity with the needs of the country and now offered opportunities to men of ability. It emphasised the duty laid upon the new Legislature to prepare and suggest laws for economic development, and advised that this right of initiation be used with prudence. The Khedive counselled members to regard the welfare of all classes and especially that of the peasant cultivators, and declared that the exercise of their functions would determine the future of representative government.

[Pg 438]

The day was regarded as opening a new epoch in the history of Egypt. The session concluded in June and the Assembly was prorogued till November. Sixteen Bills were discussed, of which twelve were passed, dealing with matters of administrative reform and economic questions. Many interrogations to Ministers were made and answered. There were forty-five sittings. An Opposition was developed early in the session and showed aptitude for tactical obstruction. The Cairo correspondent of The Times, giving his impressions of the Assembly at the close of the session, observed that the debates had at times been conspicuous for a lack of dignity, an outspoken disrespect for Ministers and a general excitability. But it was premature, he admitted, to attempt to pass judgment. The majority of the delegates were new to public life and inexperienced in the arts of debate. If the Opposition would adopt a more reasonable attitude towards the Government and bring an unbiased mind to bear upon its labour, there was little doubt that the Assembly would realise the hopes of its founders, for it included many men who had in them the making of good legislators. The composition of the Assembly was: Landowners forty-nine, Lawyers eight, Merchants four, Ulemas and heads of religious sects three; and one Engineer.

The Budget showed receipts for 1913 of E. 17,703,898l. and expenditure E. 17,659,961l. The extraordinary expenditure, on remunerative work of public utility, was E. 2,776,032l. The keystone of financial policy had been the prosecution of such schemes and the remission of anomalous and oppressive taxation. Lord Kitchener claimed that the policy had been justified both by the increase of national wealth and the provision of security against a low Nile. He deprecated the undertaking of capital expenditure by means of loans, especially in a country entirely dependent on agriculture and to a large extent on a single crop. The Budget for 1914-15 estimated the expenditure at E. 18,162,000l. and the revenue at a like figure. The balance at Reserve on January 1, 1914, was E. 5,848,000l. and the outstanding capital of the Egyptian debt E. 94,202,540l., of which E. 88,742,620l. was in the hands of the public. The total annual charge was E. 3,552,000l. The Customs receipts for 1913 amounted to E. 3,939,885l. The value of the imports was E. 27,865,195l.; exports showed a decrease of 8.89 per cent., the total being E. 31,662,200l. The share of the United Kingdom was 43.1 per cent. of the exports. The export of phosphates from the Red Sea mining area increases yearly. The Nile flood in 1913 was abnormally low and late—the lowest on record; and the report suggested that but for the irrigation works and organised distribution of the available supply economic disaster would have been caused. The Nile was again low in 1914. A dam is to be constructed on the White Nile about forty miles south of Khartoum. The probable cost is 1,000,000l. It will serve the double purpose of a storage reservoir and control of excessive floods; but it was[Pg 439] intimated that resort would ultimately be made "to regulation on the Great Lakes as a final settlement of the problem of Egypt's summer water when all available areas are developed." The educational section of the Report is of an encouraging tenour. Note is taken of the fact that about 750 Egyptians were completing their education in Europe, chiefly in England and France. Concerning the Khedivial Library mention is made of the appointment as Director of Dr. Schaade, "a distinguished Orientalist, who has been for some years an editor of 'The Encyclopædia of Islam' and latterly a lecturer on Oriental languages at Breslau." Among the new acquisitions of the library was a series of works on Islam printed by order of the ex-Sultan of Morocco, Mulai Abd el Hafiz, and presented by His Majesty.

The Report again gives a disturbing account of the increase of crime, despite the new Arms Act. Lord Kitchener points out that the main responsibility for public security rests with the Mudirs and hints that if there is not a better discharge the system must be considered.

A strong light on the social condition of Egypt was thrown by the Report of the Judicial Adviser (Sir Malcolm McIlwraith) for the year 1913. Crimes and serious misdemeanours showed a continuous increase. Poverty was not the cause. Food and shelter were within reach of all. Cold was unknown. Habitual charity was such that the terrors of complete destitution were not to be found. But rapacity and greed were rife and had been stimulated by economic conditions and the rise in the standard of living. Emulation in extravagance was a cause of crime, thirst for revenge a still more potent cause. Murder on the spur of the moment was common in Egypt, especially in the south. A change in the temperament of the people, such as education might be expected to produce, could alone diminish the number of these murders. In past times communal responsibility was enforced, but with the advance of civilisation repression had to be confined within the law. Far from having a particular interest in the suppression of crime, the Fellah knew from experience that to volunteer evidence often entailed long absence from work and exposed him to the danger of retaliation by friends of the accused. He therefore showed strong disinclination to have anything to do with criminal law and administration.

Touching the creation at the close of 1913 of the Ministry of Waffs Lord Kitchener says that the Ministry is assisted by a Council which includes the Sheikh El Azhar and the Grand Mufti of Egypt, the highest dignitaries of the Mohammedan religion. The other members are Moslems. The new organisation was expected to result in an improved administration of the funds and properties of the religious trusts. The ill-effects of yet another low Nile caused some uneasiness as the year passed. The economic disaster of war was met for the time by a[Pg 440] general moratorium. Since August 4 there has been a strict censorship in Egypt.

Lord Kitchener made a tour of the Sudan in January and his report was thus written with fresh knowledge. So far as is known there have since been no untoward developments, though in March Major Conry, in charge of an Arab battalion, lost his life in an encounter with a party of outlaws on the Atbara River. The Report speaks of 1913 as an uneventful year except for the Imperial guarantee of a loan of E. 3,000,000l. for the development of the Sudan as a cotton-growing country. The Nile flood was the lowest known in the Soudan for a hundred years. The area cultivated was 2,303 feddans as against 1,937,000 in 1912. There was a decrease in the area of cotton, due entirely to climatic reasons, "not to the indifference of the natives, among whom there is a marked revival of interest in all forms of agriculture." At the Tayiba demonstration station, which is now being managed by the Sudan Plantations Syndicate on a commercial basis, the cotton yield was good and the quality of a high order. The working of the Tokar cotton area "has more than justified the policy of the Government. A marked improvement in the cultivation of the land and in the handling of cotton has taken place and consequently higher average yields and better prices have been obtained. The sale of cotton by public auction, after estimation by Government classifiers, has ensured a fair market price to the cultivators." The revenue for 1913 was E. 1,644,000l. and there was a surplus over expenditure of E. 29,000l. The estimates for 1914 were for a revenue of E. 1,644,000l. also with expenditure of a like sum. There was E. 65,000l. in reserve on January 1, 1914. There are brief but instructive administrative reports. In the Sudan, as in Egypt, a considerable increase in serious crime is recorded. The slave traffic has been made "almost impossible." The population continues to increase, but there is excessive infant mortality. Health was "satisfactory," malaria being less frequent owing to the dryness of the year; but sleeping sickness was prevalent in the Yei River district and is now found over a large area in Western Mongalla and Western Bahr-el-Ghazal; it was also reported to be prevalent in the Congo to the west and south-west of Tembara. Cattle disease had been exceptionally prevalent. The opening of new districts had increased the territorial responsibility of the Army. The British garrison at Khartoum consisted at the time of the Report of six companies of infantry and a detachment of garrison artillery. A list is given of nine military operations in as many different districts for the suppression of raiding parties and tribal disturbances. A new general map of the Sudan on a scale of 1:5,000,000 is nearing completion. The condition of the south-eastern frontier is described as "not altogether satisfactory." An extensive trade in arms was carried on between Abyssinia and the Nuer country. Financial considerations pre[Pg 441]cluded the Government from setting up an effective administration between the Khor Yabus and Lake Rudolph, and from occupying the Boma plateau. Something had been done by the construction of posts after the expedition to the Anuak country in 1912. These are at Khobo Bonjak and Nasser; "but the problem will never be satisfactorily solved until the whole country up to the frontier is effectively occupied. The political situation at Adis Ababa, and the apparent inability of the Abyssinian Government to put a stop to the smuggling of arms from the coast, also make for unrest in the outlying districts bordering on the Sudan, which do not appear to be under the full control of the central Government."

The war had had no apparent disturbing effect on the Sudan and the scanty news from Khartoum and beyond by the end of the year was reassuring as to the attitude of the inhabitants. Sir Reginald Wingate, the Governor-General and also Sirdar of the Egyptian Army, which was believed to be for the most part in the Sudan when war was declared, was in England on leave in August but returned immediately. After spending some time in Cairo he visited the Sudan and held receptions of Sheikhs and notables at various centres. The most important gathering was at Khartoum on November 8. The Sudan Gazette of the previous day had contained a Proclamation announcing that, at the instigation of Germany, Turkey had violated the Egyptian frontier and that a state of war existed between Turkey and Great Britain, and calling upon the inhabitants of the Sudan to render to the British, Egyptian and Sudanese forces all the assistance that might be required of them. The private receptions prior to this proclamation had already made the Sheikhs and Notables cognisant of the situation as regards Turkey. The gathering of Sheikhs and Ulema at Khartoum was addressed by Sir Reginald Wingate. After announcing the state of war with Turkey, as from November 7, he told them that in order that they should fully understand the causes of this new war he would call upon the Grand Mufti to read an Address from him—Sir Reginald—to themselves and to other religious leaders in the Sudan. The Grand Mufti read the Address in Arabic. Addressing the company as men of intelligence and education, possessing a good influence over the people, the Governor-General appealed to their knowledge of the regenerative work the English had done in the Sudan, and emphasised our non-interference with any man in the exercise of his religion. With this knowledge in his mind and in theirs he was, he said, able to talk to them candidly and without reservation. He then described to them the condition of Turkey on the eve of and since the overthrow of the Sultan Abdul Hamid—how the men who had arrogated to themselves the direction of affairs had mismanaged the Empire, and had now gone to war with the one Power which by her actions and the sentiments of her people had ever been a true and sympathetic friend to the Moslems and to[Pg 442] Islam. "These men—this syndicate of Jews, financiers and low-born intriguers, like broken gamblers staking their last coin, and in deference to the urgent demands of Germany and our enemies," had gone to war. After an argument that England had thus been forced to war by the Turkish adventurers and that it was not her object to gain territory or advantage at the expense of a Mohammedan State, the Address assured the gathering that the world policy of Great Britain would remain unchanged. The sanctity and inviolability of the Holy Places would be maintained and enforced on others. She would shelter and protect all Mohammedan mosques on her borders, as she had done for a hundred and fifty years in India, where she had guarded the interests of 62,000,000 Mohammedans, "many thousands of whom are now fighting alongside their British fellow-subjects against the German Army." The Sudan Sheikhs and Ulema knew the evils of Turkish rule, said the Address, from bitter experience. But they might feel—and Sir Reginald sympathised with them—"a certain sorrow at this war." Some might fear that the result might affect the situation of Mohammedans in other parts of the world. He assured them before God that their fears were groundless. The position of no single Mohammedan in the British Empire would be changed one iota nor a single privilege granted to Islam repudiated. The Address concluded thus:—

The Address was received with enthusiasm and many speakers publicly protested their loyalty, among them the Mahdi's eldest son. The document was circulated throughout the country and "it is said there is hardly a noteworthy person in the Sudan who has not written or telegraphed to the Governor-General." Offers of assistance were almost embarrassing in their generosity. Until the end of the year not so much as a whisper of disaffection had reached England from the Sudan—or, if that should prove to be inaccurate, had passed the Censor. Despatches published on December 30 confirmed the unofficial accounts of the satisfactory attitude of all classes of Sudanese.

III. NORTH-EAST AFRICA AND THE PROTECTORATES.

In the Somaliland Protectorate the action at Dul Madoba in August, 1913, had serious consequences and a state of war prevailed throughout 1914. Among Supplementary Estimates submitted to the House of Commons in February was one for 25,000l. "to[Pg 443] meet additional expenditure entailed upon Somaliland in connexion with the activity of the Mullah." At that time he was believed to be preparing for an attack on Burao, where, however, we had no garrison, the force having been withdrawn after the disaster to Captain Corfield and his camelry. He had been raiding friendly tribes in the interior and there was a risk that he might attack Berbera. Our garrison there consisted of 260 Carnatic infantry and a body of camelry and about the same number at Sheikh. Further troops were on their way from Aden. It appeared that the Secretary of State for the Colonies had ordered the camel corps to be increased from 150 to 300, and this had been done; and in February he ordered a further increase to 500. The policy was to reoccupy Burao, about eighty miles from the coast, and to occupy Sheikh, midway between Burao and Berbera, but not to occupy the interior nor send a punitive force against the Mullah. The forts at Burao and Sheikh would be strengthened and the Indian contingent kept at 400 instead of 200 as before. The estimates for 1914 showed that the recurrent cost of these permanent defence forces—Indians and camelry—would be 58,800l. Mr. Harcourt claimed that these measures met the requirements of the men on the spot. The Mullah was an old man, he said, in an advanced stage of dropsy, physically immovable and incapable of leading the Dervish forays. He had no probable or possible successor. Since he had been ex-communicated from Mecca he had been left enfeebled—a robber, but not a prophet. With a little patience and endurance Somaliland might yet be comparatively peaceful. The policy, therefore, was to go no farther than Burao and wait for the death of the Mullah. The Dervish reply to it was an attack in March on Berbera itself, a body of horsemen dashing to within firing distance of the town and making good their escape. In July there were disturbing reports of Dervish activity and it was telegraphed from Aden that more troops had been requisitioned. The war in Europe closed the usual channels of knowledge, but in December the Press Bureau issued a short review of what had occurred. Burao was to be the base of the enlarged camel corps. Major F. A. Cubitt, D.S.O., had been put in command of the troops and had arrived in the Protectorate in August. On November 20 the camelry were patrolling the grazing grounds of the tribesmen at Burao as far as the Ain Valley, and Colonel Cubitt "encountered strong opposition at Shimberberris, where the dervishes were in a strong position." He attacked them and again on the 23rd when all their forts were captured. "The dervishes, overcome by the moral effect of shell fire"—there had been no previous mention of artillery in Somaliland—took to flight and suffered material loss. The forts were demolished as far as practicable. The walls were over six feet thick. One of the British officers—Captain H. W. Symons—was killed and two others wounded. The camelry returned to Burao and the Commissioner reported that "he could not overestimate[Pg 444] the excellent effect which this success will have throughout the Protectorate." It appears that naval airmen were employed in these operations—the first time aircraft could have been seen in this region of Africa. The Colonial Office, while not denying the statement, declined to throw any light upon its plans for the future.

British East Africa was at once drawn into the vortex of the war. The Secretary of State for the Colonies announced early in October that during the previous month there had been considerable activity along the Anglo-German border because of attempts to raid British territory and cut the Uganda Railway. All the attempts, with one unimportant exception—a frontier post whose occupation by the enemy it was not at the time convenient to oppose—had been repulsed and the raiding parties forced to retire. The normal garrisons of the Protectorate and also of Uganda had been increased by "a strong body of troops from India and also by mounted and unmounted volunteer forces locally raised; and no anxiety was felt as to the military situation." One of the earliest moves of the enemy was to send a small party under white officers to blow up the Uganda Railway near Maungu, but the party was broken up and its dynamite and outfit captured. At Tsavo on September 6 there was "a hot engagement" between a strong force of the enemy and Indian troops and King's Royal Rifles. The enemy were severely handled and repulsed. The enemy had Maxim guns, which the Punjabis made "a gallant effort to rush with the bayonet," and our losses were not slight. On the 10th there was another engagement with an invading force 400 strong including fifty Europeans. This force occupied Kisi on the 11th, and was attacked on the 12th by a British column which was, however, compelled to retire. On the 13th the enemy abandoned Kisi, which the British occupied, finding there ten dead Germans (Europeans) and six wounded. The Germans had retired to Karungu. Meanwhile German and British steamers on the Victoria Nyanza had been engaged and German dhows sunk. On the 20th the Germans attacked a British post at Campi ya Marabu and after two hours' fighting retired into their own territory, leaving thirteen dead. Lieut. A. C. H. Forster, in command of the King's African Rifles there, was killed. The officer who took over the command reported that the conduct of the King's African Rifles was splendid and that the success had "materially encouraged the Masai who lived in the neighbourhood." The British outpost at Majoreni was attacked on the 23rd, but the enemy again repulsed. On the 25th a German force of thirty-five Europeans and 150 natives, with two maxims, attacked a mounted squadron of the Rifles, and after an hour's bush fighting retreated, leaving eleven dead and many wounded. The next day a strong force of the enemy, including fifty Europeans, attacked the Rifles at Mzirna, but were repulsed, leaving seventeen dead. During November and December the published casualty lists showed that fighting had been[Pg 445] actively continued and occasional letters home suggested that it was severe. On November 19 complaint was made in the House of Lords by Lord Curzon of the secretiveness of the Government, which had merely issued "a very extensive list of casualties." Lord Crewe pointed out that German East Africa covered some 350,000 square miles and had a white German population of between 5,000 and 6,000. The German force there had been reinforced by reservists and he believed that some naval force had also been brought from the Far East. The Germans were well provided with weapons and had machine guns and constituted a formidable force. While the white population of British East Africa equalled the German (Lord Crewe was in error here) it had not the same military element in it. The native infantry and police force in the German Protectorate numbered 2,000. In the British there was a considerable force of native police and a military force—the Rifles—which, though not so large, was extremely efficient and well officered. It was clear that at the beginning of the war our position in East Africa could not be altogether secure and it was necessary to send reinforcements at an early date. The fighting had been in a good many parts, with varying results and considerable losses. The total casualties in two months were about 900. It had become necessary to send reinforcements from India. The fate of the German possessions, Lord Crewe pointed out, would depend on the ultimate settlement of the war; but it was necessary to preserve the position of Great Britain as the paramount Power in Central Africa where she would repel the German attacks with all the force she could muster. That was the position of affairs when the year closed. In the earlier months of the year there had been serious trouble in Jubaland Province, owing to an incursion of Somalis, armed with rifles. They had probably been fighting against us in Northern Somaliland. A new post had just been set up at Seremli with Lieut. Lloyd Jones and a few men in charge. The Somalis—of the Marehan tribe—said they had not come to fight and were told that they must give up their rifles, which had apparently been obtained from Abyssinia, which does a large trade in arms and ammunition—a trade which it has been found impossible to keep out of Jubaland and Somaliland as also out of the Sudan border country. The Somalis would not give up their arms and went away, but returned and attacked the station. Lieut. Lloyd Jones was severely wounded. Troops had been telegraphed for through the Italian Marconi station at Bardera and companies of Rifles hurriedly sent from Uganda and Nyasaland. There was severe fighting, the Somalis abandoning their bush tactics and charging down on the troops. They failed to break the square, owing in part to the maxim fire. A midnight attack was also repulsed. Our losses were slight and that of the Somalis heavy. Other operations followed later for the disarmament of the invaders.[Pg 446] Two British officers lost their lives in the fighting and the affair illustrated the extreme difficulty of maintaining authority in Jubaland, notwithstanding the co-operation of the Italians on the other side of the Juba. Until the traffic in arms can be stopped Somali incursions could be checked only by a chain of posts or the constant use of a mobile force. The Protectorate was making good progress until the war plunged African affairs everywhere into confusion. One effect of the war was to suspend the agitation at Nairobi and in the settled districts for some form of self-government, beginning with representation on the Legislative Council. Nor has the question of the reservation of the Highlands for European settlement advanced. A Bill was passed without opposition—scarcely without criticism—in the Imperial Parliament guaranteeing a loan of 3,000,000l. for the Protectorates of British East Africa, Uganda, and Nyasaland. In East Africa the money was to be disbursed upon harbour works and wharves at Kililundi, on roads and bridges, improvements of the Uganda Railway, additional rolling stock and more steamers for Lake Nyanza; and on roads and railways in Nyasa. Repayment of the loan is to be made within forty years. No charge on the British Treasury was involved.

Abyssinia seems to have had more trouble than usual with her border peoples, especially on the South. The Italians in Eritrea strengthened their forces and this in conjunction with the gathering of Abyssinian troops, sent for the purpose of suppressing border troubles, gave rise to a suspicion that Italy had ambitions hostile to the Emperor Lidj Iassu; but these were dissipated by Signor Martini, the Minister for the Colonies in Rome. Italy's policy, he declared, was restricted to protecting the frontier and holding aloof from Abyssinia's internal affairs. Lidj Iassu has made his father, Ras Michael, King of Wotto and Tigre. Ras Michael is the husband of a daughter of the late Emperor Menelik, and Lidj Iassu is a youth.

Concerning German East Africa the prosperity of 1913 continued up to the outbreak of war, and it appeared that the completion of the trunk line from the coast to Kigoma, on Lake Tanganyika, several months in advance of the scheduled time, stimulated the energies of the administration and the settlers. The effect of this completion on the traffic of the Uganda Railway had not developed and will not be injurious if German Africa passes into British hands as the result of the war. The line is an achievement scarcely less remarkable than the Uganda Railway, and must in any event have great influence upon African commerce. Two trains a week were at first run to the Lake, the journey taking rather less than one hundred hours.

A glance at a map will show that for the trade of Central Africa the German line enters into competition both with the British lines to the south and east and the Belgian Central Railway through the Valley of the Lukuga to the Congo shore of the Lake. The[Pg 447] Belgian line was expected to be completed in June; but goods by it must be transhipped before they reach the west coast, whereas the German railway carries them through to the east coast, at Dar-es-Salaam, now one of the best-equipped ports on the continent. In connexion with the completion of this railway the Germans had intended to hold an exhibition at Dar-es-Salaam, the capital, in August and elaborate preparations had been made. German scientists have for many years worked actively in the Protectorate. Dr. Hans Reck, of Berlin University, discovered in the north of the region the skeleton of a man of the diluvial period of Africa. Dr. Reck estimated the age of the skull at 150,000 years. It was found with mammoth fossils and resembled that of the primitive Bushman. The rest of the skeleton was on its way to Europe.

In Nyasaland (British Central Africa) where part of the Lake forms the German frontier, the war had serious consequences. The Germans invaded the country and on September 8 a British force was launched against a body some 400 strong. The enemy evaded this force and attacked the post at Karonga, held by an officer with fifty African Rifles and a few police and civilians. Resistance was kept up until the main body arrived and drove the enemy back. The fighting lasted through the day and the Governor reported to the Colonial Office that "the enemy fought with great determination and had to be dislodged by repeated bayonet charges." They were ultimately driven towards Songwe, the British being too exhausted to pursue. Two field and two machine guns were captured by our force and the enemy lost seven officers killed and two captured. Karonga is the principal station in the north of the Protectorate and Songwe is the German frontier post farther north. On that day (Sept. 13) there was a sharp engagement on the Kisu Kenu Road between the King's African Rifles and about 400 Germans, including fifty whites. The German losses throughout were heavy and of the nineteen officers engaged at Karonga eleven were accounted for, and of those who escaped three were known to have been wounded. The Secretary of State telegraphed "his sincere appreciation of the loyal and valuable assistance rendered by all sections of the community." Later news was lacking. Zanzibar, which is now administered by a Resident under the authority of the Governor of British East Africa, had, as far as was known in England, an uneventful year.

IV. NORTH AND WEST AFRICA.

Until the outbreak of war France had pursued with success her policy of consolidating her interests in Morocco. Practically all that is known of the condition of the Protectorate since July is that Moorish and Senegalese troops, in numbers not disclosed, were withdrawn and employed in the fighting in France, as were French and native troops in Algeria and Tunis. An indication that the internal state of the country was satisfactory, and that the[Pg 448] Turkish Sultan's proclamation of a Holy War had not then had any overt effect in North-West Africa, was afforded—for what it may be worth—by a congratulatory message from the Sultan of Morocco to his troops with the Allies. This applauded them for the help they were giving "against the enemies of humanity, liberty and civilisation," exhorted them to steadfastness and expressed entire confidence in an ultimate triumph. Germans and Austrians were expelled from the Protectorate, and many who were believed to be concerned in hostile intrigues were arrested. A batch of German merchants were accused of plotting for a native rising and were put on trial by court martial, with what result is not known. There had been some native trouble in the Zaian district in June, where a detachment of troops guarding telegraphist workers were attacked between Mekinez and Rabat, and there was evidence that in the mountains of the Middle Atlas there was much tribal unrest. An expedition was sent to reduce the clans to subjection. No particulars were forthcoming of German political activity within the Protectorate, and there is reason to believe that the Zaian difficulties were merely part of the general problem of pacification in the less accessible regions of the country. Substantial progress was made in this direction in May by the French occupation of Taza, which lies, roughly, midway between Fez and the Algerian frontier. Stout resistance had been expected, but the French surprised the tribesmen by a forced night march and the town was seized with little loss. It was believed that this easy mastery of the Beni-Udjam clans would finally pacify the inhabitants of the northern region, who were said to have accepted the situation willingly. There still remained an immense triangular area to the south comprising the Middle and Great Atlas ranges, where chains of military posts had yet to be established; but with the subjugation of the marauding tribes of the North it was assumed that the way was cleared for the railway between Fez and Guersif, on the Algerian frontier, thus linking up Tunis by an unbroken line, via Ujda, to Rabat and Casablanca on the Atlantic. Further fighting was reported, however, in the Taza region late in July, the enemy attacking a strong French force under General Gouraud. They were beaten off, but the French lost fifty killed and ninety wounded. On August 4 the curtain fell and the true condition of Morocco, and the whole of North Africa, is not likely to be ascertainable until Peace. As a consequence of the Franco-Spanish treaty of Madrid there was entire co-operation between the two Powers in Morocco, and the advance on Taza was taken in conjunction with Spanish activity in the Mediterranean zone and after a visit by General Lyantey, the French Resident General, to Madrid. An incidental result of this visit was the abolition of the Capitulations providing for Consular jurisdiction over French and British subjects, who now come under the ordinary tribunals in each Protectorate. The[Pg 449] Convention was also ratified for the construction of a railway from Tangier to Fez, and engineers and surveyors were at work in the belief that the tribesmen in that part of the Protectorates were sufficiently pacified to permit of the laying of the rails. There was the usual sporadic fighting in the Riff. In Algeria a financial difficulty arose from a request by the French Government for a contribution to the cost of military defence in France. No demand was made, but it was pointed out that other French colonies contribute, and it was suggested that Algeria could spare 5,000,000 francs. Though acceding to the request on patriotic grounds, the Delegations Financières, in view of the heavy development expenses of the country, offered 4,000,000 francs, and to raise this sum additional taxation had to be imposed. Authority was asked for a loan of 55,000,000 francs, secured on the State railways, the money to be expended on improving and extending the system; but the war appears to have put this project in abeyance.

Tripoli and Cyrenaica, within the range of the Italian coastal occupation, appear to have continued in the quiescent condition produced by the Italian successes in the early part of 1913. From a Treasury statement issued in Rome the cost of the acquisition was 45,200,000l. On the outbreak of war there were reports of a recrudescence of native trouble, which was attributed to German intrigue. Allegations were made against the German Consul in Tripoli, who was arrested, with other Germans, said to be army officers and believed to be engaged in native dealings hostile to Italy. According to Rome newspapers the object of the Germans was to instigate a Holy War. A mysterious incident, conjectured to be in connexion with the affairs of the Tripolitaine, was a visit of a Senussi Sheikh—El Sayed Idris El Senussi, a cousin of the Sheikh El Senussi—to the Khedive at Cairo in June. He was to proceed to Constantinople, and the report was that he sought to arrange with the Porte and Italy a pact under which, by the payment of a tribute to Italy, the hinterland would not be entered by that Power. Whatever the object of the visit the events of August and September made it the more significant. No reports of other activity by the Senussi were forthcoming.

The war had extended but slightly to Nigeria by the end of the year. Small raids by Germans from the Cameroons—presumably with native troops—had been made, but in each case, said the Colonial Office, the parties were either quickly withdrawn or driven back. On November 16 there was a fight near Bakundi in which District Officer Glenny was killed. "The German force was subsequently driven back and dispersed." On the next day there was an encounter near Marna, and Lieutenant A. R. Peel and Mr. M. Percival, a mining engineer who had volunteered, lost their lives. In August the Colonial Office announced temporary reductions in the railway rates and scale of royalties affecting the tin mining industry. A further reduction was possible in 1915.[Pg 450] It appeared from the speech of the chairman of the Niger Company (the Earl of Scarborough) that cash trade has now displaced barter trade in all but the outlying districts, and that competing firms, British and foreign, are contesting the commercial supremacy of the Company, especially at Kano. The tin industry has not realised the extravagant expectations of the "boom" period; but there are proved areas which are being worked with success. The Colonial Office issued in December a Report dealing chiefly with the setting up by Sir Frederick Lugard of a native judiciary for the administration of tribal laws. The amalgamation of the North and South Protectorates took effect on January 1, but sufficient time has not yet passed for the full benefits of the unification to be appraised. At the outset His Majesty sent a message of good wishes to the Emirs and chiefs and other inhabitants, and Sir Frederick Lugard replied on their behalf, saying that he had taken steps to communicate the message, and asked the Colonial Secretary to assure His Majesty of an abiding loyalty.

The war was vigorously prosecuted in the Cameroons. On August 25 a Nigerian force under Colonel P. Maclear moved out from Yola, crossed the frontier and attacked and occupied Tepe, but lost two officers killed and two wounded. Pushing on to Saratse Colonel Maclear attacked the German station at Garua, but, after capturing a fort, was heavily attacked at dawn, and, after suffering considerable loss, was compelled to retire into British territory. Colonel Maclear and four other officers were killed and two medical officers captured. Meanwhile two other British columns had crossed the frontier and left a garrison at Nsanakang, which on September 6 at 2 A.M. was "suddenly attacked by the enemy, who had received strong reinforcements. This attack was repulsed, but a second one, made at 5 A.M., proved successful after a stubborn resistance. The report of this engagement states that our troops fought magnificently, as even the Germans admitted. The casualties were heavy and Nsanakang was neutralised in order that the wounded might be attended to." Meanwhile French troops from Libreville had landed in Corisco Bay from a warship, which sunk two German auxiliaries, and on September 26 successfully attacked Ukoko; and H.M.S. Cumberland and Dwarf, having reconnoitred the mouth of the Cameroons River, landed an Anglo-French force under cover of a bombardment and entered Duala, the capital, and Bonaberi, which both surrendered unconditionally. The joint force was under the command of Brigadier-General C. M. Dobell. The wireless station had been destroyed. Little damage had been done by the bombardment. Forty thousand tons of German shipping was captured in the harbour. The German forces had retreated inland in three directions and the Allies were pursuing. On December 21 the Colonial Office announced the opening of the port of Duala to trade. The German tariff would be enforced for the present, but trade with the enemy was prohibited,[Pg 451] and limited to such areas as the military authorities thought fit. The latest news of the fighting was from a French source and showed that there had been severe conflicts at Edea, some fifty-six miles from Duala, on the railway running south-east from that port.

In Togoland the Germans made an unconditional submission. Lieut.-Colonel Bryant, commanding our forces which had passed into Togoland from the Gold Coast, reported on August 24 that the German wireless station at Kamina had been destroyed by the enemy, and that they had sent a flag of truce offering to capitulate if given the honours of war and certain conditions. They were told they were not in a position to ask for terms and must capitulate, which they did after some hours' delay. The Allied force—French native troops acting with a Gold Coast frontier force—thereupon occupied Kamina. The cost of these operations was 60,000l. and the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast Colony passed a resolution offering to pay it as "a tangible expression of the widely manifested wishes of the inhabitants to afford their loyal support to His Majesty's Government, and to manifest their sympathy with it in the righteous war in which the Empire is engaged." On December 2 the Governor telegraphed that the Revenue Estimates having disclosed a much more favourable position than was expected he had inserted, "at the earnestly expressed wish of the unofficial members of the Council," a sum of 80,000l. as a contribution by the Gold Coast during 1915 to the expenses of the war, this in addition to the Togoland payment. Mr. Harcourt replied that the offer would be gladly accepted "if it should appear that the financial position of the Gold Coast allows of so large a contribution."

From the Belgian Congo news was very scanty, and such fighting as occurred took place on the frontier in mid-Africa, chiefly it seems south of Tanganyika. A report from the Governor-General of Katanga Province spoke of "a complete defeat" of the Germans at Ki Senei, on the Lake. But no sufficient information is yet available to show how far the Congo was affected by the war. The Congo Estimates settled at Brussels in March disclosed a deficit of 856,000l. It was expected by M. Renkin, Minister for the Colonies, that the Central Railway would reach Lake Tanganyika in June. Touching the competition of the German line from the Lake to the east coast, he admitted that it would modify transport conditions in the Congo by attracting traffic which would otherwise flow to the west; but he deprecated exaggeration about German influence in Africa and thought it an advantage to Belgium that the Great African lines should meet in the Congo. New railway projects for the Congo, extending over 2,000 miles, were submitted to Parliament; but the war has deferred them indefinitely. Diamonds are now among the exports of the Congo, and the consignments to Brussels, on account of the Société Internationale Forestière et Minère, were reported to be of good quality. German enterprise,[Pg 452] in Africa extended to Portuguese West Africa before the war, a powerful financial group entering upon the preliminaries of railway construction from the coast. When war was declared enterprise took the form of a military violation of Portuguese territory, a small body of Germans entering South Angola. Portuguese marines were landed and there was a frontier fight. There were engagements on two other points of the frontier and the Germans were represented to have been defeated. The addition of Portugal to the combatants in Europe was, however, prevented at the time by a formal apology through the German Consul at Loanda, and apparently the incursion over the frontier was a military error outside the limits of German war policy in Africa. It was an obscure incident of the war, especially as fighting was renewed in Angola. On December 22 Portugal resolved to take vigorous measures "for the military defence of the Colonies and also preparations for our intervention in the war in Europe on the side of Great Britain." The Labour difficulty on the coast and the islands brought trouble to a Baptist missionary, the Rev. J. S. Bowskill, who had been active in the native interest. He was arrested at San Salvador, and the Baptist Missionary Society made energetic representations to the Foreign Office. Sir Edward Grey, having received information that Mr. Bowskill was to be tried by the military authorities, telegraphed to Lisbon that it was absolutely essential that a British Consular officer should be present at the trial, and that the trial should be before a properly constituted civil tribunal; and he urged that immediate orders to this effect be sent to the local authorities. The result was that Mr. Bowskill was liberated on parole, pending inquiry.

Except for the visit of a squadron of Austrian battleships in May, and for such changes as the war may have brought, there is little to record concerning Malta. It was used as a place of internment for deportees from Egypt.

CHAPTER VIII.
AMERICA.

I. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS DEPENDENCIES.

Apart from the effects of the cataclysm in Europe, the year was marked by financial disturbances and trade depression, which combined with the apparent results of the President's policy in Mexico to react unfavourably on the position of the Administration.

At the opening of the year the President was popular in the country, and had an unusual control over Congress. The solution of the tariff and currency problems had cleared the way for anti-Trust legislation, and the effect of the Report of the Pujo Com[Pg 453]mittee was seen in the voluntary resignation by the members of the great banking firm of J. P. Morgan & Co. of thirty out of their thirty-nine directorships in railroad and other companies. Those resigned by Mr. J. P. Morgan included directorships of the New York Central and other Vanderbilt lines, and of the Western Union Telegraph Company, while his partners retired, inter alia, from the United States Steel Corporation, the Guaranty and other Trust Companies, and the Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company. Other members of banking firms followed the Morgan example.

Congress reassembled on January 12, and on January 20 President Wilson read to it in joint session his Message dealing with "the very difficult and intricate matter of trusts and monopolies." Disclaiming any desire "to unsettle business or anywhere seriously to break its established course athwart," he recommended (1) the effectual prohibition of interlocking directorates of banks, railroads, industrial, commercial and public service bodies; (2) a law empowering the Interstate Commerce Commission to superintend the issue of stocks and bonds of railways needing money for their development; (3) more specific definition of "restraints of trade" under the Sherman Law; (4) the creation of an Interstate Commission to aid the Courts and provide information enabling business to conform to the Sherman Law; (5) Legislation ensuring the punishment of persons responsible for unlawful business practices; (6) prohibition of "holding companies" [i.e. companies controlling others by owning large amounts of their stock]; and (7) the grant to private persons of the right to bring suits for redress based on the results of Government suits. The Message was conciliatory in tone, and its favourable reception, especially in financial circles, showed that the business world was ready to meet public opinion in attenuating the features of "big business" most resented by the public.

These recommendations were embodied in four Bills: (a) prohibiting interlocking directorates, but allowing two years for their holders to resign; (b) creating an Interstate Trade Commission of five members, with wide and inquisitorial powers of investigating the business of companies (other than railroads) engaging in interstate and foreign commerce, and designed to aid the Attorney-General in inquiries into offences against the anti-Trust law; (c) a Trade Relations Bill, prohibiting certain unfair trade practices and enabling persons injured by them to recover damages by the aid of the proofs established by Government inquiries; (d) a Bill further defining unlawful monopoly and restraint of trade as dealt with under the anti-Trust law, and imposing penalties for violation. Among other items in the programme for the session were a Rural Credits Bill facilitating advances to farmers, and a Bill for leasing the Alaska coal lands, designed to prevent the growth of a monopoly in them.

[Pg 454]

The President now turned his attention to foreign policy, which gave cause for anxiety in more than one direction. A settlement of the dispute with Colombia was already pending, but the friction with Japan was aggravated by a Japanese Exclusion Bill (shelved eventually through the influence of the Administration), by a drastic Immigration Bill, and by rumours that Japan was assisting Huerta in Mexico. The Spanish-American countries were obviously hostile to any sort of financial protectorate by the United States, Hayti and the Dominican Republic were seriously disturbed, and the Mexican problem still awaited solution. The Senate was adverse to the Arbitration Treaties (A.R., 1913, p. 459), and the Panama tolls question was pressing. On January 26 the President conferred with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and on February 5 he stated what had already been intimated, that he would press for the suspension of the exemption of coastwise shipping in the current session. But the most serious difficulty was in Mexico. Early in the year preparations had been made for the possibility of enforced intervention by the purchase of stores of ammunition and the order that the warships, after their pending Southern cruises, should meet off the Mexican coast; and the alleged attitude both of General Huerta and of Japan gave force to the demands made for an increased Army and Fleet. But Huerta seemed likely to have to retire, and on February 4 President Wilson issued a proclamation removing the embargo on the export of arms to Mexico, on the ground that, as there was now no constitutional government, the embargo interfered with the settlement by Mexico of her own affairs—a view which overlooked the danger that the arms imported would partly go to Zapata and other leaders who were brigands rather than politicians, and so might intensify the disorder. The step, nevertheless, was favourably received by the American Press, as likely to hasten a settlement; and public attention was temporarily diverted to other matters. The new banking system was to be supported by banks representing some 99 per cent. of the banking capital in the country; and business seemed to be improving.

The President's announcement regarding the Panama tolls, however, had set up some opposition, primarily among the shipbuilding interests, the ultra-Protectionists and the Irish-Americans, but extending also to his own Democratic followers; and it and his advocacy of the arbitration treaties were attributed to a desire to establish better relations with the European Powers in the face of possible complications in Mexico, owing to the Benton case (p. 483), and of danger from Japan. On March 5 he sent a Message to Congress strongly urging the repeal of the exemption. In his own judgment, he said, exemption was a mistaken economic policy from every point of view, and a plain breach of the Anglo-American Treaty of 1901; it was only in the United States that[Pg 455] there was any doubt about the language of the Treaty, and the nation was "too big and powerful and self-respecting" to put a strained interpretation on its promises just because it had power enough to read them as it pleased. "The large thing to do is the only thing we can do—voluntary withdrawal from a position everywhere questioned and misunderstood." Were his request not granted, he would not know "how to deal with other matters of even greater delicacy and nearer consequence." This appeal was effective, and the Commerce Committee of the House favourably reported the Bill on March 6. It was, however, strongly opposed by a number of Democrats, among them Mr. Underwood, of Alabama, leader of the party in the House, and Senator O'Gorman, of Maryland; by the New York American and Mr. Hearst's other papers, and by the Irish-American Press, whose chronic suspicions of Great Britain were excited by the Ulster crisis. It was a sign of the disquiet aroused by the Bill that Mr. Page, the American Ambassador to Great Britain, was called to account by a resolution of the Senate for his speech at the London dinner of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, in which he was reported to have minimised the Monroe doctrine; but his explanation proved satisfactory.

While the House was busy with the Bill the Senate dealt with a proposed amendment to the Constitution, introducing women's suffrage on the lines of the famous 15th Amendment, and providing that the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. This was voted on March 19, by 35 to 34, and thus failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority. Amendments offered respectively by Senator Vardaman, of Mississippi, rescinding the franchise granted to negroes under the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, and by Senator Williams, of Mississippi, excluding negro women, were rejected by 19 to 48 and 21 to 44. Apart from the stock arguments against the proposal it departed from the practice, hitherto broken only by the 15th Constitutional Amendment, of leaving suffrage regulation to the separate States.

Another issue which now became temporarily prominent was that of the restriction of the consumption of alcoholic liquors. Early in April, the Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Daniels, took the final step in enforcing teetotalism on the Navy by issuing an order prohibiting the introduction from July 1, 1914, of alcoholic liquor of any kind into any naval vessel, establishment, or station, and holding commanding officers responsible for infringements of the rule. The men had long been deprived of their grog, and this order, which was issued on the advice of the Surgeon-General, extended prohibition to the officers, who would now be unable to offer wine when entertaining guests from foreign fleets. But a resolution was also introduced into Congress demanding prohibition throughout the United States of the manufacture of intoxicants[Pg 456] "for beverage," or of their sale, by means of an amendment to the Constitution (p. 467), and this resolution was the subject of more memorials, for and against, than any other issue before Congress.

To the Panama Tolls Bill the House showed itself favourable by passing a special closure rule limiting debate on it to fifteen hours (March 1), and defeating by 200 to 179 an attempt to rescind this rule (March 27). The Bill, however, aroused much opposition among the Democratic majority, notably from Mr. Underwood (Alabama), the Democratic leader in the House, Speaker Clark, Mr. Wilson's most formidable rival in 1912 for the Presidential nomination, and Senator O'Gorman in the Senate, while Senator Lodge and some other Republicans strongly supported it. The President's attitude was regarded in some quarters as the result of a bargain designed to conciliate Great Britain in view of the Benton case (post, p. 483), and of British dissatisfaction with the results of his policy of watchful waiting in Mexico; a view expressly repudiated by the President himself and by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons (March 29, 30). President Wilson's foreign policy in general, including the Colombian treaty (signed April 8, post, p. 461), was adversely criticised, and Mr. Roosevelt's friends urged him to attack the Administration on his return from his exploration in Brazil. However, the Bill was finally passed by the House on April 1 by 247 votes to 162. It went to the Senate, and was first dealt with by the Committee on Interoceanic Canals. The temporary unpopularity of the Administration seemed to be indicated by the success of Mr. Underwood in obtaining the nomination for Senator in Alabama, and by the return at Congressional bye-elections of a Republican in New Jersey and an anti-repeal Democrat in Boston. The New Jersey contest had been described by the President as giving the people an opportunity to express themselves as to his policy.

But public attention was now diverted to a new crisis in Mexico. A portion of the Atlantic Fleet had concentrated, after its winter cruise, off the Mexican coast; several ships had then left to refit, or for other reasons, and four remained: the Florida and Utah at Vera Cruz, the Connecticut and Minnesota at Tampico. On April 10 a party of bluejackets landed at the latter port to obtain gasolene; they were arrested by a Federal (Huertist) colonel and marched through the streets, but were eventually released with an apology. Admiral Mayo, the United States commander, demanded that, by way of reparation, the Mexican authorities should hoist the American flag and give it a salute of twenty-one guns. President Huerta replied by a proposal that the United States and Mexican flags should be hoisted together and saluted reciprocally, gun for gun, and that an agreement to that effect should be recorded in a protocol. The United States Government[Pg 457] regarded this course as a recognition of the Huerta Government, and were willing only that the American firing should follow the Mexican. A time-limit (6 P.M. on April 19) was eventually fixed for General Huerta's compliance. The United States had also to complain of the arrest of a naval mail-carrier at Vera Cruz. On April 20 President Wilson read a message to Congress asking it to approve the use of "the armed forces of the United States in such ways and to such extent as may be necessary to obtain from General Huerta and his adherents the full recognition of the rights and dignity of the United States." This, he said, would not mean war with the Mexican people, but only with General Huerta and his supporters, and the object of the United States would only be to restore to the Mexicans freedom to set up their own laws and Government.

A joint resolution was introduced into both Houses embodying the President's demand, declaring that he was justified in the employment of the armed forces of the United States to enforce the demand on Huerta for unequivocal amends to its Government. It was passed in the House by 337 to 37, but before it had passed the Senate Rear-Admiral Fletcher was ordered (April 21) to seize the Vera Cruz custom house, so as to prevent the landing of munitions for the Huertists, expected from Havre by the German steamer Ypiranga. He first demanded, through the United States Consul, the surrender of the town; on receiving a refusal he landed a body of marines, who were fired on by snipers, and were assisted by the guns of the United States warship Prairie. Shells were fired also from the Utah, and eventually most of the Mexicans retreated to the west of the town, the rest sniping the invaders from the housetops. Next day, April 22, the American ships shelled other buildings occupied by snipers, together with the Naval Academy and the artillery barracks, and practically took the town.

The American people, as a whole, rallied to the support of the President. There was some war feeling, though hardly among the politicians; the President was generally backed by the Press, the Churches, and even the labour unions, though the Industrial Workers of the World threatened a general strike in the event of war. The joint resolution was passed, in a modified form, substituted in the Senate and accepted by the House; but the insult to the flag was an occasion for trying to end the anarchy in Mexico. A force of some 4,000 was embarked at Galveston, troops were also sent to defend the Mexican border against raids, the United States warships Louisiana and Mississippi were despatched to Vera Cruz, and a Bill was passed by Congress authorising the mustering of the National Guard and the Regular Army. General Carranza, however, disappointed American hopes by declaring that the seizure of Vera Cruz was an affront to the Mexican people, and demanding its evacuation; and in view of his attitude, the United States[Pg 458] Government hesitated to seize Tampico. British and German subjects meanwhile were warned to leave Mexico, and General Huerta facilitated their departure; and gave Mr. Nelson O'Shaughnessy, the American charge d'affaires, his passport.

A temporary lull in the warlike preparations was now set up by the offer of mediation made by Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, which was cordially welcomed by President Wilson and took shape in the Conference at Niagara Falls (post, p. 484). An armistice was arranged meanwhile, and General Funston took over Vera Cruz from the naval authorities on May 1. The public funeral of some of the marines and bluejackets killed in the fighting (May 11) afforded the President another opportunity to emphasise his purpose. Going with the procession from Battery Park, New York, to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, he delivered an address, paying a tribute to the patriotism of the slain, and adding: "We have gone down to Mexico to serve mankind if we can find a way. We do not want to fight the Mexicans; we want to serve them if we can." In a war of service, he proceeded, it was a proud thing to die; and it was as hard, he thought, to do one's duty when men were sneering at one as when under fire. "When they shoot at you they can only take your natural life. When they sneer at you they can wound your heart." But a man ought to regard his conscience and the conscience of mankind.

During this lull in Mexican affairs attention was again directed to domestic problems. The anti-Trust Bills (p. 453; consolidated, with some omissions, into one measure) made some progress, and were supplemented by a Railway Capitalisation Bill, providing that railroad stock and bond issues should require authorisation by the Interstate Commerce Commission, that facts concerning the issue should be made public by that body, and that "interlocking directorates" should require its authorisation. In financial quarters this measure was regarded as far too drastic. But the railroad interests were somewhat reassured by the favourable decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission on an application by the Southern railroads regarding an increase of rates. Further increases were permitted by the same body later in the year.

The Naval Appropriation Bill, passed by the House on May 7, and subsequently by the Senate, authorised a building programme of two battleships, six destroyers, and eight submarines. A third battleship, it was eventually arranged, was to be provided out of the proceeds of the sale of the Mississippi and Idaho to Greece (p. 459).

While the majority in Congress struggled with the anti-Trust programme, the Republican Opposition was provided by the disappointing financial results of the new tariff with fresh material for attacking the Administration. The value of imports of manufactured articles from October 1, 1913, to April 1, 1914, as com[Pg 459]pared with the corresponding period of 1912-13 had increased from $215,000,000 to $228,000,000; exports of such articles had fallen to $541,000,000 against $582,000,000; materials for manufacture imported had fallen from $517,000,000 to $409,000,000; Customs receipts had fallen from $165,000,000 to $140,000,000. The deficit for the year had already reached $37,000,000, and a few weeks later the new income tax proved to be likely to yield only $30,000,000 for the first ten months of its operation, as against estimates before its introduction by its projectors and the Treasury respectively of $80,000,000 and $54,000,000.

The position of the Administration was not bettered by the course of events in Mexico. The Constitutionalists, whose success it favoured as the more legitimate claimants of authority, committed excesses at Saltillo, Tampico and elsewhere; and the alleged murder after torture of Private Parks, who had strayed into the Huertist lines at Vera Cruz, stimulated the cry for drastic intervention. The Constitutionalists' refusal to accept an armistice or to submit to the findings of the Niagara Conference, together with the growing differences among their leaders, gave little hope of a permanent pacification; and ultimately, at the end of June, the conference broke up, leaving the Huertists and Constitutionalists to arrange for another conference composed of their representatives, which should deal with the establishment, composition, and programme of a provisional Government.

However, the Administration obtained some success elsewhere. The Panama Tolls Bill was debated in the Senate at considerable length; but some waverers were conciliated by an amendment moved by Senator Simmons (North Carolina), providing that the repeal should not impair American rights under the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, and on June 11 the Bill passed by 50 to 35—the majority consisting of 37 Democrats and 13 Republicans, the minority of 23 Republicans, 11 Democrats, and a Progressive. Among the rejected amendments was one referring the Hay-Pauncefote treaty to the Hague Court for interpretation. The Bill was accepted by the House as amended, and signed by the President on June 15. The honour of America was thus vindicated in the view of Europe; and the way was cleared for the completion of the programme of anti-Trust legislation and for the adjustment of relations with Colombia and other Spanish-American States.

Another success for the Administration was the authorisation by Congress of the sale to Greece of the battleships Idaho and Mississippi, launched in 1905, and considerably inferior, of course, both to the newer battleships of the United States and to the Dreadnought just purchased by Turkey from Brazil. They were, however, of 14,465 tons each, could steam nearly seventeen knots, and carried twelve-inch guns. They were to be sold at cost price ($11,726,000) to pay for a Dreadnought; and the sale was partly[Pg 460] intended to enable Greece to be a match for Turkey, and so to avert a Greco-Turkish war. The sale was sanctioned by Congress owing mainly to President Wilson's influence.

Meanwhile the anti-Trust legislation had been partly postponed and considerably modified by the Senate—notably by an amendment designed to exempt labour unions and agricultural and mutual aid associations from being treated as combinations in restraint of trade under the Sherman Law; and business did not improve. It was true that the railroad world was encouraged by the decision of the United States Supreme Court (June 8) that a State must not impose, even within its own borders, rates which conflicted with the fair operation of those fixed by the Inter-State Commission for similar services in traffic crossing the State border; but the general depression was ascribed to the uncertainty of legislation, and the President's repeatedly expressed view that the depression was "merely psychological" was not generally shared. A fresh shock was given to the hopes of revival by the largest failure on record in the dry goods trade (June 27), that of H. B. Claflin & Co., an immense wholesale house, with liabilities of $35,000,000, though the assets awaiting liquidation were estimated at $44,000,000. The failure, however, was mainly caused by financing retail customers and inability to raise money on the debts due to it, and a reorganisation scheme was arranged later.

The situation in politics and business gave Mr. Roosevelt an excellent opportunity for attack. On his arrival from Spain (June 25) he denounced the President's Colombian and Mexican policy; and a few days later (June 30) he spoke at Pittsburg in favour of the candidature for the Senate of Mr. Gifford Pinchot, who was standing against Senator Penrose, Republican. After attacking the Democrats for tariff reduction, and for their "wretched" foreign policy, he denounced the Republican managers for splitting the party, and promised that the Progressives would have a scientific Tariff Commission, and would recognise that big business was not necessarily purely pernicious. The tone of his speech was less Radical than in former years, and seemed to hint at a possible fusion of the Progressives with a reformed Republican party.

The passing of the Panama Tolls Act had cleared the way for the settlement of other foreign questions. Mr. Bryan was anxious to obtain the ratification of his "Peace Commission" Treaties, supplementing the existing Arbitration Treaties by providing for the submission of disputes between the countries who were parties to them to a permanent International Commission (which was allowed a year within which to report) before going to arbitration before the Hague Court. This Commission would be composed of five members, two appointed by the respective Governments from their subjects, two from another country, the fifth from another neutral country by agreement be[Pg 461]tween them. The Commission's Report would not be final, as in that case the prerogatives of the Senate would have been infringed. The British treaty was to be delayed for submission to the Dominion Governments, but a number of similar treaties with the minor Powers on both sides of the Atlantic were submitted to the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate.

But there were more troublesome questions ahead. The Mexican tangle was somewhat simplified a little later by the retirement of General Huerta (July 23, post, p. 485), but the Colombian Treaty, which gave Colombia $25,000,000 as compensation for her loss of Panama in 1903, and contained words which looked like an apology for the action of the United States Government on that occasion, was regarded by many politicians on both sides as both costly and humiliating; while the Nicaragua Treaty provided for the loan to that State (in return for the right of constructing a canal by the San Juan route and of using certain islands as a naval base) of $3,000,000 for certain urgent items of expenditure and the establishment of a sort of financial Protectorate. This was regarded as doubtful policy, and as likely to benefit certain financiers more than either of the Powers concerned, while the Diaz Government in Nicaragua was believed to be merely the creature of the United States. There was trouble, moreover, in Santo Domingo, for which the United States had a certain responsibility through having lent it financial administrators, and in Hayti, where German creditors were pressing the Government, and revolution was impending; and marines were sent in the middle of July to Cuba, for use if necessary in either Republic.

The anti-Trust legislation, however, was not passed yet, and, while business men feared its effects, the need of further regulation, especially in the matter of interlocking directorships and stock and bond issues, was exhibited by the report of the Interstate Commerce Commission on the affairs of the New York, Newhaven, and Hartford Railroad, once among the best managed systems in America, now, by agreement with the Government, in voluntary liquidation. The inquiry had been undertaken at the direction of the Senate, and the evidence, especially that of Mr. Mellen, the President, had been sensational. Substantially the Directors were found to have used illicit and corrupt means, including bribery, extortionate commissions, and excessive payment for properties purchased, to obtain a complete monopoly of traffic in New England. They had increased the Company's liabilities between 1903 and 1912 from $93,000,000 to $410,000,000, and had lost from $60,000,000 to $90,000,000 of the stockholders' money. The directorate contained representatives of the New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroads, of the United States Steel Corporation, the Standard Oil and Pullman Companies, and the stockholders seemed to have less representation than any other interest.

[Pg 462]

Meanwhile the President had completed the arrangements necessary for giving effect to the Currency Act (A.R., 1913, p. 459). In April the twelve cities in which the district banks were to be were determined as follows: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas (Texas), and San Francisco. The selection of Dallas instead of New Orleans or Galveston, and of Cleveland instead of Cincinnati, caused some comment, but it was explained that considerations of the wealth and commercial importance of a city might have to be overridden by that of the direction of trade. The Presidency of the Board was declined by Mr. Olney (Attorney-General in the Cleveland Administration of 1893-97), probably in view of his age; and ultimately (June 15) the nominations were sent to the Senate as follows: Charles S. Hamlin, Boston, first Assistant-Secretary to the Treasury, two years; Paul M. Warburg, of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., an important banking firm, four years; Thos. D. Jones, Chicago, six; W. Harding, Birmingham, Ala., eight, and A. C. Miller, San Francisco, ten years. Mr. Warburg and Mr. Jones, however, were objected to by the Senate, on the ground that they were too closely connected with "big business," Mr. Warburg being a financier and Mr. Jones a director of the International Harvester Company, against which proceedings were pending under the anti-Trust Law; and Mr. Warburg resented being cross-questioned by the Senate Committee. They requested the President to withdraw their nominations, though Mr. Warburg afterwards gave way and was confirmed; so that by the end of July the Board had not yet got to work.

The war took America by surprise as it did Europe, and almost produced a tremendous financial crisis. Practically all markets were closed, and shipping and exchange, for a short time, were utterly disorganised. On July 31 the Stock Exchange did not open, the news received during the night indicating that an immense amount of stock would be offered not only from American but from European holders, and that consequently a drain of gold would be set up from the United States.[29] Cargoes accumulated at the ports, inasmuch as the banks would not negotiate bills of lading on uninsured freight, and insurance was paralysed. Five hundred million dollars of emergency currency was at once printed, for use under the Aldrich-Vreeland Act of 1908, which permitted sudden expansion in emergencies (A.R., 1908, p. 446), and the Secretary of the Treasury promised the assistance of his Department to the utmost extent of its powers. A Bill was hastily passed by the Senate, authorising the Secretary of the Navy to establish naval lines to carry mails, passengers and freight to South America and Europe, a course, however, which proved unnecessary owing to the activity of the British Fleet in recovering command of the sea.

[Pg 463]

But the Mauretania and Cedric had to put into Halifax; the German liner Kronprinzessin Cecilie, with a large consignment of gold on board for London, was stopped on her way by wireless orders, and crept back without lights to Bar Harbour, Maine, where she remained for some months through fear of capture; eventually she made her way through coastal waters to Boston. The plight of Americans in Europe was serious (p. 187). Even more completely than British tourists, they were held up by the worthlessness, for the moment, of all drafts and means of credit, and were stranded, not only on the Continent, but in Great Britain. The Administration, the Embassies, the Consulates, and private and voluntary effort, worked hard to get them home; the American cruiser Tennessee brought $250,000 in gold to facilitate the process (Aug. 20); and special trains (Aug. 26 and 29) took 3,000 from Geneva to Paris; these were required to stay in specified hotels, and to leave Havre for New York on appointed dates. An American Committee in London did admirable work in advising and repatriating others, and special trains were also run from Germany to Rotterdam and from Austria to Genoa, whence special steamers were despatched to New York.

At the outset of the war President Wilson tendered his services for mediation at once or at any future time to all the European Powers involved; but the offer was premature and brought no definite response. Strict neutrality was observed, though a few German liners, anticipating the declaration of war, put to sea with stores and coal for the converted liner-cruisers; the coast was patrolled by destroyers, and care was taken that wireless stations should not be used for communicating with the German Fleet. From the first, except among German-Americans and a few Irish extremists, American sympathy was with the Allies, and in spite of the persistent but extremely maladroit propaganda carried on by the German Ambassador, Count Bernstorff, Professor Münsterberg of Harvard, Dr. Dernburg, the former German Colonial Secretary, who was well acquainted with American business circles, and some German financiers, it became more and more positively anti-German, especially after the news of the atrocities in Belgium and the destruction of Louvain. The Belgian Mission (p. 371) was received by the President, and the statements of its members made a profound impression and set up a great movement to relieve Belgian distress. The German Emperor telegraphed early in September to President Wilson, protesting against the use imputed to the Allies of dum-dum bullets, a use of which President Poincaré telegraphed a denial. But President Wilson declined to commit himself in his replies, whether to the Belgians or to the Emperor, and this reserve was strongly condemned in view of the German atrocities. An active agitation for peace was initiated by Mr. Hearst, which culminated in a meeting (Sept. 20) in New York addressed by the Vice-president, the Speaker of the Lower[Pg 464] House of Congress, and the President of the Steel Corporation, but it was, of course, without result. Later a shipload of Christmas gifts for soldiers' children in the belligerent countries was sent to Great Britain by the United States naval auxiliary vessel Jason. An immense amount of Red Cross work was also done, and relief sent to sufferers in practically all the countries most affected by the war. By Presidential proclamation, October 4, was appointed as a day of prayer for the peace of Europe.

On September 4 the President read a Message to Congress, advising additional taxation to the extent of $100,000,000, of which $20,000,000 would be spent on war insurance, ship purchase, and bringing home Americans in Europe. A loan of $100,000,000 was raised without difficulty by New York City in short-term notes to meet foreign obligations maturing in the near future.

Gradually the economic disturbance righted itself, with some assistance. The Government undertook to insure cargoes against war risks, appropriating by Act of Congress $1,000,000 for that purpose. The difficulty of sending gold abroad was met, partly by the shipment on the Tennessee to Paris (p. 463), and more fully by depositing a large sum in gold at Ottawa on account of the Bank of England, so that bills could then be drawn against it as usual; and the enormous wheat crop, followed by immense supplies of munitions of war and stores to Great Britain and France (and even to Russia, via Seattle and Vladivostok), facilitated a readjustment of the situation. The product most depressed was cotton, in view of the shortage of factory labour caused in Europe by the war, though its export to Germany was not hindered before the new year, and a "Buy a Bale" movement was started to relieve the producers. The Ship Purchase Bill encountered unexpected difficulties, partly because the Seamen's Bill, also pending, would make the working of American ships more costly, still more because the Allies objected to the purchase by the United States of the interned German liners, the only shipping available, and the question was not settled at the end of the year.

Some temporary difficulty arose in October through the seizure by British cruisers of ships belonging to the Standard Oil Corporation. The Brindilla had been transferred since the war began from the German to the American flag, but Great Britain treated the transfer as invalid, and the vessel was taken into Halifax; the John D. Rockefeller (which had always been American), bound under the American flag for Copenhagen, was also stopped, but released, as Denmark had prohibited the export of oil to Germany. At the end of the year the United States Government made a temperate protest against the British detention of American ships and seizure of cargo on them (Dec. 30).

The war served Mr. Roosevelt as an example of the futility of such engagements as the arbitration treaties just signed by the[Pg 465] Administration. His own plan for maintaining the peace of the world was an improved Hague Court, whose decisions the nations should pledge themselves to carry out by force.

The session of Congress closed on October 24. As there had been no break between the session of 1914 and the ordinary session preceding it, Congress had been sitting continuously (with very brief recesses) for the longest period on record. The record of work was remarkable. Following the Tariff and Currency Acts of 1913, there were the two Acts representing President Wilson's anti-Trust programme—the Trade Commission Act, creating a tribunal to arbitrate between commercial disputants, and the Clayton anti-Trust Bill, preventing interlocking directorates and otherwise controlling monopolies; the Panama Tolls Act, the Alaska Railroad Act, providing for the construction and working by the Government of 1,000 miles of railroad, telephones and telegraphs; an Act regulating dealings in cotton "futures," and the conclusion not only of twelve arbitration treaties (p. 460) but of twenty-three Peace Commission treaties with Great Britain, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, Denmark, Italy, Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Persia, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Paraguay, France, and Spain. Besides this there was the emergency war legislation, comprising the Emergency Currency Act (p. 462); the insurance of war risks, to which $1,000,000 was devoted; the appropriation of $1,000,000 for special diplomatic and consular services and the transport home of American citizens whose return was hindered by the war; and the emergency war taxation, which was estimated to produce from $94,000,000 to $107,000,000 annually. This included taxes on beer ($1.75 a barrel), whisky (5 cents a gallon), American still wines, champagne (25 cents a quart), bankers ($1 per $1,000 of capital, surplus, and undivided profits), pawn-brokers, commercial brokers, commission merchants, proprietors of places of amusement, dealers in leaf tobacco, and cigar and cigarette manufacturers. There were also internal revenue (stamp) taxes on a few articles such as perfumery, on bonds, promissory notes, bills of lading, conveyances, telegrams, telephone messages, marine, fire, and casualty insurance, steamship tickets to foreign ports, and parlour-car berths and seats.

Among the measures left over to the next Congress were the Immigration Bill (p. 454), the Philippine Government Bill, and the Rural Credits Bill (p. 453), which had not passed the Senate; a Bill empowering the Treasury to deposit $250,000,000 in banks in the tobacco and cotton States (to facilitate loans to the planters); constitutional amendments respectively establishing women's suffrage throughout the Union, which had been reintroduced after its failure in the Senate, and prohibiting throughout the Union the sale or manufacture of intoxicants "for beverage" (p. 455); and the Bill empowering the regulation of railroad stock issues by[Pg 466] the Interstate Commission. So were the treaties with Colombia and Nicaragua, which the Senate had not yet ratified, and Peace Commission treaties with China, Panama, the Dominican Republic, and Russia.

The President and the Democratic majority in Congress had thus held together—except, to some extent, on the Panama Tolls Bill—and had carried much of their programme. But the November Congressional and State elections showed a very marked reaction against the Administration, and a rally in the Republican party, emphasised by the disappearance of the semi-independent "Progressive Republicans," and a general return of the Progressives to the Republican fold. The Democratic majority over all the other parties in the House together fell from 141 to 31; and in some of the Eastern and Middle-Western States there was a Republican "landslide." New York State, New Jersey (the President's own State), Illinois, Wisconsin, and eleven other States which had been Democratic in 1912 went Republican; Michigan, Pennsylvania and Washington reverted from the Progressives to the Republicans; New York, to the general surprise, elected a Republican Governor. The Progressive numbers in the House fell from fifteen to seven, though Governor Hiram Johnson secured a personal triumph by his re-election in California. Women's suffrage was voted on in seven States and defeated in five, in spite of much agitation just before the election. A Socialist was elected to Congress from New York City, the first from any Eastern State.

This sixty-third Congress, however, would not assemble earlier than the following spring in any case, and meanwhile the sixty-second met on December 7. Besides the legislative programme just mentioned, the European War forced on its attention the question of national defence. The Army League and the Navy League were agitating for an increase, and Congressman Gardner (Republican), of Massachusetts, was pressing for an inquiry into the "preparedness" of the nation for war. Before the session opened President Wilson let it be known that he deprecated such an inquiry, as likely to create an unfavourable impression abroad; and he took the same line in his Message (Dec. 8). He dealt mainly with the war, declaring the dearest hope of the nation to be that its own character as the champion of peace and concord would shortly, in God's providence, bring it an opportunity such as had seldom been vouchsafed to any nation—"an opportunity to counsel and obtain peace in the world and the reconciliation and healing settlement of many matters that have hitherto cooled and interrupted the friendship of nations." He urged the country to develop its resources so as to supply the needs set up by the appalling destruction wrought by the war; and he specially recommended the Ship Purchase Bill. He urged also a larger measure of self-government for the Philippines, and a survey of the[Pg 467] Alaska coasts. He declared that, as regarded national defence, they must depend, not on a standing army or a reserve army, "but upon the citizenry, trained and accustomed to arms." They must, in short, develop the Volunteer National Guard—the State militia system. "More than this would merely mean that we had lost our self-possession, been thrown off our balance by a war with which we have nothing to do. A powerful Navy we have always regarded as our proper and natural means of defence, but who shall tell us now what sort of Navy to build?... We have not been negligent of national defence." They would profit by current experience, and what was needed would be adequately done.

The War Secretary's annual Report next day, however, declared the Army inadequate. The total maximum force available—Regulars and National Guard—would be but 158,000, and it would take six months to train additional volunteers; the delay, with a prepared enemy, would be fatal. He recommended the immediate filling up of the existing organisation, and fresh legislation dealing with enlistment and the reserve, both in the Union and in the States. Artillery ammunition was inadequate, and the aviation corps should be largely increased. The Secretary of the Navy recommended a building programme for the coming year of two Dreadnoughts, six destroyers, eight or more submarines, one gunboat, and one oil fuel ship; he declared that expert opinion favoured the continuance of building Dreadnoughts, and recommended that five million dollars should be spent on the air service.

A vigorous agitation was now started for and against the increase of armaments, but more interest was taken in the debate and division in the Lower House of Congress (Dec. 22) on the constitutional amendment, imposing "nation-wide prohibition" of the sale or transport of alcoholic liquors for "beverage purposes" in the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Provision, however, was made for continuing the supply of intoxicants for sacramental, medicinal, and industrial purposes. The resolution proposing this amendment (which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of two-thirds of the States to become valid) opened with a preamble strongly denunciatory of alcohol as demonstrated by scientific research to be a narcotic poison, imposing a "staggering economic burden" on the people, and leading to crime, pauperism, insanity, disease, and national degeneracy. The resolution was moved by Mr. Hobson, of Alabama, and received 197 votes against 189, but it required the support of a two-thirds majority of those present, or 258, and therefore fell through. It divided all the parties; the Ayes comprised 114 Democrats, 67 Republicans, 12 Progressives, and 4 Independent Republicans, the Noes 141 Democrats, 46 Republicans, 1 Independent Republican, and 1 Progressive. Two alternatives were defeated, one to submit the amendment to the States instead of the Legislatures, the other prohibiting the importation[Pg 468] of liquor into any State, thus localising liquor manufacture. Both sides professed themselves satisfied with the result.

The celebration of the completion of a century of peace with Great Britain fell through, owing to the war. Committees for its promotion had been established in both countries, and the Sulgrave Manor House, the old house of the Washington family in Northamptonshire, had been purchased in January by the British Committee. The persistent British refusal to participate officially in the Panama Exhibition at San Francisco hampered the movement, and on June 30 the House of Representatives refused by 187 to 52 to vote money for the celebration.

In State politics—a subject of great interest to students of political science—very few points can be mentioned here. The "eugenic" marriage law in Wisconsin, requiring a medical certificate of sound health as a condition of marriage, was declared unconstitutional by a State Court; so was an ordinance of a North Carolina city (Winston-Salem) segregating the coloured population. The November elections showed the activity of reformers: twenty-three States voted on one or more amendments to their Constitutions; seven on women's suffrage; six on liquor traffic prohibition; in each of the two latter cases five States decided against change.

Throughout the year the mining region of Colorado was almost in a state of civil war, owing to a coal-miners' strike. In September, 1913, the Miners' Union had called out some 11,000 men, on the masters refusing their demands, which included liberty to buy provisions and supplies where they pleased, and to choose their own doctors, the right to elect their own check-weighers, better working conditions and pay, an eight hours' day, and recognition of the union. Strike-breakers had been imported and the State militia (which was said to be controlled by the owners) called out to preserve order, and in April it destroyed and burnt tent colonies sheltering the strikers and erected on land leased by the union; women and children were killed, and order was restored by Federal troops. Congress attempted to promote a settlement, but ineffectually; President Wilson (May 10) ordered the disarmament of all civilians; the State Legislature did nothing beyond authorising a bond issue to pay the militia, closing saloons, and forbidding the carrying of arms; mediation failed; and in September President Wilson wrote to both sides urging a settlement on specified conditions—the enforcement of the mining laws, the prohibition of intimidation whether of union or of non-union labour, the continuance of work during the investigation of grievances, and an elaborate plan for such investigation with an ultimate appeal to a Commission of three which was to see that the conditions were maintained. The owners made difficulties, but the President appointed the Commission, and the unions ended the strike. In connexion with it, the Industrial Workers[Pg 469] of the World raised a disturbance in New York, and Mr. John D. Rockefeller, junior, one of the leading owners, had his residence picketed by Socialists.

Strikes of engineers and firemen on the Western and Eastern railways was averted respectively at the end of July, when President Wilson induced both sides to accept a plan proposed by the Federal Board of Mediation, and in December by arbitration. The murderers of Rosenthal in New York were executed on April 13, and Becker was again convicted after a second trial (A.R., 1913, p. 467). Their lives had been prolonged by the ingenuity of their lawyers. Thaw's extradition was also confirmed in December by the Supreme Court (A.R., 1913, p. 468).

The Cape Cod Ship Canal, connecting Buzzard's Bay with Barnstable Bay, was opened on July 29. It was a joint-stock undertaking, and had cost $12,000,000. [For the Panama Canal see post, p. 486.]

Dependencies. From Cuba there was no news of importance. In Porto Rico the November elections—the quietest on record—resulted in large gains for the Republican party, which desires American citizenship and eventual admission to the Union. It obtained sixteen seats in the Lower House of the Legislature against nineteen held by the anti-American party. The United States Government had previously appointed two natives of the island to the Executive Council, giving the natives the majority in it, and a Bill for giving the island popular Government had been favourably reported in the Congress. In the Philippines Governor Burton Harrison's concessions to the natives, and the reductions of official salaries, which drove many Americans to retire from the service, roused severe criticism in the United States, and a Bill promoted by the Administration, promising the islands independence, "as soon as a stable Government shall be established in the Archipelago," was passed by the House of Representatives (Oct. 14) by 211 to 59, but was not taken up by the Senate. At Christmas an unimportant and abortive rising, promoted by an agitator named Ricarti, was reported to have been suppressed at Manila.

II. CANADA.

Parliament met on January 14. Seven new members were introduced, six of them supporters of the Government. Among them was Hon. Arthur Meighan, the new Solicitor-General.

In his speech from the Throne, H.R.H. the Duke of Connaught expressed his gratitude for the public sympathy extended to himself and the Duchess during her serious illness. Reference was also made to the financial stringency from which the country had been suffering, but which was passing away. The necessity for readjusting the representation of the people in Parliament, after[Pg 470] the last Census, was stated. An increase in the number of Senators from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia was foreshadowed. No mention was made of any Naval programme. The debate on the Address began on January 19. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Opposition leader, moved an amendment regretting that, while the Speech admitted that business is in a depressed condition, there was no indication on the part of Ministers of a determination to take any steps towards relieving the situation. Replying to him on January 20, the Finance Minister, Hon. W. T. White, so far indicated the policy of the Government as to point out, (1) that "Free Food," as advocated by the Opposition, meant Free Trade; (2) that Free Trade had long been abandoned by both parties in Canada; (3) that the Government did not propose to depart from a policy of reasonable Protection; (4) that the remedy for the high cost of living—which was universal—was an increased universal production; (5) that the Government had voted $10,000,000 for the purpose of increasing production.

On January 21 the two Houses adjourned in token of respect to the memory of Lord Strathcona (see post, Obit.). The Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition joined in eulogising the late Peer; and the Prime Minister read to the House of Commons a despatch from the Colonial Secretary conveying the deep sympathy of the Imperial Government, and closing as follows:—

Laudatory speeches were delivered also in the Senate.

The absence of any mention of a Navy Bill in 1914 was commented on by the Opposition as proof that no "emergency" existed to justify the Government's Bill of 1913 (A.R., 1913, p. 473). The Government replied in effect that it was useless to bring in a Bill in 1914 in the face of a determinedly hostile Senate; but that the policy and promise of 1913 would be carried out in due time by the Government.

The first division on the Amendment to the Address was taken on January 27, giving the Government a majority of 44. A second amendment was at once moved, regretting that the Speech gave no indication of any intention to take steps to secure free access to the markets of the United States for the wheat and wheat products of Canada, by removing the duty on wheat and wheat products coming into Canada from the United States. This was defeated (Jan. 29) by a majority of 45.

On January 27 the Postmaster-General announced that the Parcels Post system, which had been long under consideration,[Pg 471] would be put into operation on February 10. The first parcel was mailed to the Duke and Duchess of Connaught at midnight on February 9.

On January 29 the Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1915, were tabled. A general reduction of $12,000,000 was a marked feature. The total was $190,735,176; there was a decrease on the Naval item of $150,000 and of $71,905 on Militia. Subsequently, on May 27, an additional sum of $17,438,000 was brought down, making the total $208,173,176.

On February 10 the Bill for the Redistribution of Seats in the House of Commons was brought down by the Prime Minister. This had been looked for as probably the most important measure of the session. It had been in the hands of a large Committee for some weeks, and had been reported unanimously. The general result of the Act (Chap. 51, 1914) is as follows: Ontario is to have 82 members; Quebec 65; Nova Scotia 16; New Brunswick 11; Manitoba 15; British Columbia 13; Prince Edward Island, 3; Saskatchewan 16; Alberta, 12; Yukon Territory, 1; in all 234 members. On the existing representation, Ontario lost 4 seats; Quebec (under the British North America Act of 1867) remained at 65; Nova Scotia lost 2; New Brunswick lost 2; Manitoba gained 5; Saskatchewan gained 6; Alberta gained 5; British Columbia gained 6; Prince Edward Island lost 1; Yukon remained with one seat as before. The figures show how population and political power are shifting to the West.

On February 12 the Minister of Railways laid on the table of the House the report of a Commission to investigate the construction of the Transcontinental Railway, under the previous Government. The report was long and sensational in character. The conclusions of the Commissioners were substantially that the Transcontinental Railway Commission, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and those having charge of the construction did not consider it desirable or necessary to practise or encourage economy in construction, and that, without including the money unnecessarily expended in building the railway east of the St. Lawrence River, $40,000,000 at least was needlessly expended in the building of this road. The cost of the unnecessary Eastern Section was estimated at $35,000,000; and thus the sum total of undue expenditure was stated at $75,000,000. The Eastern Section of the road was held by many persons on both sides to be a needless duplication of the Intercolonial Railway. The road was taken from the control of the Special Commission which had thus over-expended on it, and was completed and finally handed over to the Minister of Railways by Major Leonard, C.E., whose successful labours were highly appreciated by the public.

The Opposition were not satisfied with the report of the Commission, and on March 25 the former Minister of Railways moved, declaring that the Report was "so wilfully partisan and mislead[Pg 472]ing as to be wholly unreliable," that the manifest object of the Commissioners was "to misrepresent for party purposes rather than to investigate in the public interest, without regard to the serious consequences to the country or this great national undertaking; and that for the appointment of such Commissioners, and for accepting and endorsing their report, the Government deserved the severe censure of this House." This motion was vehemently debated till Thursday, April 2, when it was rejected by 105 to 67.

On April 7 the Budget speech was delivered by Hon. W. T. White, the Minister of Finance. Many minor tariff changes were announced, but in general, as indicated by the Minister in his speech on the Address (p. 470), the Protective policy was maintained. The demand made from various quarters for "Free Wheat" was refused. The Government asked for power to increase the existing surtax to 20 per cent, if needed. The duty on agricultural implements was reduced from 17½ to 12½ per cent. The large revenue and unusual surplus of 1912-13 was not maintained; and the revenue for the year ending March 31, 1914, would therefore be less and a large capital expenditure would have to be provided for. The sum of $56,404,231 had been borrowed on satisfactory terms. (The events of the next few months, of course, confounded all calculations. The revenue to the end of December, 1914, was only $99,635,943, as against $127,571,762 at the same date in 1913, a shortage of $27,935,819. The total net debt to the end of 1914 had increased by $73,182,060. The borrowings of the Government under the authority of the legislation of the War Session in August must have been large; but no full account would be given until the presentation of the Budget of 1915.)

The trade of the Dominion was, of course, subject to some fluctuations. The total aggregate trade of the year ending March 31, 1913, was $1,085,264,449. For the year ending at the same date 1914, the amount was $1,129,744,725. For the seven months of the fiscal year 1914-15 (i.e. from March 31 to Oct. 31) the total aggregate trade was $640,171,557. The effect of the war on the aggregate trade cannot be seen accurately till the Budget is delivered or the Customs statistics published in the spring of 1915.

The debate on the Budget was not concluded before the Easter recess. On the reassembling of the House on April 15 it was resumed, and continued till April 23, when the leader of the Opposition moved an amendment declaring that "in view of the prevailing economic conditions of the country, it is advisable to place wheat, wheat products, and agricultural implements on the free list, and, without doing injustice to any class, steps should be taken to alleviate the high cost of living by considerate removal of taxation." This amendment was defeated by a majority of 42.

The serious question of relief to the shareholders of the defunct Farmers' Bank was the subject of prolonged debate. On April 24 it was announced that the Government would satisfy[Pg 473] all the depositors. The bank had been started on insufficient capital; and official recognition was given to it on what turned out to be false pretences. The results were disastrous, and the general manager was prosecuted and imprisoned. The new Government issued a Royal Commission to investigate the affairs of the bank, and, as a result, decided to pay the depositors. Resolutions and a Bill based on them were carried in the Commons by the usual Government majority. But on June 8 the Bill was thrown out in the Senate by a non-party vote of 32 to 25, several Government supporters voting against the measure.

One of the most serious questions of the session related to the affairs of the Canadian Northern Railway. Aid had become necessary to enable the company to carry on its great and varied industries. The Government of Canada had already assumed large responsibilities in guaranteeing the mortgage debenture stock of the company, and in payments for construction. On April 28 the Government brought down its proposals for relief (see Journals of Commons, 1914, p. 489; and Hansard Debates, May 13, sqq.). The proposal of the Government was to guarantee the payment of principal and interest on securities of the company to the extent of not more than $45,000,000; taking security by means of a Trustee and Trust Deed over all the property and interests of the company and all its subsidiary companies. Some reluctance to agree to these terms was visible among the Government's supporters, and two prominent Conservatives refused to support them. Some time elapsed before the complicated series of statements made by the company, including railways, steamships, bonds, shares, terminals, etc., could be understood (see Votes and Proceedings, 1914, p. 859). The total liabilities of the company to the Government were calculated at about $197,000,000. The actual debate began on May 13. The Prime Minister's speech was marked by the quotation for public use of messages of approval from the Premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, all Liberals, but in whose Provinces the Canadian Northern had large interests. The "six months' hoist" (equivalent to rejection) was moved by Mr. E. M. McDonald for the Opposition. The debate was maintained till May 19, when the Opposition motion was rejected by 111 to 64. In Committee various other amendments were moved, all of them defeated by majorities of from 40 to 44. A Bill was introduced based on the Government resolutions; it was passed in the Commons on June 2 by 85 to 38; and in the Senate on June 9 by a non-party majority of 40 to 17.

On June 1 notice was also given of a guarantee of interest on $16,000,000 bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway to aid in the completion of the road, the Government taking sufficient security. Owing to the outbreak of the war in August, these various guarantees are understood to have been of little value on[Pg 474] a money market where all available funds were wanted for war purposes; but the actual results had not been made public at the close of 1914.

On May 8 it was announced from England that H.S.H. Prince Alexander of Teck was to succeed Field-Marshal H.R.H. the Duke of Connaught as Governor-General. The announcement was received with general approval. The speech which the Prince made at the Canada Club, in London, on May 28, was widely copied in the Canadian Press. Owing to the war, the Duke of Connaught consented to remain at the head of affairs, while Prince Alexander went on duty to the front.

An important Act passed during the session was the British Nationality, Naturalisation and Aliens Act (Chap. 44, 1914). This Act remedies a state of things which caused inconvenience throughout the Empire. After some years of discussion with the Home Authorities and the other Colonies, it is now provided that a colonial certificate of naturalisation shall be effective throughout the British Dominions. The applicant for a certificate must have a complete knowledge of English or French, The Canadian Act is based on the British Act (p. 209), 4 and 5 Geo. V. cap. 17.

On May 29 the announcement was made of the terrible disaster to the steamship Empress of Ireland, and the loss of over a thousand lives (Chron., May 29). The Government at once began a Canadian investigation; and a Royal Commission, including a British representative, was appointed to make a searching inquiry. There was the usual crop of reports, assertions, contradictions and explanations. The subject was however dealt with prudently in Parliament and there was no useless debate. The Royal Commission consisted of Lord Mersey, Sir Adolph Routhier and Chief Justice McLeod of New Brunswick. The sittings were held at Quebec; and many counsel, English, American and Canadian, were engaged. The Report of the Commission placed the blame for the collision on the officers of the Storstad (see p. 599, Sess. Paper No. 21b, 1915). Extensive litigation has been going on since the Report was presented, and the amounts involved are large.

The session closed on June 12 with a degree of excitement and confusion which continued for some days after. There had been much discussion between the two parties regarding the Representation Bill, which was eventually passed in both Houses. But the increase in the number of Senators from the West had to be provided for by Resolution, praying the Imperial Parliament to alter the British North America Act, 1867, so as to enable the new Senators to be appointed. When the measure went to the Senate, the Act relating to the increase in the membership of the House of Commons was accepted. But the proposals regarding the increase of the Senate did not meet with the approval of the majority in that House, which was still opposed to the Administra[Pg 475]tion. An amendment to the effect that the increase in the number of Senators should not take place till after the next general election, was refused by the Government. An accusation of bad faith was made by the Government against the Opposition in regard to an alleged agreement to pass this Bill and Resolution at the same time as the Representation Bill. This accusation was denied. Controversial statements as to this agreement were issued after the close of the session, by the Premier and the leader of the Opposition. And there the matter ended, to be taken up no doubt in the session of 1915.

On June 11, the day before the close of the session, both houses agreed unanimously on an address to H.R.H. the Duke of Connaught, Governor-General, on what was at the time thought to be his last official appearance in Parliament. This address was presented subsequently to the proceedings at the close of the session. The following paragraphs may be quoted:—

His Royal Highness, in reply, after expressing his cordial thanks and his profound appreciation of the kindly sentiments of the representatives of the Canadian people, said:—

He concluded by a renewed assurance of heartfelt thanks for the generous expressions towards himself, the Duchess, and their daughter, and of their prayers for the continued happiness, peace and prosperity of Canada.

The War Session.—When the disturbances in Europe resulted on August 4 in open war, and Great Britain was precipitated into the conflict in defence of treaties, of her allies, of international morality and of national honour, Canada lost little time in contributing to the defence of the Empire.

Parliament was summoned to meet on Tuesday, August 18. H.R.H. and his staff appeared in service uniform and with few[Pg 476] of the forms of ceremonial display. The Speech from the Throne was brief and practical:—

The Prime Minister laid on the table the correspondence of the Imperial Government with foreign Powers (Cd. 7467, No. 6, 1914)—which were ordered to be printed and to be publicly distributed. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Opposition leader, rose after the formal speeches in moving the address, and delivered a very eloquent and patriotic speech. He said:—

And in special reference to his French-Canadian fellow-citizens, he said:—

The Prime Minister then followed in a necessarily more elaborate address. He complimented Sir Wilfrid Laurier on his patriotic address. He spoke earnestly of the efforts made by Mr. Asquith and Sir Edward Grey to preserve the peace of Europe. He discussed all the treaties by which the peace of Europe had been guaranteed. And with regard to the action of Germany in Belgium, he said:—

On the subject of the value of the British Navy to the Colonies and the world, he made the following statement, which is likely to become part of the future policy of Canada:—

[Pg 477]

The Prime Minister outlined the steps that had already been taken to make the action of Canada prompt and efficient. The sum of $50,000,000 was for the present voted for war purposes. Authority was taken to issue Dominion notes to a limited extent, and to enable the Government to act on the general interest of the country in regard to banks, etc. In the Senate, the proceedings were equally prompt, unanimous and patriotic. The session closed on August 22.

Meanwhile every form of public and private patriotism was stimulated. Volunteers came forward in larger numbers than could be handled. A camp for 30,000 men was formed at Valcartier in Quebec. The Province of Ontario gave $500,000 to the Imperial Government, the Province of Nova Scotia, 100,000 tons of coal for the Navy. A large sum was instantly raised for a hospital, or hospital ship, at the request of H.R.H. the Duchess of Connaught. The Patriotic Fund for the maintenance of those dependent on Volunteers was swollen to a very large amount. The province of Prince Edward Island gave 100,000 bushels of oats, Saskatchewan 1,500 horses. Manitoba sent a million bags of flour. A regiment was offered by Major Hamilton Gault of Montreal, who, with his wife, went to the front with his men. H.R.H. the Duke of Connaught went to live among the troops at the camp, where his presence was inspiring, and his experience valuable. The Volunteers embarked about the end of September, under convoy, and were in training under hard weather conditions till towards the close of the year, when at least a portion of the contingent was sent to the front; the results had not been officially stated at the close of the year.

The Provinces.—The Legislature of Ontario met on February 18. Two Bills only, of any consequence, were promised, a Redistribution Bill and a Workmen's Compensation Bill. An amendment to the Address, regretting the absence of any effort to remedy the conditions of labour in the Province, was defeated by 58 to 19. A surplus of $230,000 was announced by the Treasurer. New taxes were imposed on business corporations, to provide about $600,000 extra revenue. The total expenditure for the fiscal year ending October 31, 1914, was calculated at $17,437,738. A general election (June 29) resulted in the success of the Whitney[Pg 478] (Conservative) Government by a majority of 55 members, a decrease of 9 from the majority at the close of the session. During the early autumn the Ontario Premier (Sir James Whitney) died; and he was succeeded by the Hon. W. H. Hearst, who was first elected in 1908. The new Premier reorganised his Ministry (Oct. 2); but no session had been held at the close of 1914.

The Quebec Legislature, which was sitting at the close of 1913, resumed business on January 7, 1914. On January 23, charges having been made against certain members of corruption, a House Committee was appointed to investigate them. A somewhat sordid state of affairs was revealed. Acrimonious and prolonged debates took place. Finally the Committee reported on February 12 against one member of the Lower and two of the Upper House; these latter resigned their seats. The Legislature was prorogued on February 19.

The Nova Scotia Legislature met on February 19. The Speech from the Throne was a review of the year very favourable in character. A Bill for redistribution of seats and for changing the character of the franchise was promised. Some disagreeable episodes regarding slanders on members, and some accusations of members trafficking in public lands, occurred; but nothing came of them in the end. The Prime Minister of Nova Scotia later in the year made active and successful efforts to provide help for the Belgians.

The New Brunswick Legislature met on February 26. It was announced that the financial claims of the Province against the Dominion had been settled, and that the Province would receive a revenue of $66,382 in addition. On April 6 charges of corrupt dealing with revenues from public lands were made against the Hon. J. K. Flemming, the provincial Prime Minister. An investigation was ordered by the Government itself. The result was a report unfavourable to the Minister, who accordingly resigned.

The Legislature of Prince Edward Island met on March 11. The Speech declared that the prosperity of the Province during the past year had been unequalled. The business of fur-farming had proved abnormally successful, and further enterprise in that business was expected. The Budget was encouraging. The public accounts showed a surplus of $15,500 for the first time in many years; and a surplus was estimated in the current year. The question of the representation of the Province in the Federal Parliament was discussed. This question has been settled by the Representation Act passed by the Federal Parliament.

The Legislature of Manitoba met on December 11, 1913, but did not begin business till the close of the holidays in 1914. The Legislature asked the Dominion Government to transfer to Manitoba all the natural resources of the Province. A redistribution Bill was passed. An appropriation of $2,500,000 was made[Pg 479] for the improvement of roads; and a Commission was appointed to conduct the expenditure. The Budget showed a surplus of $473,221. A general election on June 10 resulted in the support of the Roblin (Conservative) Government, but by a very largely reduced majority, owing to the prominence given to delicate questions like temperance and separate schools.

On September 15-18 a special session was held to express the loyalty of the Province, to encourage enlistment, and to provide for the continuance and safety of the public business.

The Alberta Legislature met on October 7. The Prime Minister announced a surplus of $100,000, in spite of the general stringency. The response of the people of Alberta to the call for troops was pointed to with pride, in the speech of the Lieut. Governor. The surplus for the coming fiscal year was estimated at $1,176,967. The speeches on the Address were all of a loyal character, and no partisanship disturbed the short session.

The Saskatchewan Legislature met in special session on September 15. The special business was of a practical character; to grant extension of time to railway companies engaged in construction work; to regulate transactions of foreign companies; to enforce the closing of places where liquor was sold; to take power to regulate executions and debts in real estate transactions; to grant aid to the Patriotic Fund.

The British Columbia Legislature met on January 15. The principal item in the speech related to the long-discussed question of better financial terms for the Province. The public accounts, ending March 31, 1913, showed a deficit of $1,846,228, due to expenditure on public works. A measure for raising a loan of $10,000,000 was passed. Further aid, much discussed, was granted to the Canadian Northern Railway, and other railroads. The session closed on March 5. [For the attempted immigration from India in the Komagata Maru, see p. 407.]

III. NEWFOUNDLAND.

The general depression which prevailed throughout the world was severely felt in Newfoundland during the year. One of the large iron mines on Bell Island closed down early in the year, and since the war commenced the other company has also stopped operations. The ice conditions prevailing early in the year hindered trade and commerce, and the fishery operations were seriously impeded by the late ice blockade of the coasts.

The reduction of the tariff in 1912 and the trade and business depression affected the revenue of the Colony, which, for the first time for several years, was below the expenditure by $301,849.

At the outbreak of the war a feeling of uncertainty and distinct uneasiness was manifested among all sections of the community, especially as to the probable effect on trade, and more particularly with regard to the fish markets; but by the close of[Pg 480] the year Newfoundland had—so far—not suffered to any great extent. At first the most serious problems were those of exchange and war risk insurance, and for a time these caused considerable anxiety. These difficulties, however, were overcome by the statesmanlike action of the Home Government, with the result that confidence was restored and the prices of the Colony's chief export, codfish, rose from the low figure of about $5.00 to its present unprecedented figure of 7.50 per quintal (112 lb.).

The increased cost of imports was heavy. This especially applies to food stuffs, such as flour, which was comparatively cheap early in the year, and the increased price of this commodity alone cost the people of the colony nearly $250,000.

The following comparative statement shows the falling off in the Colony's productiveness, due largely to the abnormal ice conditions in the early part of the year. Fortunately the enhanced prices helped to make up to some extent for the shortages.

The values of the products exported were:—

The imports and exports were respectively as follows:—

The shore fishery was about 150,000 quintals less than that of 1913 (which was also below the average). The Bank fishery showed a shortage of about 28.00 quintals, and it is estimated that the Labrador fishery was slightly in excess of the catch of 1913.

[Pg 481]

The demand for codfish has been brisk, and though the late shipments to Brazil did not realise well, yet the markets in Spain, Italy and Greece have been good, though the risks in shipping and marketing it have materially increased. The green fish trade to the United States and Canada was not so brisk as in 1913. The export of this commodity so far has not suffered much from the effects of the war. Most of the catch has been shipped and marketed in the Latin countries and in the Mediterranean without loss.

The Government has been able this year to get the Government of Portugal to remove the discriminating duty of 35 cents per quintal on Newfoundland codfish entering that country. This will be a great benefit to the trade, and will permit the colony to sell on equal terms with the Norwegians.

The lobster catch was the shortest in the history of that fishery. It was estimated at 11,000 cases as against 16,500 in the preceding year and no less than 43,500 in 1904, the year of the biggest catch. The German market, which has always consumed about 90 per cent. of the catch, was closed at the end of the season, and the price went down from $24.00 per case to $13.00, and when the year finished only about 3,000 cases had been exported, the rest being in the hands of the merchants and packers who do not wish to sell at such a low figure.

The Board of Trade has recommended, in view of the falling catch and to preserve the fishery, that 1915 be made a close season and the Legislature will be asked to provide for this at the next meeting.

At the outbreak of the war British colliery owners were faced with the problem of securing a suitable supply of pit-props, and a commission visited Newfoundland to ascertain the practicability of securing supplies. Several cargoes were exported and it is likely that twenty-five to thirty cargoes will be obtained in 1915.

The mining companies operating in Bell Island were forced to shut down early in the year and at the beginning of the war, and the loss of employment to so many men caused much suffering in the part of the country affected.

At the invitation of the Government, Professor Dunstan, of the Imperial Institute, visited the colony in the summer to report on the coal and shale areas in the interior. These were inspected and favourably reported on, and it was hoped that a beginning would be made in these new industries at an early date.

The copper mines in Notre Dame Bay will probably be opened up in the spring of 1915.

During the year the colony was visited by His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught.

The Dominion Royal Commission held meetings in St. John's and took evidence upon such subjects as "The Newfoundland fisheries," "Steam communication," "Possibilities of increasing[Pg 482] the Colony's imports from other parts of the Empire," "Oil shale areas" and "Lumber exports." The Commission also visited Bell Island and Grand Falls and took evidence in relation to the mining and paper industries respectively of these two places. The seal fishery showed a decrease of nearly 40,000 seals, but the value was greater than in 1913 because of the greater size of the seals and the higher value of the oil and the skins. This industry was attended with two great disasters; the first occurred to the crew of the Newfoundland, who were caught in a blizzard some miles from the vessel, and seventy-eight were frozen to death, while others were maimed for life. The other disaster occurred to the Southern Cross, which was on her way home with a full load of seals when she was caught in the blizzard of March 31 and foundered. There were 174 persons on board and all perished. No traces have been found of either vessel or crew. The disasters attracted the attention of the whole civilised world and subscriptions came freely in from Canada and England, while the people of the Colony gave well. There is now a fund of $300,000 which is being faithfully administered and which will be sufficient to meet all cases of want.

The Herring fishery was large and on account of the high price of fish was well marketed.

At the ordinary session of the Colonial Parliament twenty-six Acts were passed all affecting the internal economy of the Colony; they included one giving power to borrow 400,000l. for the completion of the new branch railways and a second to raise a loan of $360,000 for the extension of the telegraph system, the erection of lighthouses and fog alarms, and for the construction and improvement of public buildings.

In September a special war session of the Legislature was called and twelve measures were passed. These measures provided for the raising of a volunteer force of 1,000 men, for increasing the number of the Naval Reserve from 600 to 1,000 men, and for raising a loan, which was afterwards provided by the Imperial Government, for fitting out and keeping up the contingents. To meet the extra cost of maintaining these men, some new duties were imposed, and Acts imposing stamp duties and death duties were passed.

In the same session a Wireless Telegraphy Act was passed, requiring steamers engaged in the seal fishing to be fitted with wireless telegraphs. It was felt that, had the Newfoundland had wireless on board, no one would have been lost.

The call of the Empire was well answered in "the loyal and ancient colony"; 750 men were sent to the Army and 500 more would be sent early in 1915. The full number of the Naval Reserve was easily made up, and already forty-nine have given their lives in the Viknor and the Clan McNaughton (in 1915). There were fully 200 Newfoundlanders in the Canadian contingent.

[Pg 483]

Archbishop Howley, Roman Catholic Bishop of St. Johns, died in October, and Monsignor Roche, a native of the Colony, was appointed in his place.

IV. MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA.

The new year in Mexico opened with President Huerta as Dictator, a Bank Moratorium, and furious fighting at Ojinaga, the issue for several days being in doubt. On January 11 it was reported that the Federal Army, which numbered 4,000 but had sustained heavy loss, had abandoned the town, crossed the Rio Grande and been disarmed by the United States authorities. General Villa took possession of Ojinaga, and his star was in the ascendant. The Government defaulted in the payments of the National Debt, and the Moratorium was extended to March 31. A plot against the Government was discovered in the capital and there were many arrests of prominent citizens. On February 4 President Wilson issued a Proclamation raising the embargo on the exportation of arms and ammunition to Mexico. Keen resentment was exhibited by the Huerta party, and General Villa, who had been inactive after Ojinaga except for the execution of "bandits," resumed his campaign. British marines and machine guns were sent from Vera Cruz to guard the Legation. On February 20 news came that an Englishman, Mr. William A. Benton, an extensive ranch-owner in the North, had been shot at El Paso by order of General Villa. He had lived in Mexico for twenty-five years and knew Villa personally. It was stated that damage having been done by Villa's men to his property, he had gone to Villa and had remonstrated with him. There was an altercation between the two. By Villa's orders Benton was tried by court martial and shot out of hand. The United States, having undertaken the obligation of protecting British subjects in places where we had no Consular representative, pressed for an inquiry. The "official" record of the court martial alleged that Mr. Benton was condemned for attempting armed violence against General Villa, and for assisting General Huerta; but the friends of the murdered man alleged that he did not carry arms and had none when he entered Villa's quarters. Sir Edward Grey sent Mr. Perceval, the British Consul at Galveston, to El Paso to investigate the crime. Yielding to United States representations, Villa allowed the body to be exhumed. Sir Edward Grey had meanwhile made a statement (1) reserving the right to secure reparation "whenever there is an opportunity" should United States action fail or not be proceeded with further; (2) dismissing the idea of a British punitive expedition to Mexico, on the ground that it would be worse than futile, seeing that it would "positively help those from whom we demand reparation, simply for the sake of appearing to do something"; and, (3) the matter would not be allowed to rest, "and as[Pg 484] soon as, by any change of circumstances, it is in our power to carry the matter further we shall take whatever steps may be practicable." Villa telegraphed that "Benton was tried by Council of War and found guilty and shot for having tried to assassinate me." Mr. Consul Percival arrived at El Paso and an Anglo-American Commission met to investigate the crime. General Carranza also appointed a Commission of his own. But by this time Benton had been buried three weeks. Mr. Percival and the Anglo-American Commission were refused facilities to cross the frontier, and Sir Edward Grey therefore found it necessary, on Mr. Percival's advice, to drop the question of an examination of the body. There the matter had to be left, nor had any reparation been obtained by the end of the year.

Meanwhile General Huerta protested against the cancellation of the embargo on arms, and relations with the United States became more strained. On April 21, in view of the outrage on the United States flag at Tampico (April 10, p. 456), the American Admiral at Vera Cruz, on instructions from Washington, seized the Customs House, and intervention on a great scale seemed inevitable. Steps were taken for the protection of foreign residents in Mexico city and British subjects elsewhere had been ordered to seek safety at once.

There was, however, a lull and diplomacy was active with the object of inducing the various parties in Mexico to arrange an armistice between the Federalist and Constitutional or "rebel" forces as a step to agreement on a Provisional Government, the assumption being that Huerta would be eliminated, by consent or otherwise. General Carranza, for the Constitutionalists, accepted this idea, or was reported to have done so at first. After confusing negotiations the facts emerged that Huerta had no intention of resigning, and that Generals Carranza and Villa would not agree to an armistice. A Conference was arranged to meet at Niagara Falls, on the Canadian side, in May, and Huerta despatched his Commissioners. The Constitutionalists resumed operations and drove the Federalists out of Tampico with ease, the Federalists taking to flight when cannon and machine guns were brought into position, commanding the town and harbour. There were other rebel successes. Simultaneously the Mediation Conference, consisting of representatives of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, the United States, and the Mexican Commissioners, began their work at Niagara and after eloquent opening speeches sat in private. The Constitutionalists then decided to send a representative to Niagara, but General Carranza stoutly refused an armistice. In the early part of June it became evident that his military position was such that General Huerta's dictatorship had almost disappeared. In this situation General Huerta let it be known at Niagara that he was willing to resign if at the time of withdrawal the country was "politically pacified." A scheme was mooted by a provisional[Pg 485] Government nominated and agreed upon by both parties in Mexico, and it was in principle accepted by General Huerta. But General Carranza still declined the terms on which the Conference would admit his delegate, and he acted with rigour towards Federalists in his power. Many executions were reported. General Villa quarrelled with him and the Constitutionalists thus broke into two military parties. The cause of the rupture was obscure, but it was alleged that General Villa had demanded full control of the Army in return for his recognition of Carranza as dictator. The feud still further diminished the already slender chances of success at the "A.B.C," Conference at Niagara. Affairs in the Republic fell into worse chaos, and thus they continued until mid-July when the name of Francisco Carbajal, Foreign Minister in the Huerta regime in succession to Señor Rojas, was discussed as that of a suitable Provisional President. At this time the Constitutionalists under General Carranza were threatening to descend on Mexico city and the situation seemed desperate. On July 16 it was announced that General Huerta, with other officials, had left Mexico city for Puerto Mexico, and that Señor Carbajal had taken the oath before Congress as Provisional President. General Huerta's resignation was presented to Congress and accepted by a vote of 121 to 17. In his message of resignation, he reviewed his assumption of office at the call of Congress. He recalled his efforts to bring about peace, noting that in seventeen months he had formed an army to carry out his promise of peace. He reviewed the difficulties of the Government in doing this, "owing to scarcity of funds as well as to the manifest and decided protection which a Great Power in this continent has afforded to the rebels," and which culminated "in the outrage committed at Vera Cruz by the American Fleet" at the moment "when the revolution had been broken up" by the division among its leaders. He also recounted the success of the mediation negotiations, adjusting the Tampico incident, but noted that "the revolution continued, with the support of whom we all know." Rebutting the allegations that his personal interest was predominant, he offered his resignation as a proof that interest in the Republic was his chief thought. The message aroused prolonged applause, and General Huerta had a hearty popular farewell. He left for Europe, via Havana, landing at Avonmouth and proceeding to Spain.

The new President had been a Judge of the Supreme Court under Diaz, Minister in London under Huerta, and then Foreign Minister. He had the reputation of being a man of peace and distinction of mind,—qualities that made him unacceptable to General Carranza. Negotiations between the two chiefs broke down over the question of the punishment of the Huertist leaders, and ultimately Señor Carbajal fled to Vera Cruz, and the Carranzists entered Mexico city on August 20. The United States Government in September began to contemplate withdrawing its[Pg 486] troops from Vera Cruz, but it demanded (1) that the Customs duties and taxes collected by it on Mexican account during the occupation should not be required a second time from the payers; (2) that Mexicans employed by it should not suffer in consequence; (3) that United States citizens and priests and members of religious orders should be protected from harm by the Mexican Government. General Carranza would not give definite assurances to this effect. Villa, whose allegiance to Carranza had long been doubtful, broke with him early in October, ostensibly because Carranza was supposed to be delaying agrarian reform, and a Peace Conference was summoned at Aguas Calientes (364 miles north of the capital on the line to El Paso), which was intended to eliminate both Villa and Carranza and to substitute a Provisional President. Carranza, backed by some of his subordinate Generals in Southern Mexico, refused to attend the Conference, but offered to resign if a Provisional Government were set up and Villa and Zapata would retire also. Villa had come to terms with Zapata, and controlled the Conference; and on October 31 it deposed both Carranza and Villa from their commands—Villa's deposition, however, being only nominal—and elected General Carlos Gutierrez Provisional President (Nov. 2) for twenty days, subject to renewal. It then declared Carranza to be a rebel. President Wilson now decided to withdraw the United States troops in order to leave Mexico free to settle her own affairs, and they left Vera Cruz on November 23, taking with them the Customs duties they had collected, to hold till a stable Government was established, and also some clerical refugees. It was occupied by a Carranzist force under General Aguilar. Villa, however, suspected Gutierrez, and the capital was occupied early in December by a Zapatist force. Carranza had offered to confer with Villa at Havana, but the year ended amid a fresh civil war. A tramway strike in the capital and a dearth of food in Northern Mexico also marked the end of the year.

An agreement was arrived at in June between Great Britain, the United States and Holland to withhold support from any of their respective nationals claiming, directly or indirectly, "any right or title or interest in oil properties acquired since April 24 by reason of the cancellation of contracts or leases, or by reason of the confiscation by de facto authorities of properties on the ground of default of contractual obligations or non-compliance with legal requirements, provided that such default or non-compliance is unavoidable because of military operations or political disturbances."

In Panama the Canal was unofficially opened for general traffic on August 15, the United States War Department steamer Ancon, of 6,000 tons net, going through the locks at the head of a procession of vessels. Barge traffic had passed through earlier, and a number of ocean steamers did so later, but a landslide in[Pg 487] October blocked the waterway for a few days and other interruptions occurred in November and December. A report on the work of the Sanitation Department showed a steady improvement in the sickness and death rates among the employees on the Canal and the Panama Railway. Yellow fever and plague had disappeared, malaria had diminished greatly. The death rate of the whole population of the zone, including the towns of Colon and Panama, was 49.94 per 1,000 in 1905, and was reduced to 20.49 in 1912 and 23.57 in 1913. The expenditure on the Canal by the end of 1913 stood at 65,000,000l. In November rules were promulgated on the use of the Canal by belligerents.

In his Message to the Assembly of Guatemala, in March, President Estrada Cabrera announced that the Government had replied to the representations of the British Foreign Office, requesting the restoration of the revenue given as a guarantee for the service of the 4 per cent. external debt, by an agreement made direct with the representatives of the bond-holders.

A treaty between Nicaragua and the United States was before the U.S. Senate at the close of the year (p. 461). The other Central American Republics had little history except that of financial distress consequent upon the war.

V. WEST INDIES AND THE GUIANAS.

The West India Islands and British Guiana had an uneventful and fairly prosperous year until the outbreak of war, nor do their commercial interests seem since then to have been materially affected. The war stimulated the loyalty of the people and caused less apprehension than might have been expected, having regard to the concentration of the Fleet in home waters and the defenceless condition of the archipelago, in which there were German cruisers late in July, which are believed to have cut the cable on August 3. It was at first thought that the cable had broken owing to an earthquake at Jamaica on that day, but the view of the repairers was that it had undoubtedly been cut. On the defect being remedied the West Indies learned that war had been declared. On October 20 the Governor of Jamaica was able to report that matters had proceeded normally. That had been the case elsewhere. There had been no excitement and no unrest; the bank returns showed an increase of deposits since the opening of hostilities,—one of many signs that the island was recovering from the depression of 1913. The people had displayed a spirit of the greatest loyalty and he had received a large number of offers of personal service. His language is applicable to other islands and the mainland colony. Many West Indians came to England and enlisted in the new army. Though the tide of war did not reach our possessions in the Caribbean and the Guianas, the fact that Germany was at war with France and Great Britain opened up new possibilities in the Western[Pg 488] world south of the United States, in the event of German success. So far as can be judged the normal life of the colonies was pursued, but the war checked development projects. Thus no progress has been made with the scheme for opening up the hinterland of British Guiana by a railway. The proposal of the Governor, Sir Walter Egerton, awaits the decision of the Colonial Office. A loan would be required and the chances of such legislation in the Imperial Parliament at an early date may have diminished to vanishing point since August. The need of railway enterprise in this long-neglected colony—the El Dorado of Raleigh—was illustrated during the year by the authenticated discovery of a new gold area between the head waters of the Takutu River and the Tucurutu Mountains. The British route to the field would be partly by existing steamboat and railway services and thence by canoe, with many portages past rapids, then across the Savannah and again by canoe. The journey is commercially impracticable unless the deposits are exceptionally rich. The new gold area is sparsely inhabited by Macusi Indians, who speak the Carib language but are not pure Caribs, and there is no food in the region other than what the aborigines grow for themselves. On this account and because of the long and difficult journey the Government issued a warning notice to those fitting out expeditions. The discovery greatly strengthens Sir Walter Egerton's case for a hinterland railway, without which "the largest undeveloped auriferous area in the world"—to quote the Government expert—cannot be developed.

Hayti and Santo Domingo had another revolutionary year, tempered by the occasional intervention of United States warships for the protection of foreign property.

VI. SOUTH AMERICA.

A commercial crisis occurred in Brazil early in the year, owing to the fall in the prices of rubber and coffee, and it culminated on the outbreak of war in a general default. It was complicated in February by a rebellion in the State of Ceara, which started among rubber collectors who could no longer get employment. It was led by an ex-priest, Padre Cicero, and quickly reached proportions beyond the resisting power of the State authorities, the political opponents of the President of Ceara, Colonel Rabello, apparently using the movement to get rid of him. In this they succeeded, the Federal authorities failing to respond to his requests for support. The rising, however, being economic rather than political in origin, became so extensive and so menacing to the Republic that the Federal Government had to proclaim martial law and reinforce the Federal troops at Fortaleza, the State capital. The administration of the State was taken over by the Federal Government and a military officer, Colonel Setembrino, put in charge. This meant the elimination of Colonel Rabello[Pg 489] and an easement of the political tension. The disarmament of rioters was proceeded with and the State thus quieted. Meanwhile there had been ominous signs of trouble in Rio Janeiro, but these were promptly suppressed by the Government, by the usual methods of arrest and control of the Press. A leading paper at Rio gave an indication of the acuteness of this crisis by publishing in the place of its leading articles the story of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. But the trouble in the Federal capital—a week's journey from Ceara by sea—passed off. As fears of a revolution diminished the financial situation became more acute. The Budget law for 1914 put the expenditure at 435,773 contos of reis paper and 95,469 contos gold and the estimated revenue at 130,219 contos gold and 367,571 paper, leaving a deficit of 9,621 contos paper. In June Congress authorised the Government to contract a loan to enable Treasury obligations to be met, and passed resolutions prohibiting expenditure not yet entered upon though lawfully authorised. Whatever effects this belated zeal for economy may have had, a heavy deficit on the Budget proposals put before Congress in July was not avoided, and when war broke out in Europe the Republic defaulted. In October the Brazilian Government promulgated a Funding Scheme by which interest on all the foreign loans, except the Funding Bonds of the 1903 loan, became payable in scrip for three years, while the redemption of nearly all securities was postponed for thirteen years. The Budget estimates for 1915 were dislocated by the effects of the war.

Mr. Theodore Roosevelt published in December a volume under the title of "Through the Brazilian Wilderness," in which he described his travels with Colonel Rondon and other Brazilian officers in the hinterland of the Republic, and gave an account of the previously unexplored tributary of the Madeira River—an affluent of the Amazon—which is now officially known as Rio Teodoro or Roosevelt River. Mr. Roosevelt gives the credit for the discovery to Colonel Rondon and his associates of the Telegraph Commission during six years' work in the interior prior to his own journey. "It was their scientific exploration of the Chapado, their mapping of the basin of the Juruena, and their descent of the Gy-Parana that rendered it possible for us to solve the mystery of the River of Doubt"—a river some 1,500 kilometres in length, of which the upper course was utterly unknown, and the lower course, though used by rubber collectors, unknown to cartographers (see post, Science, Part II., p. 54).

The new President of Brazil is Dr. Wenceslao Braz and the Vice-President Señor Urbano Dos Santos. The President was Vice-President under Marshal Hermes da Fonseca.

The economic condition of Argentina was unsatisfactory in the early months of the year and the effects of the war were severe. The Presidential Message at the opening of Congress on May 27[Pg 490] stated that the expenditure for 1913 had amounted to 39,128,000l. and the Treasury receipts to 34,897,000l. The total external and internal debts of the National Government amounted to 108,800,000l. Drastic economies had to be made in the Budget for 1914 owing to the decrease of customs. It was claimed that the unfavourable state of business could not affect the stability of the country, seeing that agriculture continued to expand. Weather conditions proved to be bad and an immense area of the country was waterlogged in July. The financial and agricultural outlook was unfavourable at the outbreak of the war, which produced an economic crisis in the Argentina as elsewhere in Latin America. In presenting the Budget for 1915 a Presidential message forecasted a saving in the 1914 Budget of 5,000,000l. and prophesied the subsidence of the economic troubles before the new year—calculations dissipated by the war.

In Peru the political disorders of 1913 resulted in February in the downfall of President Billinghurst, who had attempted to break down the rule of the ring of governing families, much as Balmaceda had in Chile in 1891. On the 4th of that month Colonel Benavides, with a body of infantry, seized the palace at Lima and made the President prisoner. The immediate issue which produced this coup d'état was an attempt by the President to bring about a general election on the plea that the existing Congress was invalid because of illegalities. Colonel Benavides acted as the instrument of Congress, which represented that it had acted constitutionally in deposing a President who had himself contumaciously violated the Constitution. An aspect of legality was thus given to the movement. The affair at the Palace was bloodless, but General Farela, Prime Minister and Minister of War, was killed at Santa Catalina arsenal "while endeavouring to impose his authority" on the troops, and there were other casualties. The ex-President was lodged in jail and political offenders he had himself imprisoned set free. Lima was reported quiet the next day, a provisional government having been formed with Colonel Benavides in control. The official account said that "public opinion and the patriotism of the Army having enforced respect for the Constitution, President Billinghurst resigned." The Government was being "carried on under normal conditions and in the enjoyment of general confidence." On February 18 Señor Billinghurst was escorted from prison to a cruiser and exiled with his son George, and one of his Ministers. Many weeks passed in controversy and manœuvres on the issue whether Señor Roberto Leguia, as first Vice-President, had the right to succeed ex-President Billinghurst, or whether there should be a general election. Señor Leguia's party was on one occasion forcibly excluded from Congress and on another the Opposition absented themselves, the effect being that Señor Leguia's claim could not receive Congressional sanction. The Provisional Government used the military[Pg 491] in the interests of the opponents of Señor Leguia. Señor Don Augusto B. Leguia, a former President of Peru, was then in London and gave an account of the matter favourable to Señor Roberto Leguia. The Junta under Colonel Benavides, he pointed out, was called into existence to exercise authority until Congress met and decided what was to be done. Their conduct was that of a dictatorship, masked by the vote of a minority in Congress—a party which came to be known as the Bloquistas. Attempts to compose the differences failed. Señor Roberto Leguia appears to have been willing to resign if the Junta also resigned, and there was a general election, by which, according to the Constitution, a President is elected. On May 18 it was reported that a majority of the Congress had met at Señor Leguia's house and accepted his oath as President by virtue of his right as Vice-President to succeed Señor Billinghurst. The acceptance was by a legal quorum of the Congress. A manifesto was issued to the nation and Señor Leguia invited the diplomatic body to recognise his status. There were thus two Presidents of Peru; but Señor Benavides also claimed to have been duly elected by Congress, and his election was eventually confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Uruguay shared to the full the economic misfortunes of the larger Republics. The year opened with a monetary crisis, attributed by the Minister of Finance to depletion in the stock of gold and the difficulty of borrowing in Europe. The Bank of the Republic restricted credit. President Batlle y Ordoñez, in opening the Legislature in February, asserted that notwithstanding the monetary crisis the country had made substantial progress and was on the road to recovery. The imports for 1913 amounted to 9,600,000l. and the exports to 12,600,000l. Of the Public Debt 609,517l. had been redeemed and 1,210,260l. of the Internal debt issued. The annual statement on the Public Debt showed the total on December 31, 1913, to be 28,999,737l.—an increase of 639,088l. The Budget for 1914-15 showed an expenditure of 6,976,526l.; the revenue was estimated to be in excess. A new loan of 2,000,000l. was issued and further loans were sought. The project of a "Pan-American" railway, which was to give a direct route from Buenos Ayres to the Brazilian system, did not materialise. The Uruguayan Government rescinded its concession and in April initiated a policy of new State lines to link up the Brazilian system. The principle was to secure the economic independence of the Republic in railway matters and it was officially denied that there was any hostility towards the Central Uruguay Railway Company.

Except for commercial depression and the effects of the war the affairs of Paraguay were uneventful.

The war brought about the like financial crisis in Chile as elsewhere in Latin America. Early in the year it was announced by the President that having regard to economies then effected, the expenditure for 1914 would be covered by the revenue.[Pg 492] The Legislature passed a Bill for reorganising and extending the railway system at a cost of 4,710,000l. A proposal to convert the paper peso at the rate of twelve pence gold met with much obstruction and the war came before it could be carried through the Senate. At the time of the war Chile had a warship of the Dreadnought class building in England. In view of rumours that warships building would be sold, the Chilian Government formally declared that they would not cede the vessels, which were contracted for "solely to fulfil the exigencies of Chile's geographical position and of her international rank. The said units will only leave British waters to be incorporated into the Chilian navy." The Anglo-German naval engagement off the coast of Chile is narrated elsewhere (p. 227). It was reported from Santiago after the loss of H.M.S. Good Hope that German merchant vessels had misused Chilian territorial waters for the supply of stores and sending wireless messages to German warships. The Chilian Government authorised the statement that from the first Chile had strictly carried out her neutrality and had effectively used her warships for convoying within territorial waters merchant vessels threatened by cruisers. Regulations were cited to show that not only was the taking of abnormal stores by belligerent merchantmen prohibited but that vessels carrying wireless had to dismantle the installation. In the Chilian Parliament the Minister for Foreign Affairs made an elaborate statement showing that there was no ground for the insinuation that there had been a departure from neutrality. Incidentally he stated that the action in which H.M.S. Good Hope was lost (Nov. 1) took place at "a very considerable distance outside the territorial limit." The British Government was satisfied that there had been no lack of good faith or vigilance by Chile and that reports to the contrary were "not in accordance with the facts and do not in any way represent the opinion of His Majesty's Government." An anti-German outbreak was reported from Valparaiso in December owing to the German controllers of the tramways raising the passenger rates.

Mr. and Mrs. Scoresby Routledge left the Chilian coast in the yacht Maria in January for Easter Island, where they are making a study of the gigantic stone figures and other antiquities.

Bolivia—the land-locked Republic of South America—has maintained good relations with her neighbours and her record until the war was one of economic progress. Her external debt in March, 1913, amounted to 3,000,000l. only, nearly all contracted with the Credit Mobilier Français, and her productiveness was increasing. A thorough study of this Republic by M. Paul Wallé on the instructions of the French Ministry of Commerce is embodied in his book "Bolivia, its People and its Resources, its Railways, Mines and Rubber Forests" (T. Fisher Unwin, 1914). New railway schemes were projected during the year for regions still dependent on mule transport. A decree was issued from La[Pg 493] Paz requiring the registration of labour contracts for the interior and making provisions, under penalties, for the prevention of abuses of the peonage system, common throughout Latin America and not infrequently resulting in the practical enslavement of the labourer. There had been scandals in Bolivia affecting Colombian nationals in the Beni rubber region; and perhaps no rubber-producing area on the continent is free from them. Since the exposure of the horrors in the Putumayo region Governmental opinion in other Republics has been stimulated to take corrective action where conditions more or less comparable had arisen, and the action of Bolivia is indicative of a desire to protect the forest worker. In this connexion it should be observed that the Foreign Office has sent a Circular despatch [Cd. 7148] to its consular officers, calling attention to the Putumayo report and giving directions for more energetic action in cases of maltreatment of natives where British subjects and companies are responsible. They are to make themselves cognisant of labour conditions in concessions partly or wholly controlled by British subjects, and to embody in their annual reports the result of their studies, besides making special reports in serious cases, thus enabling the Foreign Office to warn the persons and companies concerned. Following the precedent of the Putumayo case the policy of the British Foreign Office is to encourage consular vigilance, and on the receipt of reports of serious ill-treatment of natives where British subjects may be held to account, to authorise special consular journeys of investigation.

In Ecuador there was a revolutionary movement in the north, under the leadership of Colonel Concha, who was credited with a desire to overthrow President Plaza, who himself gained office by expelling General Alfaro from the Presidency. Colonel Concha held the port of Esmeraldas, which was shelled by Government war craft. The revolutionary movement was officially represented to be unimportant. Breaches of neutrality in the German interest were alleged also against Ecuador, which with Colombia was called to account by the British and French Governments (p. 237). The Ecuadorean Government issued an absolute denial of this and of the charge that the wireless installations had been allowed to be used by Germany. The charges were "pure inventions concocted in the United States." It is noticeable that both in the case of Colombia and Ecuador the representations of the Allied Powers were made through and by the United States Government.

In Colombia Don José Vicente Concha, a Clerical and Conservative, and former Financial Agent of the Republic in Paris, was elected President for four years from July. The country was in the proud position of being able to announce that, notwithstanding the dislocation of business caused by the war, the interest on her external debt was being and would be punctually paid. The gold[Pg 494] industry of this Republic is progressing. As in the case of Chile, but apparently with more justification, complaints were made (p. 237) that Colombia had permitted acts in assistance of the Germans and had violated her neutrality. Colombia denied the charges, through the Chargé d'Affaires at the Legation in London, who cited a decree of September 1, "enforcing" all measures required to safeguard the neutrality of the Republic in connexion with the operations of the wireless stations at Cartagena and Santa Maria, the only two wireless stations in the country. A decree of September 11 was quoted to the effect that in the absence, of properly qualified experts who could satisfy the Government as to the way in which the censorship and transmission of messages would be conducted, the station at Cartagena "should be closed." There were also decrees of August 12 and 22 to ensure strict observance of neutrality rules by shipping and users of ports. The existence of these decrees was not in dispute. Later on the Chargé d'Affaires reported that official cables from Colombia of November 19 stated that the French Minister at Bogota and His Majesty's Naval Attaché in Washington had expressed their thanks to the Colombian Government and their satisfaction with the action taken to carry out the requests of the Allied Governments. The representations of the latter had, in fact, been effective. A treaty was under consideration by the United States Congress for the payment to Colombia of 5,000,000l. as indemnity for the loss of Panama territory by the revolution of 1903. The treaty had not been ratified by the United States Senate at the close of the year.

From Venezuela there is nothing more novel to record than a frontier raiding difficulty with Colombia.

CHAPTER IX.
AUSTRALASIA.

I. AUSTRALIA.

Had it not been for the dominating influence of the war the year in Australia would have been memorable for the unfortunate consequences attendant upon a season of short rainfall. The absence of rain was felt early in the year, and by mid-winter it was clear that both small and large holders would suffer severely. The lambing, which, in a great pastoral country like Australia, makes such a notable addition to the national income, was a partial failure, and over wide areas, particularly in the south of the continent, stock owners had considerable trouble to keep their flocks and herds intact. Among the farmers, the wheat growers were the main sufferers. The 1913-14 harvest exceeded 100,000,000 bushels, and was the largest the Commonwealth had produced. The crop which was being garnered at the close of 1914 produced only 26,500,000 bushels. With the single exception of New South[Pg 495] Wales, which had a small quantity of wheat available for export, none of the States grew enough grain for their own flour necessities. The partial failure of the rainfall was the more serious because, as a great pastoral and a considerable agricultural community, Australia must otherwise have made very substantial gains out of the high prices for foodstuffs established by the war. At the same time, however, too much attention must never be paid to one season of bad rainfall in Australia. Previous to 1914 the Commonwealth enjoyed an almost unbroken run of exceptional prosperity for ten or eleven years, and there had in that time not only been remarkable development in all primary and secondary industries, but also a very considerable accumulation of wealth by all classes. Fortunately, as the year closed there were heavy and widespread rains, and with excellent prospects of a return to happier conditions in 1915.

The declaration of war against Germany was not taken quite so calmly by the Australian people as by the people of the United Kingdom. The Australians, as a youthful community, naturally exercise less restraint in a time of Imperial stress than the experienced veterans of the Mother Country. Then the high feeling which prevailed in Australia was accentuated by the sense of isolation from other parts of the Empire, and particularly from the seat of war; while the news service dealing with the war was, particularly in the early stages, far less satisfying in the Commonwealth than it was in London. All cable communications were severely censored both before they left the United Kingdom and in many cases again after they reached Australia, and the consequence was that the Australian people were apprehensive lest they should be receiving only information which was favourable to the British cause. It is necessary to mention these facts in order to understand the marked contrast presented by the British people at home and those of the self-governing Dominions in the early stages of the war. The scenes of enthusiasm which attended the departure of the first contingents from Australia found no parallel in the United Kingdom, and the Australian people were at the same time far more anxious and "jumpy."

The Australians are made up to the extent of 97 per cent. of Anglo-Saxon blood, and so there was nothing remarkable in the immediate response to the Empire's call to arms. The young manhood of the Commonwealth fell into line just as naturally and spontaneously as the manhood of London or Edinburgh. Within two or three days of the declaration of war the Commonwealth Government had offered 20,000 troops for service in any part of the world. This offer was immediately accepted by the Imperial Administration, and from that moment until the year closed volunteers came eagerly from every class and every portion of the Commonwealth. The people of Australia entered with special enjoyment into the task of the destruction of Germany's ambitions[Pg 496] and the acquisition of her territory in the South-West Pacific. It had always been felt that some of these territories, and especially German New Guinea, were too close to the Commonwealth, and the time might come when they would be the cause of serious trouble between the two peoples. Moreover the flying expeditions which the Imperial Government ordered or sanctioned for the conquest of these enemy colonies, gave an opportunity to the young Australian Navy to demonstrate its seamanship and fighting capacity. Before the war was many days old, the first Expeditionary force, with Colonel Holmes in command, was on its way, under Navy protection, towards the North, and a week or two later the whole Empire was delighting in its initial successes. The operations of this Force were of historic interest, because they marked the first occasion upon which Australians engaged in warfare without the co-operation and support of other British troops.

The rapidity with which the men under Colonel Holmes' command were enrolled and despatched showed the general efficiency of the Australian Defence Force. Recruits were called for on August 9, and by August 18 the Force was embarked under sealed orders "For the Tropics." After a fortnight's training on the Queensland coast, the expedition proceeded direct for the German headquarters at Simpsonshafen, in New Pomerania, or, as the island is more familiarly known, New Britain. It was from Simpsonshafen that German New Guinea and other territory in the vicinity was governed, and the first aim of the Australians was to locate and destroy a wireless station known to be at work upon the island. A small German force supported by a number of natives offered sharp resistance to the advance towards the station, and before the Australians carried the position they lost seven men, including Lieutenant-Commander Elwell, R.N., and Captain Bryan Pockley, of the Australian Army Medical Corps. All resistance fizzled out within a few days, and on September 12 the British flag was hoisted, and possession taken of the Island. Before the end of the month a landing had been effected at Friedrich-Wilhelmshafen, the chief German station upon the mainland of German New Guinea, which capitulated without resistance. Meanwhile other units of the Australian Navy convoyed the little New Zealand Force which took possession of German Samoa; and the Bismarck Archipelago and other islands were captured at about the same time. Then the Japanese took the Marshall Islands, which they have since graciously handed over to the keeping and administration of the Commonwealth. Had the conquest of these Pacific Islands not been overshadowed by the fateful struggle in Europe, more would have been heard doubtless of the extent and richness of Germany's lost colonies. Sufficient for the present to say that they make up a wide area of land teeming with qualities capable of great wealth production. At present the new territory is being ad[Pg 497]ministered by resident officials specially appointed by the Commonwealth.

When war was declared there were a considerable number of German vessels of importance in Australian waters or about the coast, and few if any of these escaped the activities of the local Navy. The entry of these ocean captives to the various ports was the signal for outbursts of enthusiasm among the people, who were making prisoners of war for the first time in their history. Australia's first serious mishap occurred in the loss of Submarine A.E.I., which disappeared mysteriously between August 14 and 19 in the Pacific close to the Australian coast. The total crew, made up of thirty-five officers and men, were drowned. It is believed that the submarine foundered owing to an accident.

Meanwhile recruiting was proceeding vigorously for the main Expeditionary Force, intended ultimately for service on the Continent, but subsequently diverted, temporarily at least, to Egypt. In the South African War the Australian troops were made up almost entirely of Mounted Infantry, and a preference was consequently given to young countrymen. In the present campaign, however, the call was chiefly for Infantry, and so the men of the cities had equal opportunity. The response was of the best kind; it was common for remote stockmen to present themselves to the recruiting officers after an overland journey of many hundreds of miles. The first Force to embark represented a complete fighting unit of upwards of 22,000 men, with its proper complement of Cavalry and Artillery and fully equipped in all its branches. Many of the men had seen service in the South African War; a large number were drawn from the oldest of the Cadets, and so were the first-fruits of Australia's system of compulsory military training. As a whole, however, it was necessary that the Force should undergo a few months' training before entering upon active service in Europe, and this training was carried out in Egypt, while the men were at the same time available for the defence of that territory against the Turks.

It was during the transport of the Expeditionary Force to Egypt that H.M.A.S. Sydney had the dramatic encounter with the notorious Emden. The Sydney was part of the convoy of the transports, and early one morning there came a wireless call from Cocos Island that a foreign warship was approaching. The Sydney responded immediately, and a few hours later sighted the Emden, and forced her to accept battle. In the opening round the duel was fairly even, and the Emden gunners, shooting with great precision, got two or three shots home, without, however, causing the Sydney much damage. Thenceforward, the Sydney showed her superiority, and after a short fight, the Emden, very badly, damaged and after suffering terrible casualties among her crew, was broken and beached upon one of the islands of the group. The Australian flagship was at about this time co-operating with[Pg 498] Japanese and French battleships in scouring the Pacific in search of the German squadron which had destroyed the Monmouth and the Good Hope, and so contributed indirectly to Admiral Sturdee's great victory at the Falklands.

The response to the various patriotic funds was similar to that in other parts of the Empire. Money and comforts of diverse kinds flowed in on a most generous scale. By the end of the year upwards of a million sterling had been contributed; the Commonwealth Parliament voted 100,000l. to the relief of distressed Belgians, and the State Governments and a large number of Municipalities also contributed handsomely to the same cause.

The Commonwealth.—Early in the year Lord Denman resigned the Governor-Generalship owing to ill-health, and was succeeded by Sir Ronald Munro Ferguson, who arrived in Australia in May. Almost the new Governor's first act, and one which led to much controversy, was the granting of a double dissolution to the Federal Parliament at the request of the Prime Minister, Mr. Joseph Cook. Mr. Cook's aim was to put an end to the stultifying deadlock which existed between the House of Representatives, in which the Government had a slender majority, and the Senate, where the Labour Opposition was overwhelmingly dominant. The elections were arranged for September, but immediately upon the declaration of war the Labour party, led by Mr. Fisher, urged that an appeal to the country under the circumstances was undesirable, and that the Government should continue to carry on until a more favourable season for party controversy. This course, however, was not deemed practicable, and the elections were held. The returns gave Labour a majority of 41 to 33 in the House of Representatives, and 31 to 5 in the Senate. Mr. Cook resigned, and a Labour Cabinet was formed as follows: Prime Minister and Treasurer, Mr. Fisher; Attorney-General, Mr. Hughes; Minister for Defence, Mr. Pearce; Trade and Customs, Mr. Tudor; External Affairs, Mr. Arthur; Home Affairs, Mr. Archibald; Postmaster-General, Mr. Spence; Vice-President of the Council, Mr. Gardiner; Honorary Ministers, Messrs. Jenson, Mahon and Russell. Mr. Arthur died before the end of the year, and was succeeded as Minister for External Affairs by Mr. Mahon. Mr. McDonald became Speaker in the House of Representatives, and Mr. Givens President of the Senate. Mr. Fisher in his Budget, presented on December 3, estimated the expenditure for 1914-15 at 37,500,000l., which included nearly 12,000,000l. to cover the local cost of the war. The revenue was estimated at 23,273,000l., and the deficit of 13,000,000l. was provided for by a loan of 10,500,000l. by the British Government, and Treasury Bills to the extent of 2,588,000l. Much gratitude was expressed towards the Home Government for the generous manner in which they came to the financial assistance of the Commonwealth. A loan of 18,000,000l. was granted[Pg 499] to the Commonwealth for re-loan to the States. Much of this money was required to meet old loans falling due, while the balance was wanted for the vigorous prosecution of railway construction and other public works. In view of the considerable dislocation in private industry owing to the war, especially in mining, it was deemed desirable that both the Federal and State Governments should continue development works during the war, and so avoid unemployment and distress. The Government proposed a slight increase of the Land Tax and a revision of the tariff, with still further preference to British as against foreign goods. Probate and succession duties were for the first time imposed by the Commonwealth. During the year Sir George Reid, the High Commissioner in London, visited Australia, and made a number of notable Imperial speeches, and was everywhere received with enthusiasm. His term of office, which was to have expired early in 1915, was extended for one year. Earl Grey, and Sir Hartmann Just of the Colonial Office, made notable visits to Australia. The tour and Conference of the British Association, which had been so keenly anticipated by the people, were in a large measure circumscribed by the outbreak of the war. A little event of much significance was the launch from the Government docks in Sydney Harbour of a torpedo destroyer which had been built entirely by Australian labour, and, with the exception of the plates, of local materials. At the same time, it was announced that a cruiser and a number of other destroyers were in the course of construction. Following upon the excellent reports which Royal Navy officials in command of the Commonwealth Navy gave of the young native-born Australians who made up the larger part of their crews, this first successful essay into the building of a warship was regarded with the utmost satisfaction. It seemed to have established conclusively that the young Anglo-Saxon in Australia had fully inherited the genius of his forefathers for shipbuilding and seamanship. In a modification of the initial Navy programme laid down a few years ago by Admiral Henderson, provision was made for the construction of two light cruisers and two improved submarines, instead of torpedo destroyers. Considerable progress was made with the various training colleges, naval bases and other matters dealing with the defence system. Sir Ian Hamilton, in his special report upon Commonwealth forces, congratulated the Government upon the fitness of its land defences. He expressed the opinion that the whole of the regular Force and 75 per cent. of the Militia serving at any particular time were sufficiently trained and equipped to engage in modern warfare at forty-eight hours notice, while within another fortnight the balance of the Militia, together with 20,000 members of rifle clubs, could be put into the fighting line.

In New South Wales the drought was not so severe as in[Pg 500] Victoria and South Australia. In the wide Riverina district the pinch was severely felt, but on the dairying areas, especially along the North Coast, the season was more favourable and productive than any previously enjoyed, while much of the pastoral country had a fair season. The Labour Ministry continued in office, and having a sound working majority pushed on actively with legislation. In January a new Ministry was formed as follows: Premier and Treasurer, Mr. Holman; Chief Secretary and Minister for Mines, Mr. Cann; Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Mr. Hall; Lands, Mr. Trefle; Works, Mr. Griffiths; Public Instruction, Mr. Carmichael; Agriculture, Mr. Ashford; Labour and Industry, Mr. Estell; Vice-President of Executive Council, Mr. Flowers; Honorary Minister, Mr. Hoyle. The Treasury estimated the revenue for the financial year at 18,380,000l., an increase of 2,120,000l., and the expenditure at 18,342,000l. In October, however, Mr. Holman, in the course of his Budget speech, estimated that owing to the reduced earnings in consequence of the war, there would be a shortage on the year of 340,000l. To overcome this he proposed a temporary supertax on incomes and a tax on motor cars. The Government awakened much controversy by its decisive actions in connexion with the war. As a precaution against the operation of market manipulators, the whole of the available wheat supply was seized. The Government also announced its intention and provided the necessary purchasing machinery to take over the whole of the wheat crop then ripening at an arbitrary price of 5s. a bushel. The Government also took active steps to encourage the cultivation of a large wheat crop for the ensuing season. Towards this end farmers were guaranteed a minimum price of 4s. a bushel for their grain, and it is expected that as a result of this measure the area sown will show an increase of 1,000,000 acres, and that the crop, given a moderate season, will exceed 60,000,000 bushels. The best record to date is 37,000,000 bushels for 1913-14.

In Victoria the chief political event was the unexpected resignation of Mr. Watt as Premier in favour of Sir Alexander Peacock. Mr. Watt at once announced his intention of taking an active part in Federal politics, and entered the House of Representatives at the general election. Sir Arthur Stanley was sworn in as State Governor in February. The Premier announced a definite sustained policy of railway construction at a cost of from 600,000l. to 700,000l. a year. At the general elections in November the Liberals retained office with a majority of 43 to 22 over the Labour Opposition, all Ministers being re-elected. The Treasurer in his Budget Speech in December estimated the revenue at 10,600,000l. which was an increase of 3,000,000l. within twelve years. He pointed out that the total loans of the State amounted to 66,000,000l. of which no less than 27,000,000l. were now held by the Victorian people[Pg 501] themselves. There was no increase in taxation for the present year, but income and stamp duties would be slightly raised within the next four years. It was claimed that the State shipbuilding yards and coal mines had paid their way, and justified the policy which led to their establishment. The season was extremely unfavourable, probably the worst Victoria had ever experienced. The shining exception was upon the great irrigation districts in the north, where the settlers, with their unfailing supply of river water, had a year of very heavy production, and reaped the full advantage of the high prices prevailing for all kinds of produce; in fact, the great illustration afforded of the value of irrigation was a big compensation for the failure elsewhere, as Victoria still has available wide areas of irrigable land, and further supplies of water which can be conserved. The appreciation of irrigation was shown by the fact that even before the season closed there was a rush for the possession of the watered lands still in the possession of the Government.

Queensland.—Major Sir Hamilton Goold-Adams succeeded Sir William MacGregor as Governor. Queensland enjoyed a remarkably good season, quite escaping the shortage of rainfall in the South. The pastoral industry was particularly prosperous, and as the war enhanced wool values and promised also to increase the price of meat, the State never had a brighter financial aspect. Early in the year, Mr. Denham, the Premier, visited England, where he arranged for the conversion of maturing loans, and was gratified at the confidence the London money market displayed about Queensland's national assets. During the year no less than 9,000,000 acres of land were taken up by new settlers, an increase of 2,000,000 acres over the previous year. Nearly 4,000,000 bushels of maize were raised, and the sugar product reached 2,420,000 tons. Altogether the outlook in the big tropical State could scarcely be brighter.

South Australia, like Victoria, was seriously affected by the drought, and the wheat crop, which is so important in the State, was very light indeed, while many settlers had great trouble to avert serious losses among their live-stock. Sir Lionel Galway succeeded Sir Day Bosanquet as Governor. Mr. A. A. Kirkpatrick retired from the position of Agent-General in London after some years of successful work, and was followed in that position by Mr. F. W. Young. The Treasurer, Mr. Peake, in his Budget Speech in October, estimated a surplus of 4,000l., and indicated that should there be a deficit in consequence of the drought and the war, it need cause no concern, as there was on hand an accrued surplus from the recent good years of upwards of 1,000,000l. As in New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia, there was every indication of farmers extending their wheat areas in the ensuing year in anticipation of high prices.

Western Australia.—A general election in October resulted[Pg 502] in Labour being again returned to office. Mr. Scaddan again became Premier, Treasurer, and Minister for Railways; Mr. Collins, Minister for Mines and Water; Mr. Joseph, Minister for Lands; Mr. Walker, Attorney-General and Minister for Education; Mr. Drew, Colonial Secretary; Mr. Angwin, Minister for Public Works; Mr. Jabez Dodd and Mr. R. H. Underwood, Honorary Ministers. Nearly 300 miles of new State-owned railways were opened for traffic in December, and at the same time there was a similar length in course of construction. In every direction the Government pursued an active policy of development works. Western Australia has an area of nearly 1,000,000 square miles, and at present the population is only a little more than 300,000. The season was against agricultural production, and the wheat crop was only a little above one-third of that of the previous year, when it reached 13,500,000 bushels. As a rule, however, Western Australia enjoys a very regular rainfall, and the settlers, undeterred by the set-back, pushed on vigorously with their clearing and other pioneering. Mr. Justice McMillan was appointed Chief Justice in succession to Sir Henry Parker, and the Very Rev. Cyril Golding Bird, Dean of Newcastle, was consecrated Bishop of Kalgoorlie.

Tasmania enjoyed a fairly good season. Substantial headway was made in production, especially in orcharding, which industry continues to thrive because of the keen demand which awaits its produce in the United Kingdom, and other parts of the Old World. There was keen political fighting, in consequence of the rival parties being almost equal in strength. The Liberals under Mr. Solomon were defeated in the Legislative Assembly by one vote in April on a No-Confidence motion by Mr. Earle, the Labour leader. Mr. Solomon asked for a dissolution, which was refused by the Governor, and he then resigned in favour of Mr. Earle, who formed a Cabinet as follows: Prime Minister and Minister for Justice, Mr. Earle; Chief Secretary and Minister for Mines and Labour, Mr. Ogden; Minister for Lands, Public Works, and Agriculture, Mr. Belton; Treasurer and Minister for Education and Railways, Mr. Lyons; Mr. Justice Nicholls became Chief Justice in succession to the late Sir John Dodds; and the Very Rev. R. Stephen, Dean of Melbourne, was consecrated Bishop of Tasmania.

Northern Territory and Papua.—Interest in the development of these two great new possessions was largely suspended on the outbreak of war. The failure of the first attempt of the Federal Government to settle the Northern Territory in small areas has not yet been succeeded by any new scheme. It is now generally recognised that there will be very little farm settlement until the country is better served with railways and marketing facilities. Towards this end railway construction was proceeded with upon a small scale, and the proposal to connect the Territory by an overland line with Southern Australia was farther advanced.[Pg 503] It is now fairly certain that this railway will be constructed in the course of a few years. The few stock owners who now occupy the richest portions of the country with great grazing stations were favoured as usual by a good rainfall and abundant pastures. Some of these pastoralists possess from 35,000 to 70,000 head of cattle, and with meat at its present price they are enjoying excellent returns.

In Papua the proximity to German territory caused much excitement among the new planters, although between the German and the Australian settlements there lies a wide and almost impassable area, made up of mountain and tropical jungle. Considerable stretches of land were cleared and added to the area under cultivation, and a number of the settlements are now approaching the period of productivity. The Administration continued its well-established policy of dealing generously with the settlers, and kindly but firmly with the natives; indeed the colonisation of British Papua, so far as it has gone, is proving an interesting exception to most of the settlement in Australasia, inasmuch as good feeling is being maintained with the natives, while substantial headway is being made with the pioneering. The commencement of railway buildings gave a new note of civilisation to this grand tropical domain.

II. NEW ZEALAND.

Up to the outbreak of war New Zealand was passing through one of the most satisfactory years in its history. For instance, Customs returns had never been so high as during the six months which ended in June, while the Minister for Finance was able to announce a surplus of 427,000l. The overflowing Treasury encouraged the Government to grant still easier terms to new settlers, so as to bring the possession of farms within the reach of farmers' sons and industrious labourers who had accumulated savings. The construction of new railways and other public works was actively promoted. An interesting political event was the re-entry of Sir Joseph Ward into party leadership. He attempted in July to oust the Government on a No-confidence vote, but the Cabinet retained office by a fair majority. The general elections were held in December, and the new Parliament found parties equally divided, the Government having forty seats, and the same number being held by the Opposition, comprised of the Liberals and Labour members. In December, Mr. Fisher, the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, visited the New Zealand Dominion, and conferred with the Government upon Imperial Defence, so far as it affected the two Dominions, and the question of a reciprocal commercial agreement. Mr. Fisher thought (and this opinion was heartily endorsed by the great majority of the people of New Zealand and Australia) it would be unwise to build too confidently upon a long era of peace at the conclusion of the present war. He urged that Australia and New Zealand should make it clear[Pg 504] to the Mother Country that they were ready and determined to take up the burden of Empire Defence in their part of the world. It was quite unreasonable to expect the Mother Country, with the enemy at her gates, to devote her attention to the defence of the distant dominions, whose strength enabled them to act upon their own behalf. "The national development of Australia and New Zealand," said Mr. Fisher, "would be stimulated if they relied on their own resources by maintaining a naval force which was a direct part of the British Navy, but was under local executive control. Experience showed that local control was the best and probably the only practicable method. The day had already come when self-respect should persuade Australia and New Zealand to abandon their policy of reliance upon the British taxpayer."

New Zealand's co-operation in the war was marked by great eagerness and enthusiasm. The New Zealanders are just as British in their breeding as the people of the Mother Country itself, and their response was just as ready and whole-hearted. From every portion of the island came young volunteers of the finest physique; many of them were South African veterans, and all were excellent rifle shots and splendid natural soldiers. A few months after war was declared some 10,000 of these men had been transported to Egypt, but long before then a small flying expedition had proceeded to German Samoa, and put an end to the Kaiser's colony in that portion of the Pacific. Like the Commonwealth, the despatch of the first little army to Egypt was only the beginning of New Zealand's support. Since then many additional thousands of young men of the best quality have been enrolled at the training camps. These will be sent to the front as they are trained and required, and their numbers would gladly be quadrupled at the request of the Imperial Government. New Zealand has also given handsomely to the patriotic funds, and subscribed a large amount of money to the relief of the Belgians. Indeed, as in the South African War, the practical loyalty of this little island people could not have been exceeded.

III. POLYNESIA.

Up to the outbreak of war little occurred to mark the year in these islands. For several weeks after the beginning of August, however, there was unprecedented excitement in the various white settlements. The possibility of a visit from an enemy war vessel and the eager anticipation of a call from ships flying the Union Jack with tidings of the great campaign, kept these lonely dwellers in a state of constant unrest. Generally speaking there was no trouble with the natives, and fair headway was made in planting and in trade. Some notable instances of individual patriotism were reported in the case of young planters and others, who at great material sacrifice and the exercise of much resource, travelled many thousands of miles in order to return to England and participate in the fighting.

[Pg 1]

PART II.

CHRONICLE OF EVENTS
IN 1914.

JANUARY.

1. The official list of New Year Honours comprised one new Viscount (the Rt. Hon. James Bryce, who took the title of Lord Bryce of Dechmont), four new Barons (Sir Rufus Isaacs, Lord Strathclyde—the Scottish judge, Mr. Alexander Ure,—Sir C. A. Cripps, and Sir Harold Harmsworth, whose titles were respectively Lord Reading, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Parmoor of Frieth, and Lord Rothermere), and five new Privy Councillors (Lord Colebrooke, Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson, the Hon. William F. Massey, Premier of New Zealand, Mr. W. H. Dickinson, M.P., and Sir Christopher Nixon, Bt.). There were six new Baronets, among them Sir Gerard Lowther, G.C.M.G., lately Ambassador at Constantinople, and Colonel Sir Edward Ward, K.C.B., Permanent Under-Secretary at the War Office. Among the twenty-two new Knights were Mr. Owen Seaman, Editor of Punch since 1906; Judge Lumley Smith, late Judge of the City of London Court; Mr. W. E. Garforth, an inventor of safety appliances in coal mines; and Mr. Ernest Rutherford, F.R.S. The Order of Merit was conferred on Sir Archibald Geikie, President of the Royal Society.

—Mr. Llewelyn Archer Atherley Jones, K.C., appointed a Judge of the City of London Court, vice Judge Lumley Smith, retired.

—At Paris, in a Rugby international football match, Ireland beat France by eight points to six.

3. The Home Secretary refused to reconsider the sentence of four months' imprisonment passed at the Stafford Assizes on Thomas William Stewart, a Rationalist lecturer. The reasons for the refusal were, in substance, that the prisoner was punished, not for holding opinions or arguing in support of them, but for utterances designed to wound the feelings of his hearers, and that his speeches on religion were intended to advertise, for his own profit, his lectures on other subjects and certain appliances sold by him, in respect of which he was accused of indecency.

[Pg 2]

3-4. Further severe storms on the New Jersey coast, doing much damage at Atlantic City and Seabright.

5. Final abandonment announced of "The Romance of India," a spectacle projected at Earl's Court, and designed by a well-known artist, Mr. R. Caton Woodville, but objected to by the India Office and Indian residents in London as likely to give offence to Hindus and others. Several hundred performers were left destitute.

—The tank steamer Oklahoma was broken in two by a wave fifty miles off Sandy Hook and sunk; seven lives saved, about thirty-two lost.

—At Johannesburg, the third Cricket Test Match was won by England by ninety-one runs. England had now won the first three.

7. Announcement that Sir R. H. Brade had been appointed Secretary of the War Office and the Army Council vice Colonel Sir Edward Ward, retired.

—Announcement that Mr. Joseph Chamberlain would retire from Parliament at the next general election.

—Railway strike in South Africa. (See post, For. and Col. Hist., Pt. I., Chap. VII.)

—At the King's Hall, Covent Garden, a mock trial was held of John Jasper for the murder of Edwin Drood, the hero of Dickens' last and unfinished novel. The literary problem involved in the book, the subject of much speculation, was not solved. Mr. G. K. Chesterton was Judge, Mr. George Bernard Shaw foreman of the Jury. The verdict was manslaughter, but the Judge committed all those present for contempt.

—Attempt to blow up Territorial barracks at Leeds, temporarily used as police quarters; damage slight.

8. Fire at St. Paul's Training College, Cheltenham; damage over 5,000l.

9. At Cambridge, Dr. Henry Frederick Baker, D.Sc., F.R.S., Fellow and Tutor of St. John's College, was elected Lowndean Professor of Astronomy and Geometry, vice Sir Robert Ball, deceased.

9-10. Severe snowstorm in North-West Russia.

9-11. Severe floods on the German Baltic coast, owing to storms and the bursting of dykes; floods also in Würtemberg, the Rhine Valley, Switzerland and Belgium.

10. Barton Hall, near Bury St. Edmunds, burnt down in the early morning; most of the art treasures saved.

11. The Chinese Parliament formally dissolved.

12. At Pretoria, the return match between the M.C.C. and the Transvaal cricket eleven was drawn.

12-15. Severe winter weather in England.

13. Volcanic eruption near Kagoshima, Japan; about 200 lives lost.

—Martial law proclaimed in South Africa.

—The Royal Mail Company's Steamer Cobequid (late Goth), from the West Indies to St. John, N.B., went ashore on the Trinity Ledges, near the entrance of the Bay of Fundy; the passengers and crew were saved after severe sufferings. The Board of Inquiry (Feb. 2) severely censured the[Pg 3] captain, but in view of his subsequent exertions for the safety of those aboard it did not deal with his certificate.

13. Extreme cold in Ontario; at Toronto 54 degrees of frost were registered, at Ottawa 60 degrees, and at White River 80 degrees.

14. At King's College, London, Lord Rayleigh unveiled a memorial tablet to Lord Lister, the founder of antiseptic surgery.

—The inquest on the victims of the Senghenydd Colliery accident (A.R., 1913, Chron., Oct. 14) resulted in a verdict of "Accidental Death." The jury found that there was no neglect, and that the fire probably originated with a naked light at the lamp station.

15. The Special Committee for promoting English representation at the Olympic Games in Berlin retired. (See A.R., 1913, Chron., Dec. 31.)

—Announcement that Sir E. Hildred Carlisle, M.P., had given 105,000l. to Bedford College, as a memorial to his mother.

—Surrender of the Johannesburg Unionists besieged in the Trades Hall. (See post, For. and Col. Hist., Chap. VII., 1.)

16. Submarine A 7 disappeared in Whitesand Bay, near Plymouth, during exercises; her officers and men, numbering eleven, were lost. She was located on January 21, but attempts to raise her were abandoned at the end of February, and the mystery of her loss was unsolved. A memorial service was held on March 5 at the spot where she lay.

—Under the Ancient Monuments Act of 1913 the destruction of a Georgian house, 75 Dean Street, Soho, London, was forbidden by the Office of Works.

17. At Twickenham, England beat Wales in an International Rugby football match by ten points to nine.

—At Frankfort-On-Main, Karl Hopf was convicted of murdering his first wife by poison, and attempting to murder his second and third wives and his two children, and was sentenced to death. He had purchased and used typhoid and cholera bacilli.

19. Final collapse of the Dublin strike. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. VI.)

—At Kimberley, South Africa, the M.C.C. cricket eleven beat Griqualand West by an innings and 101 runs.

—At McAlister, Oklahoma, three convicts escaped from the State penitentiary, but were ultimately shot after a fight; in all seven men were killed and two men and one woman wounded.

20. The dead body of Thomas Kent Reekes, an Australian and a marine engineer, was found in a disused pit shaft at Ettingshall, near Wolverhampton. Death was due to gunshot wounds. Efforts to account for his presence in the district and to trace an alleged companion failed.

21. The King in Council ratified the Orders defining the boundaries of the new sees of Chelmsford, St. Edmundsbury, and Ipswich.

—Lieut. Seddon, R.N., flew from Sheerness to Plymouth (down the Channel) on a Maurice biplane—nearly 350 miles in 5 hrs. 35 min., exclusive of a stop.

21-28. Strike of 7,000 London coal porters, (See Eng. Hist., Chap. I.)

[Pg 4]

23. At Brussels, Princess Victor Napoleon, before her marriage Princess Clementine of Belgium, gave birth to a son, the direct heir to the Bonaparte dynasty.

25. At the Hendon aerodrome, George Lee Temple, an airman, was killed while flying.

26. On Salisbury Plain, Mr. Gibb, an airman, was killed while flying and a passenger injured.

—An explosion took place aboard the Cunarder Mauretania among men engaged in brazing the turbine blades; three men killed, six seriously injured.

—An equestrian statue of King Edward VII., by Landowzki, was unveiled in the Rue Edouard VII., Paris.

27. Announcement that Mr. Arthur Jacob Ashton, K.C., had been appointed Recorder of Manchester vice Sir Joseph Leese, Bart., resigned.

—Announcement that Lord Denman had resigned the post of Governor-General of New South Wales through ill-health.

—Mr. F. W. Vanderbilt's steam yacht Warrior stranded off the Colombian coast; all on board saved.

—An Interim Report of the Dominions Royal Commission dealing with the needs of Australia condemned the methods of recruiting immigrants in Great Britain, recommended reduction in cable rates, and held that the existing postal service was inadequate, but that it would be inadvisable to bind the State to a new contract by the Brindisi and Suez Canal route.

—Narrow escape of St. Petersburg from serious flooding after a great storm.

28. Labour leaders deported from South Africa. (See Eng. Hist., Chaps. I. and II., and For. and Col. Hist., Chap. VII.)

29. Announcement that Mr. John Horace Round, D.L., LL.D., had been appointed by the Attorney-General honorary adviser to the Crown in Peerage Cases.

30. Announcement that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York had appointed a Committee on the relations of Church and State. The Earl of Selborne was chairman and Mr. Balfour one of the members.

—At the Parliamentary bye-election for North-West Durham, due to the retirement of Mr. Lt. Atherley Jones, K.C. (see Jan. 1), Mr. Aneurin Williams (L.) was returned by 7,241 votes; Mr. J. O. Hardicker (U.) obtained 5,564 and Mr. G. H. Stuart (Lab.) 5,026.

—The liner Monroe, plying between New York and Norfolk, Va., was run down by the s.s. Nantucket; forty-one persons in all were drowned.

—Explosion in a coal mine at Achenbach, Westphalia; twenty-two men killed, seventeen injured.

31. The German sailing ship Hera was wrecked off Falmouth; of the crew of twenty-four nineteen were drowned.

—Strike of elementary school teachers in Herefordshire; it was settled February 25.

[Pg 5]

31. The official return of pauperism for January, 1914, showed that the total number of paupers had dropped from 33.8 per 1,000 in 1874 to 17.5 in 1914, and that of outdoor paupers from 27.5 to 10.3 per 1,000. Indoor pauperism, however, had risen since 1874 from 6.3 to 7.2 per 1,000, this being due largely to the greater use of workhouse infirmaries. Between 1906 and 1913 the total number of paupers over seventy had fallen nearly 75 per cent., and of outdoor paupers over seventy nearly 95 per cent., owing mainly to old-age pensions.

FEBRUARY.

2. First performance in England of Wagner's Parsifal at Covent Garden Opera House. (See post, Pt. II., Music.)

—Announcement that the anonymous lady who had promised 25,000l. to lay out Shadwell Park in memory of King Edward was precluded from giving it by "severe and sudden financial misfortunes."

—At Windsor Castle, Gustav Hamel "looped the loop" before the King and Queen fourteen times in 17 minutes.

4. Influential meeting at the Mansion House to explain the plans for celebrating the Hundred Years' Peace between Great Britain and the United States; among the speakers were the Prime Minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Lord Bryce.

—Announcement that the King had approved the appointment of Mr. William Warwick Buckland, M.A., Senior Tutor of Caius College, to be Professor of Civil Law in the University of Cambridge, vice Dr. E. C. Clark, resigned.

—At Sheffield, during an Association Football Cup-tie Match, a wall collapsed owing to the pressure of the crowd on its base at a corner; about seventy persons were injured, three very seriously.

—At Christie's, a James I. silver-gilt cup and cover was sold for 4,500l.

5. At the Liverpool Assizes, George Ball, alias Sumner, was found guilty of the murder of Miss Christina Bradfield (Chron., 1913, Dec. 11) and sentenced to death, and Samuel Eltoft convicted as an accessory after the fact, and sentenced to four years' penal servitude. An appeal by Ball failed, and he was executed on February 26.

6. Announcement that the King had approved the appointments to the new Sees created under the Bishoprics Act, 1913, as follows: to the Bishopric of Sheffield, the Rt. Rev. L. H. Burrows, Bishop Suffragan of Lewes; to the Bishopric of Chelmsford, the Rev. J. E. Watts-Ditchfield, Vicar of St. James the Less, Bethnal Green; and to the Bishopric of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, the Ven. H. B. Hodgson, Archdeacon of Lindisfarne.

—Mr. R. C. Munro-Ferguson, M.P. for Leith, appointed Governor-General of the Australian Commonwealth, vice Lord Denman, retired.

7. At Cardiff, in an International Rugby Football Match, Wales beat Scotland by twenty-four points to five.—At Queen's Club, West London, in the Inter-University Association Football Match, Cambridge beat Oxford by two goals to one.

[Pg 6]

9. Announcement that the "Panshanger Madonna" (Chron., 1913, Nov. 26) had been sold to Mr. P. A. Widener, of Philadelphia.

—Announcement that Lord Justice Cherry was appointed Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, vice Lord O'Brien resigned.

—Before a court-martial at Chatham, Fleet Paymaster J. A. Lowry, of H.M.S. Ganges, pleaded guilty to desertion and embezzlement, and was sentenced to three years' penal servitude.

10. Sir Laurence Gomme resigned his office as clerk of the London County Council, owing to ill-health.

—Meeting of Parliament. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. II.)

—At Durban, the M.C.C. cricket eleven were defeated by Natal by ten wickets.

11. Announcement that Lord Gladstone had resigned the office of Governor-General of South Africa. (For the consequent Ministerial changes, see Pt. I., p. 27.)

—The Mont Blanc range crossed by the airman Parmelin in a flight from Geneva to Turin. Fog compelled him to descend at Aosta.

13. Announcement at the annual meeting of the Great Eastern Railway shareholders that Mr. Henry W. Thornton, general superintendent of the Long Island Railroad (New York), had been appointed as General Manager of the Great Eastern Railway in succession to Mr. Walter Hyde. He had special experience with heavy suburban traffic.

14[missing period] At Rochdale a tramcar was derailed; eighteen persons were injured.

—At Twickenham, in an International Rugby Football Match, England beat Ireland by seventeen points to twelve.

15. At Lyndhurst, Hants, a madman named Lee Bond was arrested after a thirty hours' motor drive through Dorset, Wilts, and Hants; he compelled the chauffeur to drive under threat of shooting him, and requisitioned petrol by like means. He attempted suicide next day.

17. At Durban the Fourth Test Match between the M.C.C. and South Africa resulted in a draw.

18. In the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury, the Bishop of London presented a petition signed by 676 priests in the diocese of London, expressing anxiety at the unchecked denial of fundamental Christian truths by office-holders in the Church, and at the tendency to approach the problem of reunion in a way inconsistent with the recognition of the necessity of episcopal ordination.

—At the Parliamentary bye-election in Bucks (Wycombe) due to the elevation to the Peerage of Sir A. Cripps (U.), Mr. W. B. Du Pré (U.) was returned, obtaining 9,044 votes; Mr. Tonman Morley (L.) obtained 6,713.

19. At the Parliamentary bye-election for South-West Bethnal Green, due to the appointment of Mr. C. F. G. Masterman (L.) to the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster, Sir Matthew Wilson (U.) was returned by 2,828 votes; Mr. C. F. G. Masterman (L.) receiving 2,804, and Mr. John Scurr (Soc. and Lab.) 316. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. II.)

[Pg 7]

19. At Cradley Heath, Staffs, owing to a subsidence caused by old colliery workings, some forty houses in the High Street were cracked and injured.

—Near Birmingham, Ala., a mail train was held up by three men, and robbed of $40,000; they then detached the locomotive and escaped on it.

—In the King's Bench Division, before Mr. Justice Darling and a special jury, the six days' trial was concluded of a libel action brought by Major W. A. Adam, sometime 5th Lancers and late Unionist M.P. for Woolwich, against Sir Edward Ward, recently Permanent Secretary for the War Department. The plaintiff complained of the publication of a letter addressed officially by the defendant to Major-General Scobell in August, 1910, declaring that the charge brought against the latter by the plaintiff was unfounded and containing words which the plaintiff regarded as a reflection on his character. The defendant denied publication, and alleged that the words were privileged. The charge in question had been debated in the Commons (A.R., 1910, p. 150). The jury found for the plaintiff; damages 2,000l.

20. At the Parliamentary bye-election for Tower Hamlets (Poplar), due to the appointment of the Rt. Hon. Sydney Buxton to be Governor of South Australia, Mr. A. W. Yeo (L.) was returned by 3,548 votes; Mr. R. Kerr Clark (U.) received 3,270, and Mr. J. Jones (Lab. and Soc.) 893.

—In the final heat of the Waterloo Cup, Messrs. Dennis's hound Dilwyn beat the Duke of Leeds's Leucoryx, nominated by Major McCalmont.

—At Messrs. Nobel's factory of explosives at Ardeer, Ayrshire, an explosion killed seven men and injured two, one fatally.

—On the Wexford coast, near Kerrig Island, the Fethard lifeboat was wrecked while assisting the Norwegian schooner Mexico; five of the lifeboatmen and nine of the schooner's crew were rescued on February 22, after sixty hours on the island; nine lifeboatmen were drowned; one of the crew had died of exhaustion.

21. At Challapata, Bolivia, a magazine containing 3,500 tons of dynamite exploded; the town was destroyed, with great loss of life.

—Count Mielzynski acquitted of the murder of his wife and her nephew at his castle in Poland (A.R., 1913, Chron., Dec. 20). The trial was in camera, but it was stated that the Countess had been unfaithful.

22. Severe storm in Switzerland. On the Lötschberg railway, a train was partly derailed by wind on emerging from a tunnel; one passenger killed, several injured.

23. At Debreczin, Hungary, a bomb sent by post to the Greek Catholic Bishop Miklossy exploded and killed the episcopal vicar and the secretary. The outrage was ascribed to Roumanian resentment at the creation of a Greek diocese of Hajdudorog, severing 12,000 Roumanians from the Roumanian branch of the same Church.

26. At the Parliamentary bye-election at Leith, due to the appointment to be Governor-General of Australia of Sir R. Munro-Ferguson (L.), Mr. G. W. Currie (U.) was returned by 5,159 votes; Mr. M. Smith (L.) received 5,143, and Mr. J. N. Bell (Lab.) 3,346.

—Announcement that Mr. Otto Beit had offered a South African Research Fellowship for two years at Oxford, for the collection of the South African history preserved by memory and oral tradition.

[Pg 8]

26. Announcement that Sir Hugh Lane was appointed Director of the National Gallery of Ireland, vice Sir Walter Armstrong, resigned.

—At Chelsea, in a baseball match between two American teams, the New York Giants and the Chicago White Sox, the latter won by five runs to four. The King was present.

—In a duel near Metz a German officer, Lieut. Haase, was shot dead by a brother officer, Lieut. von Lavallette St. George, who had shown undue attention to his adversary's wife.

28. At Dublin, Ireland beat Scotland at Rugby football by six points to nil.

—At Samar, near the Sea of Galilee, the Turkish military airmen Fethi Bey and Sadik Bey, while flying from Damascus to Jerusalem, were killed by the fall of their aeroplane.

MARCH.

1. Announcement that the King would offer a cup of the value of 100l. for an international yacht race at Panama in 1915.

1, 2. Severe snowstorms in the Eastern United States.

2. At Swansea, Wales beat France at Rugby football by thirty-one points to nil.

3. In the fifth and final South African Test Match, at Port Elizabeth, England beat South Africa by ten wickets.

—The Admiralty issued a return giving particulars of the strength of the eight chief naval Powers on January 1, 1914, omitting such battleships, battle cruisers, and cruisers, as had been launched more than twenty years. Vessels built are given first; vessels building, if any, are added after a plus sign. The British figures included Dominion ships. The number of submarines given for Germany was admittedly too low.

4. On the Ortler Spitz, Tyrol, a patrol of twenty soldiers under instruction in ski-running were caught by an avalanche; fourteen were killed.

6. In Birmingham, a statue was unveiled of Bishop Gore, first Bishop of the diocese, as a memorial of his connexion with it.

—At Boulogne-sur-Seine the Penitentiary Convent School was attacked by a band of fifteen "Apaches," who rescued three girls; these, and seven of the band, were eventually arrested.

9. In the House of Commons, the Prime Minister gave particulars of the proposed permissive exclusion of the Ulster counties from the Home Rule Bill.

—At St. Louis, Mo., the Missouri Athletic Club was burnt; about thirty lives were lost.

10. The Rokeby Venus in the National Gallery damaged by a militant suffragist.

—At Upavon, Captain C. P. Downer, Northamptonshire Regiment, was killed while flying in a BE biplane.

—Ceiba, Honduras, was burnt down; estimated damage $10,000,000.

—In the Convocation of Oxford University a statute throwing open the eighteen seats of the Hebdomadal Council (hitherto elected from Professors, Heads, and Masters of Arts equally) was rejected by 97 to 83.

11. On Salisbury Plain, Captain Clement Allan, Welsh Regiment, and Lieut. James E. G. Burroughs, Wiltshire Regiment, were killed by a fall from an aeroplane, the only one of its type.

—At Eastchurch, Engineer-Lieut. Briggs, R.N., Royal Flying Corps, reached a height of 15,000 ft. on a biplane; he was frostbitten, the temperature falling to -38° Fahr.

12. At the annual dinner of the Association of Chambers of Commerce, the Prime Minister, after mentioning the development of Inter-Imperial trade through Trade Commissioners and local correspondents in the Dominions, said that 1913 had been a record year in trade and employment; there were signs of slackening, but little reason to anticipate any serious impression. The character of the Labour unrest, however, was disquieting.

—The training ship Wellesley, on the Tyne, was burnt; no lives lost.

13. At Exeter, N.S.W., between Sydney and Melbourne, a mail train ran past signals in a fog into a cattle train shunting; fourteen killed, fifteen injured.

13-14. Great storm on the Sea of Azof. The coast was flooded, the Kuban railway (under construction) was wrecked, and there was heavy loss of life.

14. At Belfast, Wales beat Ireland at Rugby football by eleven points to three.

15-16. Heavy gales and rains; five men were drowned through the foundering of a tug off Greenhithe. The Swedish barque Trifolium was wrecked in Sennen Cove, Cornwall; five drowned.

16. At Cardiff, England beat Wales at Association football by two goals to none.

[Pg 10]

16. The Times appeared for the first time at the price of 1d.

—At Paris, M. Gaston Calmette, editor of the Figaro, was fatally shot by Mme. Caillaux, wife of the Finance Minister. (See post, July 28.)

17. At Wellesley College (for women), Wellesley, Mass., the College Hall was burnt down; no lives lost.

18. Birth of a son and heir to the Duke of Brunswick, whose wife was the daughter of the German Emperor. This was the first Guelph Prince born in Germany for nearly a century.

—The World's Tennis Championship was won in Philadelphia by Mr. Jay Gould, who defeated G. F. Covey by seven sets to one.

19. The King and Queen visited the National Institute for the Blind in Great Portland Street and opened the new buildings.

—At Upavon, Lieut. H. F. Treeby, West Riding Regiment, was killed by a fall of his biplane into a wood while descending.

—At Stockholm, the Council of State dissolved the marriage of Prince William of Sweden and his wife, Princess Marie Pavlovna of Russia.

—At Venice, a ferry steamer was run down by a torpedo boat; about fifty persons were killed.

20-21. Ulster military crisis. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. II.)

21. At Inverleith, England beat Scotland at Rugby football by 16 points to 15, winning the International Championship and the Calcutta Cup.

24. At the sale of the collection of silver formed by the Earl of Ashburnham, a Henry VII. silver-gilt standing salt-cellar weighing 30 oz. realised 5,600l.; a George I. silver-gilt toilet service (626 oz.) 6,100l.

—At Johannistal, Herr Otto Linnekogel, flying with a passenger, reached a height of 5,500 metres or nearly 3½ miles—a record.

24-26. The King and Queen at Knowsley, and in Cheshire. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. II.)

27. At the Oxford and Cambridge University Sports at Queen's Club, West London, Cambridge won six events—the Hundred Yards' Race, High Jump, Half Mile, Quarter Mile, Putting Weight, and Long Jump; Oxford four—Throwing the Hammer, the Mile Race, the 120 Yards Hurdle Race, and the Three Mile Race. In the last-named G. M. Sproule beat the record for the Sports, his time being 14 min. 34-4/5 sec. In the Long Jump H. O. Ashington made a record—23 ft. 6¼ in.

—The Grand National Steeplechase was won by Mr. T. Tyler's Sunloch, Mr. H. de Mumm's Trianon III. being second and Mr. J. Hennessy's Lutteur III. third. Won by eight lengths; time, 9 min. 58-4/5 sec.

28. The University Boat Race from Putney to Mortlake was won by Cambridge by 4½ lengths; time, 20 min. 23 sec.

29. The Report of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation (Chairman, Sir John Kempe) recommended a large increase in State subventions to local authorities, a system of direct grants being substituted for that of assigned revenues. But grants should only be given for semi-national services, e.g., education, poor relief, main roads, public health, criminal prosecutions, and provision for mental deficiency. Under these heads a revised and simplified system of grants was recommended. The total[Pg 11] increase would be 4,700,000l. annually, of which nearly 2,500,000l. would be spent on elementary education.

30. The Premier announced the resignation of Sir John French, Sir J. S. Ewart, and Colonel Seely, and his own assumption of the post of Minister of War. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. II.)

31. Great disaster to the Newfoundland sealing fleet. (See For. and Col. Hist., Chap. VIII., 3.)

—In the King's Bench Division, the libel action Adam v. Hayes Fisher was settled. The defendant, the Unionist M.P. for Fulham, had recommended that the plaintiff should not be selected as Unionist Parliamentary candidate for Woolwich, and the plaintiff now withdrew the charge that he had been actuated by express malice.

APRIL.

1. In the Central Criminal Court, the trial of John Starchfield, a newsvendor, for the murder in a North London train on January 8 of his son Willie, aged seven, was stopped after the close of the case for the prosecution, the Judge suggesting that the evidence of identification was insufficient, and the prisoner was formally acquitted. The child lived with his mother, the parents being separated.

2. Announcement that General Sir Charles Douglas had been appointed to succeed Field-Marshal Sir John French as Chief of the General Staff.

3. At the Central Criminal Court Frederick Augustus Gould or Schroeder was convicted of espionage under the Official Secrets Act and sentenced to six years' penal servitude.

4. At Glasgow, at an International (Association) Football Match, Scotland beat England by three goals to one.

5. First opening of the Bisley rifle ranges for shooting on Sunday.

6. Explosion in H.M.S. destroyer Albacore, at Chatham; three stokers killed.

7. At Little Chesterford, Essex, nine cottages, two public-houses, and other buildings were burnt; no lives lost.

—Completion of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. (See For. and Col. Hist., Chap. VIII., 2.)

8. The Prime Minister was returned unopposed to Parliament for East Fife on his appointment as Secretary for War.

—Announcement of the appointment of Lieut.-General Sir H. Sclater, K.C.B., to be Adjutant-General of the Forces, vice Lieut.-General Sir J. S. Ewart, resigned.

9. The King of Sweden underwent a successful operation for gastric ulcer.

13. (Easter Monday). At Paris, in an International (Rugby) Football Match, England beat France by thirty-nine points to thirteen.

14. In the early morning, the East Coast Express from London to Aberdeen collided with a goods train near Burntisland and was partly derailed; the driver and fireman were killed and ten persons injured.

[Pg 12]

14. The fourth Report of the Civil Service Commission (A.R., 1912, Chron., March 14) made ninety-seven recommendations as to reforms in the constitution, appointment, and system of promotion of the service. It found that the basis of the service was sound and its organisation efficient, and it proposed certain reclassifications, harmonising them with the educational system; recommended (with certain reservations and some dissentients) the permission of transfer from one department to another, and made a number of recommendations as to women, favouring compulsory retirement of most grades on marriage.

15. The Yorkshire coal strike virtually closed by a ballot of the miners, in which 27,259 voted for returning to work and 11,393 against.

18. Death of King Edward's well-known wire-haired terrier Cæsar while under an operation.

20. Announcement that Mr. Justice Pickford had been appointed a Lord Justice of Appeal, vice Sir R. Vaughan-Williams, resigned.

21. Announcement of the appointment of Mr. Montague Shearman, K.C., and Mr. John Sankey, K.C., as Judges of the King's Bench Division, and of Mr. Justice Channell's resignation.

—At Köslin, Pomerania, the second Burgomaster Heinrich Thormann, was arrested as a savings-bank clerk convicted of embezzlement in 1910. He had escaped from custody, fabricated a diploma giving him the degree of Doctor of Laws, entered the Civil Service, and married a wealthy wife.

21-24. Visit of the King and Queen to Paris. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. III.)

23. Celebration of Shakespeare's birthday at Stratford-on-Avon; the American Ambassador proposed the toast to the memory of the poet at the luncheon. The German Shakespeare Society also celebrated at Weimar the poet's birthday and its own jubilee.

24-25. Gun-running in Ulster. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. III.)

25. At the Crystal Palace, in the final contest for the Football Association Cup, Burnley defeated Liverpool by one goal to none. The King was present and presented the Cup to the victors.

26. The Russian tank steamer Kometa was burnt off the Algerian coast; thirty of the crew were saved by various steamers; sixteen were lost.

—On the Great Central Railway, near Finchley Road Station, a light engine ran into an excursion train; about eighteen passengers injured.

—At Hendon aerodrome, the airman Marty was fatally injured by the fall of his aeroplane.

28. At Eccles, West Virginia, an explosion in a coal·mine entombed 178 men; all were lost.

29. At Newmarket, the Two Thousand Guineas Stakes resulted as follows: Sir John Thursby's Kennymore, 1; the Marquess of Londonderry's Corcyra, 2; Mr. J. B. Joel's Black Jester, 3; time, 1 min. 38 sec.

30. The King opened new buildings at the Leys School, Cambridge.

—The Upper House of Convocation adopted the resolutions presented by the Bishop of London on the questions of Faith and of Church Order raised in the memorial presented February 18 (see that date). These resolutions[Pg 13] reaffirmed that of May 10, 1905, asserting the determination of the House to maintain unimpaired the faith in the Trinity and Incarnation contained in the three Creeds, and that of the Lambeth Conference in 1908, affirming the historical facts stated in the Creeds to be part of the Doctrine of the Church. They also reaffirmed the principle that no man should be suffered to perform priestly functions without Episcopal ordination.

MAY.

1. Off Aldeburgh, Suffolk, five Coastguardmen were drowned by the upsetting of their boat.

2. Announcement that the Rt. Rev. George Nickson, D.D., Bishop Suffragan of Jarrow, was appointed Bishop of Bristol in succession to the Rt. Rev. George Forrest Browne, D.D., resigned.

—At Pershore, the Bishop of Worcester dedicated the House of St. Benedict (Caldey Island) for the remaining members of the Benedictine House at Caldey Island, Pembrokeshire, after the secession of the main body to the Roman Catholic Church. (Chron., 1913, March 5, July 31.)

—Royal Academy Banquet. The Duke of Connaught adversely criticised certain "fantastic vagaries" of current art [presumably "Futurism" and "Cubism"]; Sir Evelyn Wood defended the action of the army officers in the recent Ulster crisis; the Lord Chancellor defended party government, and advocated better industrial education; and Sir Edward Poynter, P.R.A., expressed the regret of artists at the refusal of the Government to take part in the Panama Exhibition.

3. The Leyland liner Colombian, from Antwerp to New York, took fire and blew up off Sable Island; of the crew of forty-nine eighteen lives were lost; one boat, with four survivors, was not picked up till May 16. There were no passengers.

—Near Paris, a troop of Boy Scouts was stoned by roughs and defended themselves with sticks, beating off their assailants, who replied with revolvers; one scout was wounded.

4. On the first public day at the Royal Academy, Mr. Sargent's portrait of Mr. Henry James was damaged with a chopper by a militant suffragist.

—The Times published newly discovered fragments of a poem by Sappho.

5. The Report of a Committee of clergy and medical men, formed in 1910 to investigate "faith-healing," declared that the results did not differ essentially from those of "healing by suggestion," and could be expected to be effective only in "functional," and not in "organic" disorders. It proposed to continue its investigations.

7. Marriage of President Woodrow Wilson's daughter Eleanor at the White House to Mr. W. G. McAdoo, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.

—The King opened the Edward VII. Galleries at the British Museum.

8. Announcement that Prince Alexander of Teck would succeed the Duke of Connaught in October as Governor-General of Canada.

—At Bedford College, Regent's Park, Mr. Balfour delivered his address as President of the English Association. His subject was the comparative value of prose and verse as vehicles of didactic argument.

[Pg 14]

8. An earthquake took place in the district S.E. of Mount Etna, between Catania and Mangano; Linera was destroyed and several other villages suffered seriously; about 150 people were killed and 500 injured.

10. Special services were held in many churches and chapels throughout Great Britain by way of thanksgiving for the gift of sight, in connexion with a movement to extend the provision of books for the blind in Braille type.

11. Funeral ceremony at Brooklyn of seventeen marines and bluejackets killed in the operations at Vera Cruz; President Wilson delivered an address.

12. At the Parliamentary bye-election at Grimsby, due to the death of Sir George Doughty (U.), Mr. T. G. Tickler (U.) was returned by 8,471 votes; Mr. A. Bannister (L.) received 8,193.

—At the Royal Academy a militant suffragist, Mary Ansell, injured Herkomer's portrait of the Duke of Wellington.

—The King and Queen of Denmark were entertained by the City Corporation at luncheon at the Guildhall.

—At Farnborough, Captain E. V. Anderson, of the Black Watch and the Flying Corps, and Air Mechanic Carter were killed in a collision between aeroplanes, and Lieut. Wilson, Special Reserve, seriously injured.

13. The steamer Turret Hill foundered off Lowestoft; of fourteen persons on board twelve were drowned.

—Five pilots were drowned in Bristol Channel through a collision of their pilot cutter with a steamer.

—The Derby favourite, Captain McCalmont's Tetrarch, was scratched, having gone lame.

15. While flying in fog in a flight of ten army aeroplanes from Montrose to Salisbury Plain, Lieut. John Empson, Royal Flying Corps, and George Cudmore, air mechanic, were killed in landing near Northallerton.

18. The Times published two previously unprinted sonnets by Keats.

20. At the bye-election in N.E. Derbyshire, due to the death of Mr. W. E. Harvey (Lab. and L.), Major Harland Bowden (U.) was returned by 6,469 votes; Mr. J. P. Houfton (L.) received 6,155; Mr. J. Martin (Lab.) 3,669.

21. Grave disorder in the Commons. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. III.)

—Suffragist riot outside Buckingham Palace. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. III.)

23. At the Parliamentary bye-election at Ipswich, due to the death of Mr. Silvester Horne (L.), Mr. F. J. C. Ganzoni (U.) was returned by 6,406 votes, Mr. C. F. G. Masterman (L.), Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, receiving 5,874, and Mr. John Scurr (Soc.) 395.

—At Sheerness H. G. Hatton, a naval signalman, was found guilty on charges arising out of the loss of a signal-book of H.M.S. Queen, and sentenced to four years' penal servitude.

—Mr. Gustav Hamel, while flying from Paris to Hendon, disappeared, and was drowned in the Channel.

[Pg 15]

23. At Sandwich, Mr. J. L. C. Jenkins, of Troon, beat Mr. C. O. Hezlet, of Portrush, in the final round of the Amateur Golf Championship by three holes up and two to play. (Mr. Travers and Mr. Ouimet were beaten at an early stage in the contest.)

—A lightship built in Scotland for service on the Sambro Ledges, Nova Scotia, was lost with all hands (fifteen in number) in fog off Lipscomb Harbour, Nova Scotia.

—Heavy storm on the North Sea and Baltic, with some loss of life.

—Arrival at Port Jackson of submarines from Great Britain after a voyage of 12,500 miles under their own steam.

25. Empire Day was celebrated by a review in Hyde Park of upwards of 6,000 boys belonging to naval brigades, scout patrols and cadet corps, with 1,500 members of the National Reserve. The Lord Mayor of London was present, with many representatives of the Dominions.

—In the King's Bench Division, after three days' trial, the libel case of Kemp v. Yexley resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff; damages, 3,000l. The suit was brought by the captain of H.M.S. London against the editor of a paper for naval men, for libel in criticisms reflecting on his action as captain of the ship.

—At the Central Criminal Court Charles Edwin Fenner, a stockbroker, pleaded guilty to fraudulent conversion of securities entrusted to him and was sentenced to four years' penal servitude. Sixteen of the counts of the indictment had reference to his dealings with Lord Murray of Elibank.

26. Announcement that Prince Oscar of Prussia, fifth son of the German Emperor, was betrothed to Countess Ida Bassewitz. (The marriage took place on August 1.)

27. At the Central Criminal Court, before Mr. Justice Darling, Colonel Whitaker, sometime commanding the Yorkshire Light Infantry, and Archibald Minto, one of the employees of Liptons, Limited, were convicted of conspiring that money should be given to Colonel Whitaker to induce him to favour the company in certain catering contracts, and six other employees of Liptons and eight military officers were charged with kindred offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act in connexion with contracts for the supply of Army canteens. Colonel Whitaker was sentenced to six months' imprisonment; the other civilian defendants, save one, were fined from 50l. to 500l.; the remaining civilian and the military defendants were bound over to come up for judgment when called on. The trials, collectively known as the "Canteens Case," had occupied nine days in all. An appeal by Colonel Whitaker was unsuccessful (July 2), but his sentence was eventually reduced to two months. (See post, July 1.)

—At Epsom, the Derby resulted as follows: Mr. H. B. Duryea's Durbar II., 1; Sir E. Cassel's Hapsburg, 2; Mr. H. J. King's Peter the Hermit, 3. Won by three lengths; time, 2 min. 38-2/5 sec. The winner (who started at 20 to 1 against) was owned by an American, and trained in France. Sir J. Thursby's Kennymore, the favourite after the scratching of Tetrarch (see ante, May 13), was eleventh.

—Announcement that a balloon discovered in a forest in Siberia was believed to be that in which the missing explorer Andrée had left for the North Pole in 1897.

[Pg 16]

29. The Canadian Pacific steamer Empress of Ireland, from Quebec to Liverpool, was run down in fog off Father Point by the Norwegian collier Storstad at 1.52 A.M., and sunk in 17 min.; of the 1,467 persons aboard 1,023 were lost, among them Sir H. Seton-Karr and Mr. and Mrs. Laurence Irving, the well-known actors. (See post, July 11.)

—At Epsom, the Oaks resulted as follows: Mr. J. B. Joel's Princess Dorrie, 1; the Earl of Carnarvon's Wassilissa, 2; Sir J. Thursby's Torchlight, 3; time, 2 min. 38-1/5 sec.

30. At the Wharncliffe Silkstone colliery, Barnsley, eleven men were killed and two injured by an explosion.

JUNE.

1. Wargrave Church, Henley, was burnt down by militants; no arrests.

—At Somerleyton, near Lowestoft, four out of a party of five Boy Scouts, with their instructor and their scoutmaster, Mr. T. W. Lory, a local solicitor, were drowned by the capsizing of a small sailboat.

—The Co-operative Congress opened at Dublin. The delegates numbered over 1,300, representing over 3,000,000 members. The volume of their trade for 1913 exceeded 130,000,000l., and the profits 14,260,000l. The employees numbered 145,774, and the wages bill exceeded 8,490,000l.

2. At Oneglia, Italy, Signora Oggioni, wife of an Italian officer, was acquitted of the murder of her husband's orderly. The prosecution alleged an intrigue with him; she claimed to have shot him in defence of her honour.

—At Weymouth Mrs. Joseph Chamberlain (née Endicott), accompanied by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, M.P., unveiled a memorial to Richard Clerk and John Endicott, who sailed from the harbour to assist in founding the colony of Massachusetts, of which Endicott became governor.

—Mr. B. W. Leader, the artist, received the freedom of Worcester.

3. The King's Birthday. A number of elementary school children sent letters of greeting in their own words. A selection was published.

4. Suffragist appeal to the King at his Court by Miss Mary Blomfield, granddaughter of a former Bishop of London.

—In Southampton Water, Lieut. T. S. Cresswell, R.M.L.I., and Commander A. Rice, R.N., were drowned through the fall of their aeroplane.

5. At Florence, Vicenzo Peruggia, who stole "La Joconde" from the Louvre, was convicted and sentenced to one year and fifteen days' imprisonment with payment of costs. (See Chron., 1913, Dec. 12.)

—Volcanic eruptions in the Sangir Islands, Dutch East Indies; much damage to villages and plantations.

5-6. Great storm off the northern coast of New Brunswick; about fifty fishermen drowned.

6. The "Aerial Derby," round London, was won by W. L. Brock; distance, 94½ miles; time, 1 hr. 18 min. 54 sec. Only four competitors completed the course, owing to fog.

[Pg 17]

6. Failure of Chaplin, Milne, Grenfell & Co., Limited, a London banking and financial house; liabilities estimated at 1,965,761l. gross.

7. At Buckingham Palace, a man who had succeeded in entering was arrested as a burglar; the crime was apparently the result of a drunken freak.

—At Sezanne (Marne) a balloon just about to ascend exploded; the pilot and a child were killed, and 106 persons injured.

9. At Cambridge, the new physiological laboratories, given to the University by the Drapers' Company, were opened by Prince Arthur of Connaught.

10. At Oxford in commemoration of the seventh centenary of the death of Roger Bacon, a statue of him was unveiled in the University Museum by Sir A. Geikie, O.M. The centenary was celebrated by a banquet at Merton College on June 25.

—Peace Centenary Costume Ball at the Albert Hall in honour of the 100th anniversary of peace between Great Britain and the United States.

11. Bomb outrage by militant suffragists in Edward the Confessor's Chapel in Westminster Abbey; the Coronation Chair and Stone were slightly injured.

—Salvation Army Congress; reception of international delegates in the Albert Hall. A cordial message of greeting was sent by the King. The Congress sat in a temporary hall between the Strand and Aldwych, June 12-20.

13. The Prince of Wales laid the foundation stone of St. Anselm's Church, Kennington, on the Duchy of Cornwall Estate—his first public function.

—Inspection of 10,000 Boy Scouts on the Horse Guards' Parade by Queen Alexandra, accompanied by the Empress Marie of Russia.

—The American liner New York and the Hamburg-American steamer Pretoria were in collision 400 miles east of Sandy Hook at 3.20 A.M.; the New York was badly damaged; no lives lost.

—The German army airship Z 1 was wrecked in bad weather at Diedenhofen; no lives lost.

—At Meadowbrook, Long Island, England beat the United States in the first Test Polo Match by eight and a half points to three.

14. A heavy storm passed over South London about 1 P.M. Three children were killed by lightning on Wandsworth Common, and two adults and a child in the neighbourhood, while sheltering under trees. In the suburbs roads were flooded, and birds were killed by large hailstones. In less than two hours 1.23 in. of rain fell in Wandsworth, and by 5.30 1.88 in.

15. Heavy storms in Paris from 3 to 7.30 P.M. The sewers burst, and there were subsidences owing to the flooding of unfinished workings of the Metropolitan Railway, notably in the Boulevard Haussman, Avenue d'Antin, and Place St. Philippe du Roule. A taxicab containing a lady was engulfed. About twenty-five lives were lost. The rainfall was 59 millimetres or about 2-3/8 in.

16. At Oxford, a statute for the reform of Responsions was rejected in Congregation by 110 to 73.

[Pg 18]

16. In the second International Polo Test Match at Meadowbrook, Long Island, England beat the United States by four goals to two and three-quarters.

—Severe storms in South Germany.

17. At Reading, an express train from Worcester collided with an excursion train from Bristol at a point where two lines converged; the driver of the express was killed; the two firemen and a lady were injured.

—The German Emperor opened the Hohenzollern Canal from Berlin to the Oder, thus connecting the capital by water with Stettin.

18. At Carrbridge, on the Highland Railway, a culvert, blocked by a sudden cloudburst which had carried away a stone bridge above it, collapsed under an express train; seven persons killed, eight or nine injured.

—At Glasgow, Kingston Dock was burnt, the creosoted piles igniting while being bored with a red-hot iron; four schooners destroyed; damage, 250,000l.

—The Ascot Gold Cup race resulted as follows: Mr. Fairie's Aleppo, 5 years, 9 st. 4 lb., 1; Mr. J. Ryan's Willibrook, 3 years, 7 st. 7 lb., 2; Mr. T. Martin's Junior, 5 years, 9 st. 4 lb., 3. Won by three-quarters of a length; time, 4 min. 25-2/5 sec.

19. Announcement that the Government had refused to give up Somerset House for the University of London.

—At Hillcrest Mines, near Crow's Nest Pass, Alberta, upwards of 190 miners were killed by an explosion.

—On the Nice-Coni line, in construction, the Mont-Grazzien tunnel collapsed; about thirty men were buried, of whom several were killed and injured.

—Severe storms in London; also in Southern Essex, where lightning killed two persons.

—At Prestwick, the open Golf Championship was won by H. Vardon with 306; J. H. Taylor was second with 309.

20. At Fischamend, near Vienna, the Körting dirigible was run into at a great height by a biplane; all on both vessels, numbering nine, were killed.

—Announcement that a thunderstorm and earthquake had devastated the islands north of Papua; great loss of life.

—The air race from London to Manchester and back was won by W. L. Brock, an American; distance, 322 miles; time, 4 hrs, 42 min. 26 sec.

20-21. Rioting at Andover, Hants, due to public sympathy with two women imprisoned for assault.

—At Eisleben, Saxony, the centenary was celebrated of Friedrich König, the first to use steam power in printing.

22. King's Birthday Honours. An Earldom was conferred on Viscount Kitchener of Khartoum, who continued to use his existing title: Baronies of the United Kingdom on Sir H. Cozens-Hardy, Master of the Rolls; Sir Edgar Vincent, Chairman of the Dominions Royal Commission; Major-General J. F. Brocklehurst, C.V.O.; and Sir Leonard Lyell, Bart., sometime[Pg 19] Liberal M.P. for Orkney and Shetland: Privy Councillorships on Lord St. Davids, the Prime Minister of Australia (Hon. Joseph Cook); Mr. H. J. Tennant, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for War; Mr. Ellis J. Griffith, Assistant Home Secretary; and Mr. W. J. Starkie, Chairman of the Irish Board of Intermediate Education. The eight new Baronets included the Lord Mayor of London, Sir T. Bowater; Sir Joseph Beecham, the operatic impresario; and Sir J. W. Benn, L.C.C. Among the twenty-six new Knights were Dr. J. G. Frazer, the eminent anthropologist; Dr. W. H. St. John Hope, a noted archæologist; Dr. S. J. Sharkey, a prominent surgeon; and Dr. Henschel, a conspicuous singer and musician. Earl Beauchamp received the Order of the Garter, and Lord Kinnaird that of the Thistle.

On the occasion of the King's Birthday, the following Colonelcies were conferred on Royal ladies: 18th (Queen Mary's Own) Hussars, on the Queen; 19th (Queen Alexandra's Own Royal) Hussars and Alexandra Princess of Wales's Own (Yorkshire Regt.), on Queen Alexandra; 7th (Princess Royal's) Dragoon Guards, on the Princess Royal; Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, on Princess Louise.

22. German manufacturers visiting England entertained at Guildhall; Herr Dernburg, sometime German Colonial Minister, was among the speakers.

—At Oxford, the Rev. Charles F. Burney, D.Litt., Fellow of St. John's, was appointed Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture, vice the Rev. Canon Cooke, appointed Professor of Hebrew.

23. Postal strike in Paris.

—The Red Star liner Gothland, Montreal to Rotterdam, with eighty-four passengers, ran on the Gunner Rocks near Wolf Rock lighthouse; no lives lost.

24. Encænia at Oxford University. Honorary degrees were conferred on the Duke of Saxe-Coburg, Viscount Bryce, Prof. Ludwig Mitteis of Leipzig, and Dr. Richard Strauss, the eminent composer.

—Alexandra Day. Throughout London and the suburbs artificial roses were sold by ladies in aid of charities patronised by Queen Alexandra. The sum available for distribution among them was 22,000l., or 6,000l. more than in 1913.

—Sexcentenary celebration of the foundation of Exeter College, Oxford.

25. Midnight ball at the Savoy Hotel, London, in aid of the National Institute for the Blind.

26. The King, with the Queen, opened the King George Dock at Hull, and announced that the Mayor of that town would in future bear the title of Lord Mayor.

—Great fire at Salem, Mass.; 10,000 persons homeless; estimated damage to property $10,000,000.

—Earthquake in Sumatra, followed on June 28 by a cloudburst; many natives killed.

—At Christie's, at the sale of the Grenfell collection, a portrait of a man with a red cap, attributed to Titian, realised 13,000 guineas; a landscape[Pg 20] with cattle, by Gainsborough, 8,200 guineas; portrait of Miss Constable, by Romney, 7,200 guineas; Lady Betty Foster, by Lawrence, 5,600 guineas.

27. Outside Cannon Street Station, London, a train to Hastings collided with a train from Plumstead; one passenger killed, twenty injured.

—At Paris, Jack Johnson, the negro pugilist, was defeated by Frank Moran (U.S.) in a boxing match.

28. Murder of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria and the Duchess of Hohenberg, his wife, at Sarajevo. (See For. Hist., Chap. II.)

—The Grand Prix de Paris resulted as follows: Baron M. de Rothschild's Sardanapale, 1; Baron E. de Rothschild's La Farina, 2; Mr. H. B. Duryea's Durbar, 3. Won by a neck; time, 3 min. 11-3/5 sec.

—The Anchor liner California, New York to Glasgow, ran ashore in fog near Tory Island, on the north coast of Ireland; no lives lost. The ship was refloated in August.

29. At Hertford, a pageant began in commemoration of the millenary of the town.

30. Mr. R. E. Prothero (U.) returned unopposed to Parliament for Oxford University, vice Sir William Anson, deceased.

—At Freeport, Long Island, U.S., Mrs. Louise Bailey, wife of a New York manufacturer, was shot by an unseen person while consulting a medical man, Dr. Carman; his wife was arrested on suspicion. [On her trial at the end of October the jury disagreed, and she was released on bail.]

JULY.

1. At Victoria, B.C., Jack King, a Chinese servant, was convicted of the manslaughter in April of his mistress, Mrs. Millard; sentence, penal servitude for life.

—The freedom of Hertford was conferred on the Rt. Hon. A. Balfour, the ex-Premier, who had represented it from 1874 to 1885.

—After some days of warm weather, the temperature in London reached 90°; local thunderstorms followed, doing considerable damage, especially in the Midlands.

—In the House of Lords, Lord Saye and Sele made a statement defending himself from the severe comments of Mr. Justice Darling in the "Canteen Case" (see ante, May 27) on a letter written by him, twelve years earlier, as the representative of a firm of brewers, and used by Colonel Whitaker's counsel in the case. Lord Saye and Sele's explanation was accepted by the Marquess of Crewe, the leader of the House, as satisfactory.

2. Death of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. (See Eng, Hist., Chap. IV. and Obituary.)

—Announcement that Mr. James O'Connor, K.C., had been appointed Solicitor-General for Ireland, in succession to Mr. Jonathan Pim, K.C., appointed Attorney-General on the promotion of Serjeant Moriarty to the Bench.

[Pg 21]

3. In the early morning, Sir Denis Anson, Bart., dived for fun into the Thames at Battersea off a launch returning from a midnight excursion, and was drowned; verdict (July 9) "Accidental death."

—At Christie's, Corot's "Le Rond des Nymphes" realised 6,600 guineas; Troyon's "Un Sous-Bois avec des Vaches," 5,800 guineas; Troyon's "Bœuf's à Labeur," 5,500 guineas; Millet's "La Gardienne du Troupeau," 5,600 guineas. These were from the collection of Mr. Archibald Coats, deceased.

The Civil List pensions granted during the year (to March 31) were:—

4. Close of Henley Regatta. The Grand Challenge Cup was won by Harvard, beating the Union Club, Boston, U.S.; the Stewards' Challenge Cup by the Leander Club, against the Mayence Ruderverein; the Ladies' Challenge Plate by Pembroke College, Cambridge; the Wyiold Challenge Cup by the London Rowing Club; the Thames Challenge Cup by Caius[Pg 22] College, Cambridge; the Visitors' Challenge Cup by Lady Margaret Boat Club, Cambridge; the Diamond Challenge Sculls by Giuseppe Sinigaglia (Lario Club, Como, Italy); the Silver Goblets by Trinity Hall, Cambridge. The Thames, London, and Leander Rowing Clubs' eights, and that of Jesus College, Cambridge, were beaten by foreign crews in heats for the Grand Challenge Cup.

4. In New York, a tenement house was blown up and three men and a woman, all foreign Anarchists, killed, probably by the premature explosion of a bomb.

—The Report on emigration from the United Kingdom for 1913 showed that the loss by migration, exclusive of aliens, was 241,997, or about 71,000 less than in 1912. The proportion going to the oversea Dominions was 715 per 1,000 emigrants, against 760 per 1,000 in 1912.

5. At Bornim, near Potsdam, five men were killed and two seriously injured while amusing themselves by obtaining electric shocks from a broken power wire.

6. Funeral of Mr. J. Chamberlain at Birmingham.

—Near Beaumont-sur-Oise, two tramps were arrested with bombs, said by them to be designed for the Tsar on his next visit to France, but believed to be intended for the French President.

—At the Central Criminal Court, after eight days' trial, Mr. T. W. H. Crosland, an author, was acquitted of conspiring with Lord Alfred Douglas and others to make a false charge against Mr. Robert Ross.

—At Saumur, the airman Legagneux was killed by a fall into the Loire while flying.

7. A statue of Captain James Cook, the navigator, in the Mall, London, was unveiled by Prince Arthur of Connaught.

—A statue of Victor Hugo, who had lived for many years in Guernsey, was unveiled in Candie Park, Guernsey, with great ceremony; the British and French Governments were represented.

—Announcement that Sir Joseph Beecham had bought the Covent Garden Estate from Mr. Mallaby-Deeley, M.P.

8. At Lord's Cricket Ground, Oxford beat Cambridge in the Inter-University Match by 194 runs.

9. At Quebec, the Dufferin Terrace was partly destroyed by fire.

—The Representative Church Council (the Houses of Convocation and of Laymen of the Provinces of Canterbury and York) decided to give women votes in the election of Church Councils, and to admit them to seats on parochial Church Councils.

11. At Quebec, the Court of Inquiry into the loss of the Empress of Ireland found that the collision was due solely to the Storstad porting her helm during the fog. The captain of the Empress of Ireland was exonerated from blame, and Mr. Tufteness, the mate of the Storstad, blamed for altering her course. The conduct of the crews of both vessels was commended.

—At Lord's Cricket Ground, Eton beat Harrow by four wickets.

—At Kennington Oval Cricket Ground, the Players beat the Gentlemen by 241 runs.

[Pg 23]

11. At the first "international" athletic contest between England, Scotland, and Ireland, held at Glasgow, England won six events out of eleven, Scotland three, Ireland two.

—The air race from London to Paris (Hendon to Buc) and back was won by W. L. Brock; his time outward was 3 hrs. 33 min. 24 sec., homeward 3 hrs. 39 min. 42 sec.; only two of six starters completed both journeys.

12. Celebration at Disentis, Switzerland, of the thirteen hundredth anniversary of the foundation of the Benedictine Abbey by St. Sigisbert, an Irish monk, A.D. 614.

14. At Newport, Mon., Prince Arthur of Connaught opened a new lock at the Alexandra Docks.

—Mr. Austen Chamberlain returned unopposed for West Birmingham, vice Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, deceased.

16. At Gravesend Parish Church, two windows in memory of Pocahontus, the famous Indian princess who saved the life of the explorer John Smith, were dedicated by the Bishop of Rochester and unveiled by the American Ambassador.

—At Olympia, Kensington, Georges Carpentier (France) defeated "Gunboat" Smith (America) in the fight for the White Heavy Weight Championship of the world in the sixth round, on a foul.

—At Christie's, a pair of Chinese vases of the Koang-Ho period realised 3,800 guineas.

18. Home Rule Conference arranged. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. IV.)

18-20. Naval display at Portsmouth. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. IV.)

20. At Fort Grange military air station, near Gosport, Lieut. L. C. Hordern, Lancashire Fusiliers, was fatally, and Sergeant Campbell seriously, injured in an aeroplane accident.

—At the Pont d'Empalot near Toulouse, an express from Bayonne ran into a stationary train; seven persons killed, over thirty injured.

21. The Shah of Persia crowned at Teheran.

22. Mr. George Smith, M.A. Oxon, Headmaster of Merchiston Castle Grammar School, Edinburgh, appointed Headmaster of Dulwich College, vice Mr. A. H. Gilkes, M.A. Oxon, resigned.

24. Failure of the Home Rule Conference.

—Tercentenary celebrated of the publication by John Napier of Merchistoun of his discovery of logarithms.

25. Close of the National Rifle Meeting at Bisley. (See next page.)

—Attempt to murder the Khedive of Egypt in Constantinople. (See For. Hist., Chap. VII., 2.)

26. Gun-running by Irish Volunteers at Howth; the Scottish Borderers subsequently fired on the crowd. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. IV.)

27. Announcement that Sir Jeremiah Colman had purchased Reigate Hill, Surrey, for the use of the public.

28. Austria-Hungary formally declared war on Servia. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. IV., and For. Hist., Chaps. II. and III.)

[Pg 24]

28. At Paris, after seven days' trial, Mme. Caillaux was acquitted of murdering M. Gaston Calmette. (See ante, Chron., March 16.)

30. Belgrade taken by the Austrians. Partial mobilisation by Russia. (See For. Hist., Chaps. II. and III.)

—A painting of "An Interior with Figures," by P. de Hoock, realised 8,200 guineas at a London auction sale.

—Lieut. Gran (Norway) flew from Cruden Bay, near Aberdeen, to Stavanger, 400 miles, in 4 hrs. 10 min.

31. The London Stock Exchange was closed by order of the Committee, and the Bank rate raised to 8 per cent. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. IV.)

AUGUST.

1. The Endurance, with Sir Ernest Shackleton's Antarctic expedition, left the Thames on her voyage to the South Polar regions.

—The Bank rate was advanced to 10 per cent.

—The National Penny Bank suspended payment.

—Mobilisation ordered of the German and French armies.

—Germany declared war on Russia and France.

2. Russian troops crossed the East Prussian frontier; German invasion of Luxemburg and France.

—Prayers offered for the nation in churches and chapels throughout the United Kingdom.

—The Admiralty called out the Naval Reserves. Patriotic demonstration before Buckingham Palace.

—Partial Moratorium decreed in the United Kingdom by Royal Proclamation.

3. Announcement of the abandonment of Cowes Regatta by special desire of the King.

—German ultimatum to Belgium.

—Royal Proclamations issued authorising the Admiralty to requisition British ships, prohibiting the use of wireless by British merchant vessels, and forbidding the export of numerous articles described as warlike stores.

—The German Embassy left Paris, the French Embassy Berlin.

—Sir E. Grey's statement in the House of Commons. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. IV.)

4. Order in Council declaring it expedient that the Government should take control of the railways of the United Kingdom.

—British ultimatum to Germany. British Army mobilisation ordered by Proclamation.

—Resignation of British Ministers. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. V.)

—German invasion of Belgium.

5. Earl Kitchener of Khartoum appointed Secretary for War.

—The German mine-layer Königin Luise, a converted liner, sunk by H.M.S. Amphion and the Third Torpedo Flotilla.

[Pg 26]

5. French troops entered Belgium.

6. Vote of Credit for 100,000,000l. and vote of 500,000 men for the Army passed by the House of Commons, after a statement by the Prime Minister.

—Austria-Hungary declared war against Russia.

—H.M.S. Amphion struck a mine in the North Sea and sank; a paymaster and 150 men were lost.

—Bank rate reduced to 6 per cent.

—The Prince of Wales and the Queen appealed for subscriptions for a National Relief Fund.

7. Reopening of British Banks after the extended Bank Holiday.

—Issue of Government notes for 10s. and 1l.

—Montenegro declared herself at war with Austria-Hungary.

8. Bank rate reduced to 5 per cent.

—British Expeditionary Force landing in France.

9. H.M.S. Birmingham sank the German submarine U 15 in the North Sea.

10. State of war between France and Austria-Hungary.

—Lord Islington appointed Under-Secretary for the Colonies, vice Lord Emmot, appointed First Commissioner of Works; and Dr. Christopher Addison, M.P., appointed Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education, vice Mr. C. M. Trevelyan resigned.

—Completion of the purchase of the Crystal Palace.

12. Declaration of war by Great Britain on Austria-Hungary. Proclamation under Defence of the Realm Act, establishing a kind of martial law in Great Britain.

—Announcement that Turkey had purchased the German warships Goeben and Breslau.

14. The Austrian Lloyd liner Baron Gautsch struck a mine off Lussin, Dalmatia, and sank; 150 persons drowned.

15. The Panama Canal formally opened.

—Proclamation by Grand Duke Nicolas of Russia to Poles. (See For. Hist., Chap. III.)

16. Japanese ultimatum to Germany.

—Arrival at Avonmouth of General Huerta, ex-President of Mexico. Entry of the Carranzist General Obregon into Mexico City.

17. The Belgian Court and Government removed from Brussels to Antwerp.

—French Fleet cleared Adriatic up to Cattaro.

18. Germans entered Tirlemont.

19. French reverse in Lorraine.

—Russians defeat Germans at Stallupönen, East Prussia.

20. Death of Pope Pius X. (See Obit.)

—Belgian Army retired to Antwerp.

—At the bye-election for Wicklow (W.) Mr. J. T. Donovan (N.) was returned unopposed, vice Mr. E. P. O'Kelly (N.)

[Pg 27]

20. At Sydney, N.S.W., the President of the British Association, Professor Bateson, delivered the Presidential Address. (See post, Science.)

21. German occupation of Brussels.

—Day of Intercession for the War.

22. Funeral of Pope Pius X.

23. War began between Japan and Germany.

23-26. Four days' battle in France. (See For. Hist., Chap. V.)

24. Fall of Namur.

25. Parliament reassembled. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. V.)

26. Destruction of Louvain.

—The American steamer Admiral Sampson sank after collision with the British steamer Princess Victoria; ten persons drowned.

—The German light cruiser Magdeburg went ashore at the entrance of the Gulf of Finland, and was blown up. A Russian attack had resulted in some loss of life.

27. First British wounded arrived at Folkestone.

—Further Parliamentary Papers published containing additional details of breach with Germany.

28. It was announced in Parliament that Indian troops were on their way from India.

—British Naval victory in the Bight of Heligoland. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. V.)

29. Apia in Samoa surrendered to a British Expeditionary Force.

31. Arrival of the Queen of the Belgians and her children at Dover.

—Russian defeat in East Prussia.

SEPTEMBER.

1. The King received the Belgian Mission to the United States. (See For. Hist., Chap. VIII.)

—Announcement that, by order of the Tsar, St. Petersburg would be known for the future as Petrograd.

—It was reported at Petrograd that Lieut. Sedoff, leader of the Suvorin Polar Expedition, had died and been buried in Kronprinz Rudolf Land.

—At Llandaff, the Bishop's palace was burnt down; many of the valuables, pictures, and books were saved.

3. The French Government left Paris for Bordeaux. (See For. Hist., Chap. I.)

—The election of the Pope resulted, at the third ballot, in favour of Cardinal Della Chiesa, who took the title of Benedict XV.

—The steam drifter Linsdell, and shortly afterwards H.M.S. Speedy, struck mines off the east coast and sank; eight lives lost.

5. H.M.S. Pathfinder was sunk by a mine (or, more probably, a submarine) off the east coast; 259 killed, 16 wounded. The Wilson liner[Pg 28] Runo, from Hull for Archangel, met a similar fate; about twenty-five lives lost.

5. A collision occurred outside Cannon Street between two outgoing trains; eight persons were injured.

7. Announcement that the German cruiser Nürnberg had cut the cable between Fanning Island and British Columbia.

9. The armed merchant cruiser Oceanic, late White Star Line, wrecked off the north coast of Scotland; no lives lost.

—At Doncaster, the St. Leger resulted as follows: Mr. J. B. Joel's Black Jester, 1; Sir J. Thursby's Kennymore, 2; Sir J. Thursby's Cressingham, 3; time, 3 min. 23.8 sec.

10. A troop train was derailed at the Hex River Pass, South Africa; eight persons were killed, eighty-six injured—one fatally.

—Russian advance checked at Allenstein, East Prussia.

11. Pope Benedict XV. issued an appeal for peace.

—Minimum height of recruits raised by War Office to 5 ft. 6 ins. and chest measurement to 35½ inches.

12. The Annual Report of the Development Commission showed that grants had been recommended during the year by that body of 767,387l., of which 472,793l. was intended for the development of agriculture and rural industries. Special grants had been made for veterinary research work for the improvement of live stock. The Commission repeated its warning that it would be obliged to cut down or abandon several of its most beneficial schemes unless Parliament aided it after 1915.

—The Spreewald, an armed German merchant cruiser, with two German colliers, was captured in the North Atlantic by H.M.S. Berwick. (The capture was announced Sept. 23.)

13. The King received Cardinal Mercier at Buckingham Palace. In the afternoon His Eminence, standing on Cardinal Bourne's balcony, blessed 10,000 Irishmen passing beneath in procession.

—The German cruiser Hela was sunk in the North Sea by the British submarine E 9.

14. At Lebanon, Missouri, a train broke through a bridge and fell into the river; over thirty-five persons were reported drowned.

—The German merchant cruiser Cap Trafalgar was sunk off the east coast of South America by the British armed cruiser Carmania (a converted Cunard liner).

—The Australian submarine AE 1 was lost by some unknown accident while returning from patrol work; thirty-five officers and men were lost.

15. The Stock Exchange issued a list of trustee securities with minimum prices, below which its members were forbidden to deal in them.

17. H.M.S. Fisgard II., formerly the Invincible, flagship at the battle of Alexandria in 1882, now fitted up as a floating repair shop, sank in a gale off Portland Bill while being towed; twenty-one of her crew were drowned.

18. Prorogation of Parliament. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. V.)

[Pg 29]

18. Near Astoria, Oregon, the United States merchant steamer Francis H. Leggett foundered in a gale; seventy lives were lost.

—A South African force occupied Lüderitzbucht, German West Africa.

19. The Pacific Mail steamer Ortega, 8,000 tons, Capt. D. R. Kinneir, bound from Valparaiso to Liverpool, escaped from a German cruiser into the Straits of Magellan, through Nelson Strait, a dangerous and quite unsurveyed passage—a daring feat of seamanship.

20. At Zanzibar, H.M.S. Pegasus, while at anchor, was surprised by the German cruiser Königsberg, and disabled; thirty-four of her crew were killed and sixty-one wounded; the Königsberg escaped.

—German bombardment of Rheims Cathedral. (See For. Hist., Chap. I.)

22. Two Parliamentary seats were filled, by arrangement, without opposition. At Hartlepool Sir Walter Runciman (L.) was returned, vice Sir Stephen Furness (L.), deceased; at Bolton Mr. A. H. Gill (Lab.), deceased, was succeeded by Mr. A. H. Tootil (Lab.).

—At 6 A.M., H.M.S. cruiser Aboukir was torpedoed by a German submarine in the North Sea and sank; H.M.S. cruisers Cressy and (two hours later) Hogue suffered the same fate while standing by to save life. The total loss was sixty-two officers and 1,397 men; the saved numbered 917.

—British air raid on Düsseldorf; Flight-Lieut. C. H. Collet dropped three bombs on the Zeppelin sheds, approaching within 400 feet; an attack on the sheds at Cologne was frustrated by fog; all five aviators returned safely. (See Eng. Hist. Chap. V.)

—Madras shelled by the German cruiser Emden; little damage.

24. An attempt was made to wreck the up Folkestone boat express train at Hither Green; no harm was done.

—First Indian troops landed at Marseilles.

26. At Cambridge, the Rev. Edmund Courtenay Pearce, M.A., Fellow and Dean of Corpus Christi College, was elected Master of the College, vice Colonel R. T. Caldwell, LL.D., deceased.

27. First bombs dropped on Paris by a German aeroplane; an elderly gentleman was killed and a little girl badly wounded.

—The Albanian Senate proclaimed Prince Burhan-ed-Din, a son of Abdul Hamid, ruler of the Principality.

28. Announcement of the surrender of Duala (Cameroons) to an Anglo-French force.

29. Announcement that four British ships had been sunk by the German cruiser Emden in the Indian Ocean, and a fifth, the collier Buresk, captured.

OCTOBER.

1. Announcement that the Rev. Canon George Wilfrid Blenkin, Vicar of Hitchin and sometime Fellow and Chaplain of Trinity College, Cambridge, was appointed Dean of St. Albans, vice the Very Rev. Walter J. Lawrance, D.D., deceased.

—In the King's Bench Division, a compulsory winding-up order was[Pg 30] made for the National Penny Bank. The Government enabled the Bank of England to render assistance, whereby depositors were paid 5s. in the pound at once. The management of the Bank was officially declared (Nov. 5) to have been unsatisfactory.

1. Announcement that seven German merchant steamers and a gunboat had been captured by H.M.S. Cumberland off the Cameroons.

2. The Admiralty announced that a minefield for defensive purposes had been laid in the North Sea.

—On the Highland Railway, the mail train caught fire; the guard was injured and sixty mailbags destroyed.

—On the arrival of the steamship Komagata Maru from Vancouver at Budge Budge, near Calcutta, with British Indians who had been refused admittance to British Columbia, some of the emigrants attempted to walk to Calcutta instead of proceeding direct by train to the Punjaub. Eventually they fired on the police, killing one and wounding others, and were fired upon by troops; sixteen rioters and two spectators were killed. (See For. and Col. Hist., Chap. V.)

5. Exactly two months from its commencement, the National Relief Fund reached 3,000,000l.

6. Off Schiermonnikoog, H.M.S. Submarine E 5 sunk the German destroyer S 179; most of the crew of the latter were reported saved.

—President Poincaré visited Sir John French's headquarters and exchanged congratulatory telegrams with the King.

7-8. The bombardment of Antwerp began at midnight.

9. Fall of Antwerp. (See For. Hist., Chap. IV.)

—Announcement that three British naval airmen had destroyed a Zeppelin at Düsseldorf.

10. Death of the King of Roumania. (See For. Hist., Chap. III.)

11. Two German aeroplanes flew over Paris soon after midday, dropping twenty bombs, of which one struck Notre Dame; three persons killed, fourteen injured.

—The Russian cruiser Pallada was sunk, with all her crew, in the Baltic by a German destroyer; two German destroyers sunk by the Russians.

11-12. Bombardment of Arras.

12. Warning by the Mayor of Gravesend regarding hostile aircraft.

13. The Prime Minister received a deputation of women protesting against a possible revival of the Contagious Diseases Acts, in view of the evils that had arisen in the neighbourhood of certain camps.

—Announcement of Maritz's rebellion in South Africa.

14. The first Canadian troops arrived at Plymouth.

—Fire at the Monfalcone Shipbuilding Works, near Trieste; a large cruiser building for the Austro-Hungarian Government was destroyed.

15. Announcement that H.M. cruiser Yarmouth had sunk the German liner Markomannia near Sumatra, and captured the Greek steamer Pontoporos. Both had been coaling the Emden—the latter compulsorily.

[Pg 31]

15. Near Bucharest, two English M.P.'s, Mr. Noel Buxton and Mr. C. R. Buxton, were shot at and wounded by a Young Turk while proceeding to King Carol's funeral; they recovered.

—H.M.S. Hawke was sunk by a submarine, and H.M.S. Theseus attacked, in the northern waters of the North Sea. The number saved was seventy, leaving 524 killed and missing.

16. On the Didcot-Newbury line, in the evening, at a level crossing, a goods train struck a motor-car containing ladies returning from a concert at Churn Camp; one lady killed, two injured.

17. Four German destroyers, with all their crews but thirty-one, were sunk in the North Sea by H.M.S. Undaunted and four destroyers, the Lance, Lennox, Legion, and Loyal; one British officer and seventy-four men wounded.

—Severe earthquake in Greece and Asia Minor; thirty-three miles of railway in Asia Minor damaged, and 3,000 peasants reported killed.

—The Japanese cruiser Takahichio was sunk by a mine in Kiao-chao Bay; about 254 persons believed lost.

—In Camberwell and Deptford a number of shops, belonging, or believed to belong, to Germans, were wrecked by a mob.

18. H.M.S. submarine E 3 reported sunk on the North Sea coast.

19. Announcement that a "Distinguished Service Medal" had been instituted for non commissioned officers and privates in the Royal Marines, and for petty officers, men and boys in the Royal Navy.

—At Marquise, near Boulogne, a train with Belgian refugees was partly telescoped by a following goods train; thirty-one killed, eighty-one wounded.

—Attempted rising in Portugal. (See For. Hist., Chap. IV.)

20. Announcement that the Tsar had decided to prohibit for ever the Government sale of alcohol in Russia.

—In Montreal, a block of nine houses, with three shops, was blown up, probably by Austrians; four killed, including three of the perpetrators. The occupants were chiefly Russians.

21. Trafalgar Day. The tributes at the Nelson column included mementoes of the Aboukir and Hawke. Crowds of people visited the square.

—Extensive arrests of Germans and Austrians in London and many English towns.

22. Announcement that German and Austrian merchant ships must leave the Suez Canal.

23. Announcement that Dr. Arthur Berriedale Keith, D.Litt. Edin., D.C.L. Oxon, had been appointed Regius Professor of Sanskrit and Comparative Philology in Edinburgh University, vice Dr. Julius Eggeling, resigned.

24. H.M.S. Badger rammed (and was believed to have sunk) a German submarine off the Dutch coast.

—President Poincaré and Earl Kitchener were unanimously elected[Pg 32] Lord Rector of Glasgow University and Lord Rector of Edinburgh University respectively.

26. The French liner Amiral Ganteaume, with 2,500 refugees on board, bound from Calais to Havre, was torpedoed twelve miles off Cape Grisnez by a German submarine, and sank; four engine-room hands were killed. The cross-Channel steamer Queen (S.E. & C.R.) took off the passengers, but about twenty were killed, chiefly in trying to jump aboard her in a panic.

—Importation of sugar into the United Kingdom prohibited.

—An Anglo-French force entered Edea, Cameroons.

27. News of the risings headed by General Beyers in the Western Transvaal and by General De Wet in the Orange Free State.

—The steamer Manchester Commerce struck a mine near Tory Island, off the north-west coast of Ireland, and foundered; thirty of the crew were saved; the captain and thirteen were lost. The Admiralty consequently warned shipping to pass by Skerryvore and the Hebrides.

—Closing by order of several entrances to the Thames.

—Announcement that Mrs. Carman had been released on bail after a disagreement of the jury in her trial for murder. (See ante, June 30.)

28. Completion of the piercing of Moutier-Granges tunnel, on the line between Delle and Berne, Switzerland, saving thirteen miles on the route from Paris to Milan via, the Lötschberg.

—Announcement that the Germans had invaded Angola.

—At Sarajevo, sentence was pronounced on the persons convicted of conspiring to murder the Archduke Francis Ferdinand and the Duchess of Hohenberg. (See Chron. June 28, and For. Hist., Chap. III.) Four were sentenced to be hanged, three, including the actual murderer, who was too young for the death penalty, to twenty years' penal servitude, and seven others to shorter terms.

—At Penang, the German cruiser Emden sank the Russian cruiser Zhemchug and a French destroyer; eighty-six lives lost; three officers and 112 men injured.

29. Resignation of Prince Louis of Battenberg. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. V.)

—Bombardment by Turkish warships of Black Sea ports. Turkey thus entered into the war.

30. The British hospital ship Rohilla (late a P. & O. liner) proceeding from Leith to the Continent to fetch Belgian wounded, went ashore just south of Whitby, having probably struck a mine; after great difficulties, the last set of survivors were rescued on November 1, after thirty-six hours' exposure to heavy seas. About seventy-five lives were lost; the saved numbered 146.

—Lord Fisher of Kilverstone appointed First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, vice Prince Louis of Battenberg, resigned.

—The German cruiser Königsberg bombarded by H.M.S. Chatham in the Rufigi River, East Africa, and her exit prevented by sinking colliers.

[Pg 33]

30. The Morning Post published the letter written by the German Emperor to the late Lord Tweedmouth when First Lord of the Admiralty, assuring him that the German Navy was not intended to challenge British Naval Supremacy. (See A.R., 1908, Pt. I., p. 58.)

31. Gallant charge of the London Scottish near Ypres.

—The cruiser Hermes, seaplane carrier, was sunk at 10.30 A.M. in the Straits of Dover while returning from Dunkirk; twenty-two killed, seven wounded.

NOVEMBER.

1. Sea-fight off the Chilean coast; H.M.S. Good Hope and Monmouth sunk. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. V.)

—The German Emperor reported to have had a narrow escape from bombs dropped by a British airman at Thielt.

—Foreign Office statement of repeated provocations offered by the Porte to the Powers of the Triple Entente, culminating in attacks on Russia and project of invasion of Egypt. (See For. Hist., Chap. III.)

2. British reverse in German East Africa. (See For. and Col. Hist., Chap. VII.)

—Municipal elections throughout England and Wales. By arrangement, contests were avoided almost everywhere.

—Admiralty announcement of restriction of navigation in the North Sea and on the North of Scotland and of Ireland, owing to indiscriminate scattering of German mines.

—Bombardment of the Dardanelles forts by an Anglo-French Squadron.

—Bombardment of Akabah by H.M.S. Minerva.

3. United States elections; large Republican gains.

4. The German cruiser Yorck struck a mine (or was sunk by a British submarine) off Jahde Bay and sank; about half the crew drowned.

5. British declaration of war with Turkey; Cyprus annexed to Great Britain by Order in Council.

—Military execution in the Tower of Karl Lody, convicted of espionage by court-martial, November 2.

—The Earl of Annesley and Flight-Lieutenant C. Beevor, R.N., shot down near Ostend while crossing in an aeroplane from Eastchurch to France.

6. At Edinburgh, William Drummond Dick, recently a coal importer at Berlin, sentenced to five years' penal servitude for attempting to sell coal to Germany.

7. Surrender of Tsingtau. (See For. Hist., Chap. VI.)

—Admiralty announcement of the occupation of Fao, at the mouth of the Shatt-el-Arab. (See For. Hist., Chap. V.)

9. Ministers at the Guildhall. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. V.)

—The Lord Mayor's Show included contingents from the Canadian, Newfoundland, and New Zealand troops, and also from the Honourable[Pg 34] Artillery Company, the London Scottish, and other London Territorial Regiments, and the Officers' Training Corps of the City of London School.

9. M. Rodin presented to the British nation twenty of his statues, recently exhibited in London, as a token of admiration for its heroes.

—Announcement that the German cruiser Emden was sunk by H.M.A.S. Sydney of the Australian Navy, on November 9, while attempting to destroy the wireless station at the Cocos or Keeling Islands, and that the German cruiser Königsberg had been discovered on October 30 (see that date).

11. Opening of Parliament. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. V.)

—H.M.S. Niger torpedoed in the Downs, two miles off Deal; all the officers and crew saved; four men injured.

14. Death of Earl Roberts at St. Omer. (See post, Obituary.)

—The Royal Society medals were awarded as follows: Royal Medal to Prof. Ernest W. Brown, F.R.S., for astronomical investigations, chiefly in the lunar theory, and to Prof. William J. Sollas, F.R.S., for palæontological researches; the Copley Medal to Sir Joseph Thomson, for discoveries in physical science; the Romford Medal to Lord Rayleigh, for his numerous researches in optics; the Davy Medal to Prof. William Jackson Pope, for researches on stereo-chemistry; the Darwin Medal to Prof. E. B. Poulton, for researches in heredity; and the Hughes Medal to Prof. John S. Townsend, F.R.S., for his researches on the electric behaviour of gases.

16. Official announcement of nine awards of the Victoria Cross—the first in the War.

17. Announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the new war taxation and war loan. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. V.)

—The Prince of Wales appointed A.D.C. to F.M. Sir John French.

—At Amiens, fifteen bombs were dropped by German aeroplanes; a gasholder exploded; one man killed, one injured.

—German bombardment of Libau; Russian bombardment of Trebizond.

—Turkish defeat on the Shatt-el-Arab, (See For. Hist., Chap. V.)

18. The Russian Black Sea battleship division engaged the Goeben off Sebastopol; she retired seriously damaged.

19. Riot among German prisoners in camp near Douglas, Isle of Man; five killed, one fatally injured. The jury at the inquest exonerated the authorities, in view of the riotous conduct of the prisoners.

—Funeral of Earl Roberts in St. Paul's.

—Announcement that the Rev. John Pentland Mahaffy, D.C.L., had been appointed Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, vice Dr. Traill, deceased.

—Announcement that Dr. Walter Ramsden, Senior Demonstrator of Physiology at Oxford University, was elected Johnston Professor of Bio-Chemistry at Liverpool University, vice Dr. Benjamin Moore, resigned.

20. Turkish bombardment of Tuapse.

[Pg 35]

21. British raid on the Zeppelin airship factory at Friedrichshafen. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. V.)

—Basra occupied by British. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. V.)

23. The German submarine U 18 was rammed and sunk by a British patrol vessel off the north coast of Scotland; she subsequently rose, surrendered, and foundered; one man killed.

—The German destroyer S 124 was sunk by collision with the British steamer Anglo-Dane off Falsterbro.

—The Cunard freight steamer Malachite, from Havre to Liverpool, was shelled four miles off Havre by a submarine and sunk; the crew landed in their own boats.

—The U.S. troops evacuated Vera Cruz.

24. First Indian soldier recommended for the V.C.—Havildar Gangna Singh, a Dogra, 57th Wilde's Rifles.

26. H.M.S. battleship Bulwark blew up at Sheerness at 7.35 A.M.; about 750 lives were lost.

—The British merchant steamer Primo was sunk off Cape Antifer by a German submarine; crew saved.

27. Announcement that Dr. C. S. Loch had resigned the secretaryship of the Charity Organisation Society, which he had held since 1875.

—Earthquake in Western Greece and the Ionian Islands; at Leucadia, twenty-three persons reported killed, fifty injured; great damage also at Corfu.

—At the Central Criminal Court, in the trial of Lord Alfred Douglas for libelling Mr. Robert Ross, the jury disagreed; a nolle prosequi was entered December 10.

29. December 4. The King visited the front in France. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. V.)

30. At the bye-election for Londonderry City, due to the death of Mr. D. C. Hogg (L.), Sir James Dougherty (L.) was returned unopposed. His opponent, Mr. J. P. Goode, a "Federal Imperialist," was disqualified on the informality of his nomination papers.

DECEMBER.

2. At the Cleckheaton Chemical Works, Heckmondwike, seven lives were lost by a lyddite explosion.

3. Riot among interned Belgian soldiers near Zeist, Holland; the guard fired, killing seven and wounding twenty-two.

3-8. Great Austrian defeat in Serbia.

4. Mr. James Cosgrove (N.) returned unopposed as M.P. for Galway (E.), vice Mr. John Roche, deceased.

5. War precautions in the English Channel.

—At Riardo, between Rome and Naples, a passenger train for Naples was partly telescoped by a following goods train; eleven persons were killed or mortally injured, about fifty less seriously injured.

[Pg 36]

5. The German mercantile cruiser Prince Eitel Friedrich sank the British steamer Charcas about seventy miles south of Valparaiso; the crew were landed.

—French air raid announced on the Zeppelin sheds at Freiburg-im-Breisgau.

5-6. Heavy gale; serious floods in Wales.

7. Defeat and death of General Beyers in South Africa. (See For. and Col. Hist., Chap. VII.)

—The Rev. L. R. Phelps elected Provost of Oriel College, Oxford, vice Dr. L. Shadwell, resigned.

—Severe storm on the United States coast from Maine to North Carolina; many wrecks.

8. Off Barrow, the oil-tank steamer Vedra stranded and exploded; thirty-four persons were lost, two saved.

—In the King's Bench Division, an action by Sir John Brunner and Sir Alfred Mond against Mr. R. T. Palmer, a Leicester manufacturer, who, being excited by the war, had written addressing them as "German swine," was settled by an apology and payment of costs.

—British naval victory off the Falkland Islands. (See For. Hist., Chap. V.)

9. At the Parliamentary bye-election for King's County (Tullamore), due to the death of Mr. E. Haviland Burke (N.), Mr. E. J. Graham (I.N.) was returned by 1,667 votes, Mr. P. F. Adams (N.) receiving 1,588.

—At the Durham Assizes, before Mr. Justice Shearman, Nicolaus Emil Hermann Adolf Ahlers, recently German Consul at Sunderland and a naturalised Englishman, was convicted of high treason and sentenced to death, he having incited and assisted German reservists in England to join the German forces after the declaration of war. (The conviction was quashed on December 18 by the High Court.)

—The Edison Works at West Orange, New Jersey, burnt down; estimated damage $5,000,000.

10. Lieut.-Gen. Sir James Wolfe Murray appointed Chief of the Imperial General Staff, vice Lieut.-Gen. Sir Charles Douglas, deceased.

11, 12. Suspension of the London tramway service owing to an accident at a generating station.

12. On board the s.s. Batavier V., at Tilbury, for Rotterdam, a box which broke during shipment contained a young German lieutenant, Otto Koehn, who was attempting escape to Germany and had been interned at Dorchester.

—Announcement that Russia had declined the Christmas truce suggested by the Pope.

13. In the Dardanelles the British submarine B 11, Lieut.-Com. Holbrook, torpedoed and sank the Turkish battleship Messudiyeh.

14. Serbian army re-entered Belgrade.

16. German bombardment of Hartlepool, Scarborough and Whitby. (See Eng. Hist., Chap. V.)

[Pg 37]

17. Egypt was proclaimed a British Protectorate, and Lieut.-Col. Sir Arthur Henry MacMahon, G.C.V.O., appointed British Commissioner.

—During a performance in the 86th Street Theatre, New York, five lions escaped; one was eventually killed in the street, the rest recaptured; the police had fired on them, wounding three persons.

—The Austro-Hungarian naval cadet training ship Beethoven was reported to have struck a mine near Trieste and sunk, with the loss of all on board.

18. The Khedive Abbas II. of Egypt deposed; Prince Hussein Kamel Pasha, a son of the ex-Khedive Ismail, appointed Sultan of Egypt.

—Meeting of the Kings of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, at Malmö.

19. The Donaldson (cargo) liner Tritonia, from Partington (Manchester Ship Canal) for St. John, N.B., struck a mine off the North of Ireland; the crew escaped.

20. Herbertshire Castle, Denny, Stirlingshire, was burnt down in the early morning; two young girl visitors and a lady secretary lost their lives.

21. The United States Supreme Court decided that Harry Thaw must be extradited from New Hampshire to New York (A.R., 1913, Chron., Aug. 17.)

24. A German aeroplane dropped a bomb on Dover, missing the Castle; little damage.

24, 25. A German aeroplane dropped bombs on Nancy; two persons killed, about twelve injured.

25. British air and sea raid on Cuxhaven,

—German aeroplane over Sheerness; the airman was shot at, and probably killed.

27. A British destroyer wrecked near St. Andrews; all hands saved.

28. Sudden storm in southern England; at Clapham a house was blown down, killing one person and injuring others.

29. At Edinburgh, Kate Hume, aged seventeen, of Dumfries, was convicted of forging and altering two letters purporting to relate German outrages on her sister; she was released on probation.

30. German aeroplane raid on Dunkirk; four aeroplanes dropped seventeen bombs intended for military buildings, but they fell in the market-place and streets; fifteen killed, thirty-two wounded, including many women.

—The Prussian casualty lists, numbering 112, gave the total of killed, wounded and missing as 771,073. The eighty-three Saxon, eighty-five Würtemberg, 130 Bavarian, and thirteen naval casualty lists increased this total by over 500,000. Some estimates, however, put the total German losses much higher.

[Pg 38]

RETROSPECT
OF
LITERATURE, SCIENCE AND ART IN 1914.

LITERATURE.

There is an undoubted temptation in reviewing the Literature of 1914 to consider it from two obvious points of view: that published, or already in the Press, before the declaration of war with Germany, and that issued afterwards. But, although the outbreak of war caused a momentary pause in the operations of many publishers, it did not affect the flow of volumes already announced, though it has doubtless seriously reduced future commitments.

In dealing with the first half of the year, our attention is drawn to a more than usually numerous list of important works of mental and artistic culture. The students of History, too, relax nothing of their strenuous ardour, and writers upon Theological questions abound. It will be obvious therefore that in the present brief survey only a certain portion of all the multitudinous literary activities of the year can be noticed.

To begin with an appealing human interest,—many books of Biography have been issued, showing how unabated is the world's concern in the life-stories of great men and women. Much critical attention has been given to the celebration of the Roger Bacon sept-centenary on June 10 at Oxford, and the contributory papers of British and Foreign savants are accordingly printed by Mr. Milford. The Life and Works of the "Admirable Doctor" as given by Mr. J. D. Bridges, is also edited by Mr. H. Gordon Jones (Williams & Norgate). In connexion with the notice of the famous Schoolman it is interesting to note that another distinguished Oxonian, Mr. Allen, the well-known editor of the "Letters of Erasmus," has published his Lectures on that great antagonist of the later Schoolmen, under the title of The Age of Erasmus (Oxford, Clarendon Press; London, Milford). This is conveniently supplemented by Father Hartmann Grisar's Luther (Kegan Paul), and by a study of Calvin, by H. Y. Reyburn, B.D. (Hodder & Stoughton). Here too might be mentioned the work of another distinguished Roman ecclesiastic—the Rev. Horace Mann, D.D., whose Lives of the Popes has arrived at its tenth volume, carrying their history up to 1198 (Kegan Paul). Other famous Ecclesiastics dealt with in sympathetic vein are Saint Augustin, by Louis Bertrand (Constable), translated by Vincent O'Sullivan; and two authors deal with the famous "Clement of Alexandria"—first the Rev. R. B. Tollinton, B.D., Rector of Tendring[Pg 39] (Williams & Norgate); also Dr. John Patrick, in The Croall Lectures for 1899-1900 (Blackwood). Messrs. Lee Warner continue the edition of Vasari's Lives which is edited and translated by Mr. Gaston du C. de Vere, now in its seventh volume, and a Study of Boccaccio by M. H. Hauvette, one of the leading writers on that great medieval master, is published by M. M. Armand Colin (Paris).

Turning to a later period, we get the late Paul Janet's important work on Fénelon, translated and edited by Victor Leuliette (Sir Isaac Pitman), and the joint-lives of John and Sarah, Duke and Duchess of Marlborough (1660-1744), by S. J. Reid (Murray). Suitably following this, comes The Life of Charles, Third Earl Stanhope, begun by his great-great-granddaughter, Miss Ghita Stanhope, and continued by Mr. G. P. Gooch (Longmans). Coming to studies and lives of eminent statesmen of modern times, we have The House of Cecil, by G. Ravenscroft Dennis (Constable), a Life of Sir John Lubbock (Lord Avebury), by H. G. Hutchinson (Murray), a few brief monographs on Mr. Joseph Chamberlain,—one of these contributed by Lord Milner and others,—and, above all, we have the brilliant continuation, by Mr. Buckle, of the late Mr. Monypenny's Life of Benjamin D'Israeli (Murray). Mr. Henry James's Notes of a Son and Brother (Macmillan) has naturally attracted attention, and there have been two books on Tolstoy, one, which is authoritative, by his son, Count Ilya Tolstoy, translated by J. Calderon (Chapman & Hall). Mr. Francis Gribble has attempted the Life of the aged Austrian Emperor (Nash), and to balance the interest we are drawn to a sketch of another great Ruler, the Tsar Nicholas II., translated from the Russian, and issued by Mr. Hugh Rees. We are never weary of books on the great French Masters, so that a study of two of them,—Balzac and Flaubert, by another eminent Frenchman, M. Emile Faguet (Constable), is welcome. Two authors have also been attracted to the writings of Paul Verlaine: Mr. Stefan Zweig, translated by O. F. Theis (Boston, Luce & Co.; Dublin and London, Maunsell), and a small monograph is offered by Mr. Wilfred Thorley (Constable). In Italian Literature we notice the continuation of the Crispi Memoirs (published in their translated form, by Messrs. Hodder & Stoughton), and a volume on Cavour and the Making of Modern Italy (Putnam), 1816-61, by Pietro Orsi. Coming nearer home we welcome the Memoirs of Admiral Lord Charles Beresford, by himself (Methuen), which, as might be expected, are excellent reading, and we also note various unauthoritative monographs and sketches of prominent modern Generals and Statesmen, such as brief Lives of Lord Kitchener, Sir John French, President Poincaré, General Joffre, and several of Lord Roberts. Perhaps the greatest Biographical sensation of the year has been provided by Mrs. Parnell's Life of her husband, Charles Stewart Parnell (Cassell). Among studies of celebrated women there are notices of the Brontës, of Lady Hester Stanhope, and a valuable work on The Life and Times of Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, by A. E. P. B. Weigall, Inspector-General of Antiquities for the Government of Egypt (Blackwood). Colonel Haggard's Remarkable Women of France, is also a fascinating volume (Stanley Paul).

The realm of Philosophy in the publications of the year is, as usual, largely dominated by distinguished foreigners. Every writer is haunted by recollections of Bergson, who, it must be confessed, has won a large and[Pg 40] serious audience in this country. Dr. G. R. Dodson writes on Bergson and the Modern Spirit (Lindsay Press); Mr. Bertrand Russell and Mr. H. Wildon Carr publish their discussion of The Philosophy of Bergson (Cambridge, Bowes & Bowes); Miss Stebbing, however, in her Pragmatism and French Voluntarism takes up the Professor's gage (Cambridge University Press) and questions his conclusions. We welcome a volume from yet another distinguished Frenchman, Professor Boutroux's Natural Law in Science and Philosophy, in the authorised translation by F. Rothwell (Nutt). Then there are translations of famous German philosophers, Kant, by Lord Redesdale (Lane), Essays on Nietzsche by that distinguished scholar and critic, Georges Brandes (Heinemann), and Mr. Meyrick Booth's translation of Eucken's Essays (Fisher Unwin). From Italy we are delighted to have Professor Aliotta's work, The Idealistic Reaction against Science, as translated for us by Agnes McCaskill (Macmillan), and The Greek Problems of Professor Bernardino Varisco, translated by R. C. Lodge (Allen). Professor Burnet of St. Andrews likewise turns to the study of the Ancients, in his Greek Philosophy, from Thales to Plato in this first issue (Macmillan), as also does Mr. Carritt in his Theory of Beauty (Methuen). From the Cambridge University Press we have Mr. C. D. Broad's Perception, Physics and Reality. Sir Bampfylde Fuller publishes his Life and Human Nature with Mr. Murray, and Messrs. Longmans issue an important work by Dr. Coffey, Professor of Logic and Metaphysics at Maynooth College, entitled Ontology, or the Theory of Being. The fourth and last volume of his History of European Thought in the Nineteenth Century is offered by Mr. Merz (Blackwood).

The students of Psychology have no doubt been excited by Sir Oliver Lodge's grave and ex cathedra assertion of proofs of Life after (so-called) Death. Other minds seem to move in the same direction, and Dr. Mooney debates the subject of Re-incarnation from the medically scientific point of view that many, who would be sceptical of other attitudes, could accept. How You Live Again is the book's title (Manchester, The Pons Press). The Proceedings of the Society for Psychological Research are published by Mr. MacLehose of Glasgow.

In Sociology we get so much that is useful that it is quite impossible to follow the list of publications. Among those which, however, call for notice is the work of a distinguished French contemporary, La Formation de l'Anglais Moderne, by Paul Decamps (Armand Colin). Another brilliant foreign writer, Signor Guglielmo Ferrero, offers us a comparative study of Ancient Rome and Modern America (Putnam). Social Work in London (1869-1912), being a History of the Charity Organisation Society, is edited by Dr. Helen Bosanquet (Murray). Jewish Life in Modern Times is also worth mention (Methuen).

The reference to Jewish life carries us very naturally to the East and, to Bible Literature. Mr. Claude Montefiore's Judaism and St. Paul (Max Goschen) seems to offer a link between the Old Testament and the New, and is a most valuable—if not absolutely convincing—contribution to the Pauline problem. New Testament Criticism: its History and Results, by J. A. M'Clymont, D.D. (The Baird Lectures for 1910-11) (Hodder and Stoughton), is but one of a host of Theological publications of importance. On the same subject we also get The New Testament in the Twentieth[Pg 41] Century, by the Rev. Maurice Jones, B.D. (Macmillan). The Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures has now published its third volume of New Testament text. This sustains the high level of Scholarship which we have come to expect from its learned editor, the Rev. Cuthbert Lattey, S.J. It is published by Messrs. Longmans.

Among the notable Theological volumes of the year it is only possible to notice one here and there, and among these must be included one or two issues of Texts, such as The Epistles of St. Paul from the Codex Laudianus, by E. S. Buchanan (Sacred Latin Texts) (Heath, Cranton & Ouseley). The history of this valuable MS., which dates from the ninth century, is briefly that it was stolen from Wurzburg when it was sacked by the Swedes in 1631, and was purchased by Archbishop Laud, who gave it into the keeping of the Bodleian Library. Irenæus of Lugdunum is presented to us by F. P. Montgomery Hitchcock, with Foreword by Professor Swete (Cambridge University Press). The Religious Philosophy of Plotinus and Some Modern Philosophies of Religion, by the Dean of St. Paul's (The Lindsay Press), is a book few thoughtful readers will care to miss, also not a few will like to read the late Father Benson's impressions of Lourdes (Lond., Herder). Dr. Skinner, Principal of Westminster College, Cambridge, publishes a learned work on the controversy concerning The Divine Name in Genesis (Hodder and Stoughton), and Dr. H. J. Wicks traces The Doctrine of God, in the Jewish Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature during the two centuries before Christ and the first century A.D. (Hunter & Longhurst); Dr. Oesterley, Warden of the Society of the Apocrypha, London Diocese, also edits The Books of the Apocrypha (R. Scott). One of the things not to be overlooked is the printing of a Lecture on The Spiritual Message of Dante, delivered in Harvard University (1904), by Dr. Boyd Carpenter (Williams & Norgate). The Canticles of the Christian Church, Eastern and Western, in Early Medieval Times, by J. Mearns (Cambridge University Press), is attractive to those who care for literary antiquities and survivals. Much of the year's output has again been devoted to the discussion of Mysticism, but exigencies of space will not permit individual reference to books or writers.

Archæological research has been actively pursued during the year, and the various Surveys of India, Ceylon, and Nubia have published monographs, also The Egyptian Exploration Fund has launched its new venture—The Journal of Egyptian Archæology,—and continues the issue (Part X.) of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. The particular rolls now edited under the learned supervision of Dr. Grenfell and Dr. Hunt are among the most famous of their discoveries—including, as they do, parts of an extra-Canonical Gospel, and fragments of the two famous Lyric Poets, Sappho and Alcæus. This discovery, needless to add perhaps, has provided one of the literary sensations of the year, and goes far to justify the importance of the work of research in that cradle and tomb of almost all Antiquity—Egypt.

The British Museum has done admirable work in cataloguing its collection of Egyptian Scarabs, as also in dealing with accounts of the Egyptian and Assyrian Sculptures in its possession (British Museum). These last are profusely illustrated, and are edited by Dr. Wallis Budge. The Palestine Exploration Fund issues its Annual for 1912-13. Coming[Pg 42] nearer home, we are glad to welcome The Bronze Age in Ireland, by Mr. George Coffey, Keeper of the Irish Antiquities in the National Museum, and Mr. E. C. R. Armstrong's Irish Seal-Matrices and Seals—both works issued by Messrs. Hodges & Figgis, of Dublin. Professor Haverfield writes on Roman Britain in 1913 (Brit. Acad. Supp. Paper) (Milford).

Anthropology, likewise, has made great strides throughout the year. Much attention has been given to aboriginal tribes and their customs, both in Northern and Central Africa, in Nigeria, also in Northern Australia, where Mr. Baldwin Spencer (Special Commissioner for Aboriginals in the Northern Territory) continues the investigations he formerly pursued with his friend, the late Mr. Gillen, to whose memory the work is dedicated (Macmillan).

As was mentioned last year, the output of Oriental literature grows apace. Much of this is due to the awakening of China, India and the East generally. The part the Chinese are taking in this renaissance of Oriental culture is indicated by the first issue of a Chinese Review (monthly), owned, edited and printed (in London) entirely by Chinamen. Interest, too, in Oriental literature has been fostered largely in English University circles, and under the enlightened and scholarly direction of the British Museum. Oxford, Cambridge and London vie with one another to produce scholarly editions of Eastern Texts or Dissertations on the ancient Religions of India, Assyria, Egypt. Mohammedanism too is not overlooked, or the Literature of Modern Persia. For particular details of the principal Oriental Literature dealt with, the publications of the British Museum, as well as of the before-mentioned Universities, are the surest guide.

Classics are yet, happily for us, under the fine inspiration of Professor Gilbert Murray, who though resting from the arduous labours of previous years, revises the proofs of Mr. R. T. Elliot's edition of The Acharnians of Aristophanes (Oxford, Clarendon Press; London, Milford), and, in collaboration with Miss Jane Harrison, affords his sympathetic approval to Mr. A. K. Thomson's Studies in the Odyssey (Oxford, Clarendon Press; London, Milford). Dr. A. S. Way continues his rendering of Sophocles in English Verse (Macmillan), and Mr. F. M. Cornford, in his Origin of Attic Comedy (Arnold), associates himself with Professor Gilbert Murray in ascribing the beginnings of Greek Comedy to the Ritual Drama. Zeus; A Study in Ancient Religion, by Mr. A. B. Cook, Vol. I., comes from the Cambridge University Press, and we welcome the theory of Miss Gladys M. N. Davis, Classical Scholar, late Royal University of Ireland, in her learned volume, The Asiatic Dionysos, that the origin of the Dionysos Cult was Asiatic rather than Egyptian (Bell). Coming to Roman Classics, the Loeb Classical Library (Heinemann) continues its translations, and Sir Robert Allison translates for us five of the Plays of Plautus (Humphreys).

In the department of English Prose Literature an especially fine harvest is to be gathered for 1914, though it is only possible in this brief notice to glean a sheaf or two from among the best-known writers. ex-President Roosevelt gives us History as Literature, and other essays (Murray); Mr. H. G. Wells tells us how An Englishman Looks at the[Pg 43] World (Cassell); Mr. Wilfred Ward writes of Men and Matters (Longmans); Mr. A. C. Benson gives us Where No Fear Was, a book about Fear (Smith Elder). Then we have Mrs. Meynell's Essays (Burns & Oates), Mr. George Moore's Hail and Farewell (Heinemann), also The Towers of the Mirrors and other Essays upon the Spirit of Places, by Vernon Lee (Lane). Messrs. Dent publish Mr. Austin Dobson's Eighteenth Century Studies, and M. Maeterlinck's fine appreciation of so-called Supernatural phenomena in The Unknown Guest is rendered into English for us by Mr. Alexander Teixeira de Mattos (Methuen).

Much literary work of the year is devoted to the study of the great authors, The Sonnets of Shakespeare, by the Countess de Chambrun (Putnam), for example, or the Lectures on Dryden of the late Dr. Verrall, published by Mary de G. Verrall through the Cambridge University Press, which is likewise responsible for the issue of an interesting volume compiled with much industry by Mr. G. Waterhouse; The Literary Relations of England and Germany in the Seventeenth Century. The Cambridge History of English Literature, edited by Sir A. W. Ward and Mr. A. R. Waller, proceeds to its eleventh volume, treating of the Period of the French Revolution. We welcome the publication of Messrs. Batsford's Series of Fellowship Books edited by Mary Stratton, some of them being written by such distinguished modern men of Letters as Dr. W. L. Courtney—who contributes The Meaning of Life, and by Sir A. Quiller-Couch, who is responsible for the volume on Poetry. Lord Haldane publishes his collected addresses, The Conduct of Life, with Mr. Murray. The Life and Genesis of Arlosto is dealt with very ably by Dr. J. Shield Nicholson, Professor of Political Economy in Edinburgh University (Macmillan); and Italian Gardens of the Renaissance, by Julia Cartwright (Smith Elder), should not be missed.

At home Social and Political questions have been, for the time being, shelved. But before the war began, the drift of political interest—apart from Ireland—has tended chiefly towards the great Land Question. Thus we get The Ownership, Tenure and Taxation of Land, by the Rt. Hon. Thomas P. Whittaker, P.C., M.P., also Mr. Lennard's Economic Notes on English Agricultural Wages, both issued by Messrs. Macmillan, and to the serious student the unfinished but instructive and valuable Essays of the late Professor Seebohm—Customary Acres and their Historical Importance (Longmans)—will appeal. At the present moment, too, in view of rising prices and diminishing supplies, the publication by the Manager of the Dalmeny Experimental Farms, on the secret of successful Farming, or Greater Profits from Land, should merit attention (Edinburgh, The Edina Pub. Co.). Nor should the interesting Canadian experiences of Miss Binnie Clark, in Wheat and Women (Heinemann), be missed, especially in a day when the scarcity of male labour for the land is universally a disquieting factor in the economical situation. We welcome the edition of his father's Speeches given to us by Mr. Austen Chamberlain (Constable).

In Music the attention of writers seems to be more and more concentrated upon the study of technique, and its analysis. Dr. Coward, the famous Director of the Sheffield Choir, publishes Choral Technique and Interpretation (Novello); and Mr. Cecil Forsyth gives us a volume on[Pg 44] Orchestration, contributed to the Musician's Library of Messrs. Macmillan, Stainer & Bell. Mr. W. Wallace also discourses of The Musical Faculty: its origins and processes (Macmillan). Two works are published upon The Music of Hindostan,—this first by A. H. Fox Strangeway (Oxford, Clarendon Press; London, Milford), and Indian Music by the Begum Fyzee-Rahamin, with a preface by F. Gilbert Webb (Will. Marchant, the Goupil Gallery).

Of the making of History books there seems no end! Apart from the editing and calendaring of the sources of British History as discoverable from the Rolls cared for in the Public Record Office,—of which a complete list is furnished by Messrs. Wyman,—there are endless enterprises and discursions into all periods of History, Ancient and Modern. In connexion with the mention of original sources, reference should be made to The Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission (Wyman) which publishes its seventh volume. The issue of the Great Roll of the Pipe, 31 Hen. II. 1184-1185, under the auspices of the Pipe Roll Society (St. Catherine's Press), is highly important, and we welcome a revised edition of Magna Charta, by Mr. W. Sharp McKechnie (Glasgow, MacLehose). The Reign of Henry V. is treated by Dr. James Hamilton Wylie, in a first volume (1413-15) issued from the Cambridge University Press. Professor Pollard gives us The Reign of Henry VII. from Contemporary Sources, as far as Vol. III. (Longmans). Two or three volumes on the Elizabethan Period call for mention: A History of England from the defeat of the Armada to the death of Elizabeth, Vol. I., by E. P. Cheyney, Professor of European History in the University of Pennsylvania (Longmans), and Elizabeth and Mary Stuart, by F. A. Mumby (Constable). New Light on Drake is offered by the researches of the Hakluyt Society, and we welcome particularly a treatise on The English Catholic Refugees on the Continent, 1558-1795, by the Rev. Peter Guilday, being a Thesis offered for a Doctor's degree to the University of Louvain (Longmans).

A study of Irish Priests in the Penal Times (1660-1760) is attractive reading (Waterford, Harvey), and also we are glad to follow Mr. G. V. Jourdan's Movement towards Catholic Reform in the early sixteenth century (Murray). The Scottish War of Independence, by Evan MacLeod Barron, is an admirable critical study of the subject (Nisbet). The Legislative Union of England and Scotland, by P. Hume Brown (being the Ford Lectures in Edinburgh University), Fraser Professor of Ancient Scottish History and Palæography in Edinburgh University, cannot be passed over (Oxford, Clarendon Press; London, Milford), and the fourth volume of Dr. Keating's History of Ireland, compiled and arranged by the Rev. Patrick S. Dinneen (Irish Texts Society: Nutt) has a warm welcome. This valuable edition of the famous seventeenth century MS. has been in progress during the last fourteen years, and its interest for modern readers is incalculable.

There are the usual number of books on Napoleon, whose campaigns and personality are without doubt especially interesting in the light of present events. Two writers deal with the campaigns of 1814—Mr. F. Loraine Petre, in Napoleon at Bay (Lane), and a French writer, Mr. H. Houssaye, whose book is translated by Brevet-Major R. S. McClintock (Hugh Rees). In this connexion, too, Mr. W. Alison Phillips' book, The Confederation of Europe: A Study in the European Alliance of 1813-23, is[Pg 45] strangely apposite (Longmans). Messrs. Longmans are also responsible for the issue of two other important works of History, The Passing of the Great Reform Bill, by Mr. J. K. M. Butler, and for the latest volume of Sir George Trevelyan's History of the American Revolution. The volume is styled George the Third and Charles Fox. Another continuation of an important work issued by this firm is Vol. III., of Mr. Hill's History of Diplomacy in the International Development of Europe, in which the author deals with "The Diplomacy of the Age of Absolutism." This also has an appealing interest for us to-day.

Professor Oman's History of the Peninsular War proceeds to its fourth volume, 1811-12 (Oxford, Clarendon Press; London, Milford). The year has also produced one or two valuable studies of Greater Britain, chiefly continuations of previous undertakings, such as the sixth volume of Mr. Wyatt Tilby's The English People Overseas—South Africa, 1486-1913 (Constable), and Sir Charles Lucas's Historical Geography of the British Colonies, Vol. III., revised by Dr. A. B. Keith (Oxford, Clarendon Press; London, Milford). Mr. Milford also publishes The Oxford Survey of the British Empire, an invaluable work in six volumes, edited by Mr. A. J. Herbertson and Mr. J. R. Haworth. Several Historical studies of Ancient and Medieval London are issued, and to bring the subject to date we have Sir Laurence Gomme's important work (Williams and Norgate). With regard to Ancient History the year is somewhat a barren one, but we gladly welcome Mr. T. Lloyd's The Making of the Roman People (Longmans), and the first volume of Messrs. Hutchinson's History of the Nations, edited by Mr. G. W. Hutchinson, and supported by such eminent authorities in their various departments as Professor Flinders Petrie, Sir Richard Temple and Dr. Mahaffy.

The subject of History naturally leads to the more particular consideration of literature which deals with the countries prominently involved in the present European conflict,—France, Russia and Germany.

In addition to the studies of Napoleon already referred to, there is a considerable output of books dealing with the intricacies of the international situation, and with the echoes of 1870, as for example Mr. Vizetelly's My Days of Adventure,—treating of "The Fall of France, 1870-71" (Chatto & Windus), also the Correspondance du Duc D'Aumale et de Cuvillier-Fleury (1865-71), of which the fourth volume is issued by MM. Plon-Nourrit. Another interesting and important work bearing upon the situation is M. Reynaud's Histoire Génerale de l'Influence Française en Allemagne (Hachette), tracing the workings of French civilisation in Germany,—and the debt owed by this last-mentioned country to France.

Associated with the same subject must be mentioned French Civilisation in the Nineteenth Century (Fisher Unwin) by A. L. Guerard. It is delightful to greet Les Comedies-Ballets de Molière, edited by M. Péllisson (Hachette),—being the Ballets written for the Court of Louis XIV.,—also a Life of Saint-Säens, by J. Bonnerot (Durand), before turning to the literature concerning the political and philosophical outlook of Germany.

It may be remembered by occasional readers how much space in our columns the increasing flow of volumes on Germany has in the few last years occupied. This year, as might be expected, the mass of books is greater than ever, and some of the most informing ones come from that[Pg 46] country itself. Every one is acquainted, at least by name, with the writings of Treitschke, whose Life and Works are now translated into English for the first time, and published by Messrs. Jerrold, and Allen & Unwin. The great Professor's Political Thought is further dealt with by H. W. C. Davis (Constable), who gives also extracts from the writer's now world-famous views upon England. Mr. Douglas Sladen also contributes a translation of The Confessions of Frederick the Great, King of Prussia, and the Life of Frederick the Great, by the same notable author (Hutchinson). Two interesting books on German social and political life are given us by Mr. W. H. Dawson,—Municipal Life and Government in Germany (Longmans), and The Evolution of Modern Germany (Fisher Unwin), this last portraying the change in German thought since the days of Goethe, Kant and Schiller. One of the most amazing books of the time is Professor Morgan's translation of The German War-Book (Murray), a work which takes precedence of all other German military publications, being directly issued for the instruction of the German officer by the authority of the German General Staff. Professor Morgan's fine, critical Introduction and discussion of its Machiavellian principles is of great value. Among other important German publications we must take note of Prince Bülow's Imperial Germany, as translated by Marie A. Lewenz (Cassell). Other books, not by German authors, are also pressed upon us. Lord Roberts—whose opinion will be hailed and venerated by all right-thinking Britons—advised all who wished to understand the "present crisis" to read Germany and England, by Professor Cramb, and having an Introduction by the Hon. Joseph Choate (Murray). The Times likewise assures us that if any one wishes to understand the equity of our cause in the present war, he should read Pan-Germanism, by Dr. Roland G. Usher (Professor of History, Washington University, St. Louis) (Constable).

Russia likewise has had her share of attention, and the Life of Catherine the Great has again been studied, this time by Mr. E. A. Brayley Hodgetts (Methuen), also Mr. Maurice Baring has been moved to make us better acquainted with The Mainsprings of Russia (Nelson) in a popular handbook, as he has also contributed An Outline of Russian Literature to "The Home University Library" (Williams & Norgate). An Economic History of Russia is attempted by J. Mavor, Ph.D,; Professor of Political Economy in Toronto University (Dent); also Mr. N. O. Winter gives us The Russian Empire of To-day and Yesterday (Simpkin Marshall), and Madame N. Jarintzoff offers us papers on Russia as The Country of Extremes (Sidgwick & Jackson). Sir Claude Macdonald lends the authority of a Preface to With the Russians in Mongolia, by H. G. C. Perry Ayscough, and Captain Otter-Barry (Lane). A highly satisfactory tribute to the accessibility of the Russia of to-day lies in the first issue in England of Baedeker's Guide-book to Russia. With Teheran, Port Arthur and Peking (London, Fisher Unwin). Fridtjof Nansen likewise issues his impressions of a journey Through Siberia: the Land of the Future, translated by A. C. Chater (Heinemann).

Having thus briefly outlined the books which deal with the aims and characteristics of the countries now at war, it is necessary to glance at the mass of pamphlets to which the present situation has given rise. Naturally first among these come the inquiries and statements as to[Pg 47] How the War Began. A Monograph on this subject is offered us by Mr. J. M. Kennedy, with an Introduction by Dr. W. L. Courtney (Hodder & Stoughton); then we have Why Britain Fights, by Dr. J. Madley (MacLehose); Why Britain is at War, by Sir Edward Cook (Macmillan); and, by no means least important, we welcome Why We are at War: Great Britain's case, by Members of the Oxford Faculty of Modern History (Oxford, Clarendon Press; London, Milford). Mr. Austin Harrison also has an opinion to offer on The Kaiser's War, introduced by a Foreword from his distinguished relative, Mr. Frederic Harrison (Allen & Unwin), nor can we omit from the innumerable list of Pamphlets to be read Dr. W. L. Courtney's Armageddon and After (Chapman & Hall). Mr. Sinclair Kennedy's The Pan Angles, with its advocacy of the federation of the seven English-speaking nations (Longmans), seems a suitable reply to the Pan-Germanism of which we hear so much. For those who wish to follow it clearly, The Times History of the War (illustrated) will be found useful (The Times Publishing Co.).

An important volume, bearing on the international situation, is issued by Messrs. Smith Elder: this is Italy's Foreign and Colonial Policy, a selection from the speeches delivered in the Italian Parliament by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Tommaso Tittoni (recently Ambassador at St. James's), disclosing, as the outline of his policy—fidelity to the Triple Alliance, together with friendship both for France and England. The book is translated by Baron Bernardo Quaranta di San Severino.

The war has naturally given a tremendous impetus to Military and Naval publications. These abound, and deal very particularly with such subjects as the possibilities of a German Invasion, Military Tactics, Mobilisation, Voluntary Service, Equipment, and the like. The War Office, Past and Present is dealt with by Captain Owen Wheeler (Methuen), and Messrs. Hodder & Stoughton publish a series of studies of the British, French, Russian and German Armies "From Within."

Much attention is given to Aerial Reconnaissance, as in Brigadier-General Henderson's book (Murray), and in Mr. Ledeboer's translation of Commandant Duchene's Flight without Formulæ (Longmans). The Despatches of Sir John French are published by Messrs. Chapman & Hall.

Many books are written about the Navy. Two historical studies call for notice: The Navy Under the Early Stuarts, by C. D. Penn (The Faith Press, Leighton Buzzard and Manchester), and The Old Scots Navy, from 1689-1710, edited for the Navy Records Society by J. Grant, LL.B. The conditions of modern Naval warfare are treated of by many experts both as regards the use of such different units as the Torpedo-Boat, the Cruiser or the Battleship. The Naval Battle is discussed by Lieutenant A. Baudry, assisted by Captain G. Laur (of the French Army), and with an Introduction by Admiral Sir Reginald N. Custance, G.C.B. (Hugh Rees).

Opportunities of Travel have necessarily been curtailed since the war began, but up till then a good deal of adventure, chiefly in the South American Continent, has been recorded. The Upper Reaches of the Amazon, by J. F. Woodroffe (Methuen), The Amazing Argentine, by John Foster Fraser (Cassell), Bolivia, Its People and Its Resources, by P. Wallé, translated by B. Miall (Fisher Unwin),—these volumes alone would suffice to show the marked trend of adventurous interest, nor is Tropical[Pg 48] Africa overlooked, as witness Captain Stigand's book on Administration there (Methuen), then Canada is emphasised as The Land of Open Doors in a work by Mr. J. Burgon Bickersteth, with a Foreword by Earl Grey (Wells Gardner); Mr. Hamilton Fyfe gives us The Real Mexico (Heinemann) and Mr. Lowes Dickinson publishes Appearances, being interesting Notes of his Experiences as the holder of the Albert Kahn Travelling Fellowship (Dent).

It is an interesting coincidence, if nothing more, that a year unhappily marked by the destruction of so many foreign churches of priceless medieval design—Rheims Cathedral, for instance—should have been especially noticeable for its publications on Architecture. First we gladly welcome Cathedrals and Cloisters of Northern France, with illustrations from original photographs, by Elise Whitlock Rose and Vida Hunt Francis (Putnams); equally welcome is Mr. Loisel's fine illustrated monograph, La Cathédrale de Rouen (Laurens), which includes a list of the succeeding architects who have worked upon it from 1214 to the present day. Here too perhaps ought to be mentioned Mr. A. J. de Havilland's Storied Windows (Blackwood)—a study of old church glass, from the twelfth century to the Renaissance, especially in France.

Coming to our own beloved shrines, we read with delight the Dean of Gloucester's Secrets of a Great Cathedral (Dent), and appropriately comes Mr. Bumpus's Guide to Gothic Architecture (Werner Laurie). To set the seal upon all Mr. Geoffrey Scott presents—through Messrs. Constable—his Architecture of Humanism, a brilliant and original work by a gifted author. Some attention has also been given to Domestic Architecture, and particularly to that of the Georgian Period both in England and Ireland. The Count de Soissons enquires into The Æsthetic Purpose of Byzantine Architecture (Murray & Evendon), and Dr. Coomaraswamy continues his studies of Indian Architecture, which (Part VII.) is issued by Messrs. Luzac.

The Art publications of the year are largely devoted to Decorative Design, and to the Reproduction of Medieval Illumination and Embroidery, as, for example, The Book of Kells, described by Sir Edward Sullivan, and illustrated in colour by The Studio Press, or again, The Book of the Bayeux Tapestry, issued by Messrs. Chatto & Windus, in coloured facsimile, with an Introduction from Mr. Hilaire Belloc. In this connexion the sumptuous volumes of Messrs. Batsford's Library of Decorative Art, being an illustrated survey of English Decoration, Tapestry and Furniture during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, should be noticed, as also a volume on Grinling Gibbons and the Woodwork of his Age—1648-1720, by H. Avray Tipping (Newnes). Turning to the study of Art in Painting, many collectors will follow with keen interest Dr. A. P. Laurie's researches into The Pigments of the Old Masters (Macmillan), an attempt to ascertain the age of pictures by scientific microscopic investigation, which will earn the gratitude of all genuine art-lovers and collectors. The Studio publishes reproductions of The Landscapes of Corot, the Text being contributed by Mr. Croal Thomson, and we give a most hearty welcome to Art in Flanders, by Mr. Max Roose, the learned Director of the Plantin Moretus Museum at Antwerp (Heinemann).

Here too might be mentioned the Catalogue of Italian Book Illustra[Pg 49]tions and Early Printing prepared by Mr. A. W. Pollard from the Collection of Mr. C. W. Dyson Perrins, and printed by Mr. Quaritch.

The year has not been great in Poetic Drama. The writers to whom we are already indebted for previous good things continue to provide for us. In this way we have two plays from Mr. Rabindranath Tagore, Chitra (The India Society, the Chiswick Press and Macmillan) and The King of the Dark Chamber (Macmillan). Lady Gregory writes about Our Irish Theatre (Putnam), and perhaps the most arresting play of the year is Mr. Zangwill's The Melting Pot (Heinemann). We also welcome Five Plays from Lord Dunsany (Grant Richards) and Mr. John Drinkwater's Rebellion (Nutt). Mr. Galsworthy publishes Three Plays with Messrs. Duckworth, who are also responsible for the issue of a Second Series of Bjornstjerne Bjornson's Plays, translated, as before, by Mr. E. Bjorkman. Mr. Martin Seeker continues his edition of Hauptmann's Dramatic Works edited by Mr. Ludwig Lewisohn.

Poetry is with us always, and the year is not exceptional for any outstanding inspiration. Mr. Elkin Mathews is, as usual, to the fore in this department of Literature. He publishes Mr. Gibson's Thoroughfares and Borderlands, the Cubist Poems of Mr. Max Weber, Sailor Town, delightfully fresh Sea Songs and Ballads, by Miss Fox-Smith, Moorland Sanctuary and Other Poems, by a new singer—Mr. R. H. Law—and also the collection of Mr. Binyon's fine war-poems, styled The Winnowing Fan. The war has indeed animated the writers of patriotic verse, and Messrs. Chatto and Windus publish a collection of Poems of the Great War—sold for the benefit of the Prince of Wales' Fund—also Mr. Lane prints Songs and Sonnets for England in War Time. Needless to say, the best known modern poets are among the contributors to these volumes. The Poetry Bookshop offers Mr. Maurice Hewlett's Sing-Songs of the War, and also issues Mr. Harold Monro's Children of Love. Some New Poems by Robert Browning and Mrs. Browning are edited by Sir Frederick Kenyon (Smith Elder), and Mr. Thomas Hardy gives us Satires of Circumstance (Macmillan). From Mr. Masefield we have Philip the King and Other Poems (Heinemann), and we welcome more poems from Miss Rose Macaulay: The Two Blind Countries (Sidgwick and Jackson).

The year has had two startling poetic sensations: the discovery of a fragment of Sappho, and of Alcæus, already noticed, and of two hitherto unpublished Sonnets of Keats. Deeply interesting, yet weakly characteristic of him as these are, it cannot be said that their publication adds any further lustre to a reputation which in the great genius of sonnet-writing can scarcely be enhanced.

Looking back on the year that has passed we are particularly grateful for two literary gifts we have received: the Address of Mr. Balfour to the British Association on May 8 last, and Mr. Frazer's completed edition of his great life-work, The Golden Bough (Macmillan).

With the output of the year's Fiction it is absolutely impossible to cope in this brief article. One of the fascinating literary articles of the year has been Mr. Henry James' critique upon The Younger Generation, issued in The Times' Literary Supplement for March and April.

Alice Law.

[Pg 50]

SCIENCE OF THE YEAR.

Astronomy.

A total eclipse of the sun took place on August 21, but owing to the war the observations were much interfered with, the expeditions to Riga and Kieff having to be abandoned. The Greenwich party obtained good results at Minsk, as also the Royal Astronomical Society's party at Hormosand (Sweden). The prominences were numerous and active, and took fantastic forms; the corona was of a slightly modified minimum type, and the solar plexus was very pronounced. In London, 65 per cent. of the surface was obscured, as against 92 per cent. in 1912. The eclipse was one of a long series which began in 1211, and will end in 1986. There will be no total eclipse during the present year, the next two dates being February, 1916, and June, 1918.

The dearth of sunspots, which had not been so marked for over a century, came to an end late in March, when a spot about 25,000 miles in diameter appeared on the N.E. limb, and became doubled shortly afterwards. From August 13 to August 25 a spot was visible to the naked eye.

Dr. St. John, using the 60 feet spectrograph on Mount Wilson, finds that vapours rush outwards radially from the interior of a spot, while the motion of chromospheric matter is inwards.

A transit of Mercury took place on November 7, and lasted about four hours. It was well observed, but was not expected to yield results of importance. The last transit occurred in 1907, the next two are due in 1924 and 1927.

The very small ninth satellite of Jupiter, of the nineteenth magnitude, was photographed for the first time, on July 21, by Mr. Seth B. Robinson. Its orbit is elliptical, and its motion retrograde, with a period of about three years.

Several of the satellites of Saturn have been shown to have equal periods of rotation and revolution, like our moon.

The Astronomer Royal, Dr. F. W. Dyson, lecturing at the Royal Institution, on April 24, said that the solar system was near the middle of a finite group of stars, the limiting distances of which were from 1,000 to 10,000 parsecs. (By "parsec" is meant a parallax of one second, corresponding to a distance equal to 206,265 times that of the sun.) About 88 per cent. of the stars brighter than 10.5 magnitude are from 20,000,000 to 150,000,000 times as far off as the sun, and of these 90 to 95 per cent, are intrinsically brighter, 87 per cent. being fifty times as bright, or more. Red stars are very distant; yellow stars, on the whole, are nearest, and the distance increases as the colour changes to blue or orange. The thinning out in the number of stars at very remote distances is conspicuous.

[Pg 51]

Professor E. W. Brown, addressing the Cosmical Physics section of the British Association, spoke of his work on the motion of the moon, which had occupied him for twenty years. All gravitational forces have been taken account of, and the improved tables will be made use of in the Nautical Almanac for 1919, the intermediate issues having already been printed. A few residual corrections remain, the origin of which may be due to electrical or other forces.

A selenium photometer for determining stellar magnitudes, devised by Mr. Joel Stebbins, and improved by Rosenberg of Tübingen, enables a magnitude to be determined within about 1-500th, after a couple of minutes' exposure, using a 5-inch refractor. By the ordinary method the process is very much more tedious and less accurate.

The Canadian reflector of 72-inch aperture will be ready in about two years, and will be erected on a hill seven miles north of Victoria, B.C. It is designed for spectrographic work and for photographing star-clusters and nebulæ. Its focal length of 30 feet can be increased to 108 feet by a Cassegrainian combination.

The first comet of the year (1914 a) was discovered on March 29, by Kritzinger, in Ophiuchus; the second (1914 b) by Zlatinsky, on May 15, in Perseus, and the third (1914 c) by Neujmin, on June 29. The thirty-third return of Encke's comet was observed in November; its perihelion is now nine days later than if the motion had continued as in 1848.

An aerolite, one of the largest ever known to have fallen in Great Britain, descended in a field at Appley Bridge, near Wigan, on October 13. The weight of the two principal fragments was 28 lb. 13 oz., and it measured a little over 9 inches in each dimension. It was composed of olivine 63.43 per cent., enstatite 31.5 per cent., pyrites and metallic matter 5.07 per cent., and showed traces of superficial fusion, but presented no exceptional features apart from its size.

C. L. B.

Geology.

The gases expelled from the volcano of Kilauea, unmixed with air, have been collected on the spot, and examined by Day and Shepherd, who found them to consist chiefly of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, sulphuretted hydrogen, hydrochloric acid, and, of course, water vapour. No argon or other rare gases could be detected.

Mr. A. Brun, who has had the hardihood to descend about 1,000 feet into the crater of Vesuvius, found at that level a floor in which was an aperture some 200 feet deep, from which issued gases, steam, and other concomitants of volcanic action. His results are published in a monograph (1914) wherein he assigns to water vapour a less important part than had hitherto been ascribed to it. Mr. F. Burlingham, on the same occasion, took kinematograph pictures of the interior of the crater, which were exhibited in London early in the year.

At the British Association meeting in Australia a human skull was exhibited which had been found about thirty years previously in a cave near Warwick (north of the Darling range), but not till recently carefully examined. It was associated with Pleistocene animal remains, though the fauna of Australia has changed more rapidly than in most other countries,[Pg 52] and the period must not be put too far back. The skull was of a more primitive type than even the Piltdown specimen (A.R., 1913, p. 55), the anterior width being greatest at the level of the nose, and the summit was peak-shaped instead of dome-shaped. Moreover, the facial angle was hardly 45 degrees, instead of being a right angle or more, and the upper canine teeth were disproportionately large, and conical. The race to which it belonged is supposed to have migrated from Western Asia, and to have died out before giving rise to any of the savage tribes inhabiting the continent since the historic period.

Mr. A. D. Hall, of the Development Commission, referred in the Agricultural Section of the Association to the large waste areas on the earth which might be made productive by drainage, manuring, tillage, or other treatment without excessive expenditure. Many of these occur in populous countries, and many more in remoter or uncivilised districts.

The occurrence of coal in Arctic regions is no new discovery, and for eight or nine years it has been exported from Spitzbergen, the amount in 1913 being some 40,000 tons. The coal is of tertiary age, and is of good quality for steam-raising purposes. It is found conveniently near the surface, close to Advent Bay, and the absence of liquid water, of dust and fire-damp, eliminates the ordinary risks of coal-mining. It is a problem still unsolved by geologists how the warm climate necessary for the vegetation of a carboniferous epoch could have been brought about, either in Spitzbergen or the high southern latitudes in which Sir Douglas Mawson (see "The Home of the Blizzard," 1914) discovered samples. Astronomical and geographical changes have both been invoked, but without furnishing a satisfactory demonstration.

Attention has recently been called to the great marble deposits in Spitzbergen, which yield stones of varied and often new colours, and suitable for building or ornamental purposes. As in the case of coal the situation of the quarries—in King's Bay and elsewhere—leaves nothing to be desired from the exporter's point of view.

C. L. B.

Geography.

A gift of 24,000l. from Sir James Caird to Sir Ernest Shackleton's expedition across the Antarctic placed the enterprise on a sure footing and enabled the leader and his staff to proceed rapidly with their preparations. By July the members of the expedition were chosen; Mr. Frank Wild is second in command of the Weddell Sea party, Lieut. F. A. Worsley is in navigating command of the Endurance on the voyage from London to Buenos Ayres and the Weddell Sea, and Lieutenant A. Mackintosh is leader of the party which sails in the Aurora for the Ross Sea area.

The Endurance left Plymouth for the Antarctic on August 8, and Sir Ernest Shackleton followed from Liverpool on September 19 to overtake her in South America, leaving Buenos Ayres for South Georgia on October 27. It is now intended that the Endurance shall winter in the Antarctic in latitude 77° 30' S.; if this point is reached early enough the trans-Antarctic journey can be begun this season, and in that case Sir Ernest hopes to meet the Ross Sea party in April, 1915, but, if not, then in[Pg 53] March, 1916. Wireless telegraphic apparatus is to be installed so that communication can be kept up with the rest of the world.

At the base in the Weddell Sea area the party is to divide into three divisions; the main one under Sir Ernest Shackleton will proceed on the trans-Antarctic journey of 1,700 miles to meet the Ross Sea party; a westerly division will explore the continuation of the Victoria Mountains; and an easterly division will investigate Enderby Land.

The Ross Sea party will send out a division over the Barrier Ice which will follow the route up Beardmore Glacier to meet the leader of the expedition and his comrades. It is intended on the land journeys to use motor sledges and an aeroplane with truncated wings, as well as dogs of which there are one hundred.

Sir Douglas Mawson has communicated to the Royal Geographical Society a complete account of his voyage to Antarctica and his journey inland, the region investigated lying due south of Australia between longitude 90° and 150° east. The expedition sailed from Hobart on December 2, 1911, in the Aurora and made for Macquerie Island, a rocky structure twenty miles long by three and a half broad, where a party was left for purposes of research. Here a wireless telegraph station was established, and by its means communication was kept up with the main contingent in Antarctica and with Australia. On January 6, 1912, an ice tongue of immense size was sighted projecting from continental land, where, after some difficulty, a harbour was found near Cape Denison, and by January 19 a house was erected and the stores had been transferred thither. On this part of the coast the gales blowing from the land seem to be almost continuous and greatly add to the danger of navigation; for example, at Adelie Land, the average wind velocity is fifty miles an hour, average hourly velocities of 100 miles an hour were common, and ninety miles an hour for twenty-four hours has been recorded.

Three inland journeys were undertaken in an easterly direction, the longest being under the leadership of Dr. Mawson; it was on this journey that Lieutenant Ninnis was killed by falling into a crevasse and Dr. Mertz died from exposure, while the leader himself, left alone to struggle to the base, would have succumbed but for the fortunate discovery of a store of provisions. A fourth exploring party was led by Mr. Bage in a southerly direction over the plateau, and a fifth was conducted by Mr. Bickerton over the high lands towards the West. Seven members of the expedition remained on Adelie Land for a second year, and finally Adelaide was reached on February 26, 1914.

A new Anglo-Swedish expedition is under consideration to explore thoroughly the part of the Antarctic continent due south of South America. It will be under the leadership of Professor Nordenskjold.

Dr. Steffansson sailed more than a year ago on the Karluk for the western part of the Northern Archipelago, but the vessel, after being caught in the ice in lat. 70° 47' N., long. 150° 7' W., was wrecked on January 11, 1914, through the ice unexpectedly breaking up. Captain Bartlett and eight others were rescued from Wrangel Island by the U.S. Government ship Bear, but eleven members of the expedition, including most of the scientific staff, have been lost. Dr. Steffansson, who had left the Karluk before she was wrecked, travelled northwards until open water was reached;[Pg 54] thence in pursuit of his journey he thought he might be driven by wind and currents on to Banks Island, and in that event he would await help there. Whalers who have touched at the island have, however, seen no trace of him and his three companions.

Dr. Bruce returned in September from Spitzbergen, where he has been engaged in hydrographical and other research work.

Mr. Jonas Lied sailed in July for Northern Siberia with the intention of opening up a commercial route over the sea with that country. The venture has been partly successful, but the expedition had to return earlier than expected and a larger one has now been organised.

The Norwegian explorer Sverdrup has been endeavouring to trace the fate of more than one Russian expedition in the polar area north of Europe and Asia.

No news is yet to hand of Professor Macmillan's expedition for the exploration of the region north of Grant Land.

A report on the recent work of Sir A. Stein in Central Asia has been received. Crossing the Tarim he reached Niya where he discovered in a sand-buried settlement documents in the Indian language. Evidence of Chinese occupation and Chinese trade were discovered in the course of his travels, copper coins, arrow-heads and relics of the silk trade being among the articles found. He is now proceeding to Kan-su for further work of exploration.

Dr. Filippi has been engaged in scientific work in Baltistan in Northern Kashmir, his winter base being Skardu, the capital, which is situated at an altitude of nearly 8,000 feet. Observations for establishing longitudinal data have been carried on here and at Dehra Dun, and gravimetrical work was accomplished at Wozul Hardu at an elevation of 14,000 feet.

Captain F. M. Bailey has returned from the exploration of the Tsangpo or Upper Brahmaputra River, having mapped its course for 380 miles. He has discovered a mountain named Gyala Peri, the altitude of which is 24,460 feet, and he has traced the upper waters of the Subansiri, a river which rises north of the Himalayas and breaks through them.

Captains Pemberton and Trenchard have continued their travels in the region of the Plains of Assam; Mr. Kingdon Ward has attempted to penetrate South-East Tibet from China, but had to return on account of political difficulties; and Dr. Legendre is undertaking a new journey to Western China.

In Sumatra Mr. Boden Kloss has made a journey to Mount Indrapura, a volcano with an active crater and the highest point in that country. ex-President Roosevelt, in conjunction with Colonel Rondon, has made an expedition in Brazil down the Rio Duvida, the personnel of the expedition including Mr. Kermit Roosevelt, two biologists, an engineer and a surgeon. After four days' progress along the river cataracts were met with, and the next sixty miles took forty-two days to accomplish. The last cataract was passed about latitude 10° 50' S., and in latitude 5° 20' S. the river joins the Madeira. This is the most important tributary of the Madeira below the junction of the Beni and Mamoré, but hitherto it has not been mapped and the expedition has accomplished a remarkable piece of work.

An account has been published by Dr. Rose, an experienced traveller, of his journeys in the region of the sources of the Uaupeo River as far as the Rio Negro, his object being mainly topographical.

[Pg 55]

A report of the travels of Dr. Fritz Jaeger in German East Africa has been issued, and is interesting, as it gives a concise account of the Great Rift Valley of East Africa in which is included Lakes Magadi, Manyara, and Balangda.

The French travellers M. Rohan Chabot and Captain Grimaud have returned after exploring the region of Mossamedes and examining the cataracts of Middle Kunene, the journey being continued to the western basin of the Upper Zambesi. Commander Tilho has explored the region around Lake Tehad, and Dr. Abdul Ghani, a member of a Turkish mission, has given an account of the Jarabub oasis in Northern Africa which he had visited.

Miss Lowthian Bell has accomplished an enterprising journey to the south and south-east of Damascus, finally reaching Shammar, and has obtained interesting archæological results; and Captain Shakespear, British Resident at Koweit, has travelled the country from the Persian Gulf to Suez, along a route seldom trodden by Europeans.

J. R. A.

Meteorology.

Some changes have been introduced in the arrangements and work of the Meteorological Office in consequence of an increased grant received from the Treasury. In the reports the Scottish National data are now to be included, so that one publication will contain the whole data of the British Isles; additional instrumental equipment is to be provided at Kew; a weather station is to be established at Falmouth; and several junior professional assistants are to be added to the staff.

Recently published accounts of balloon ascents show that the mean height of the stratosphere is 10 kilometres, the temperature being -54.5° C., the temperature at the maximum height of 14.7 kilometres being -52° C. The average temperature of the air column between 1 and 9 kilometres is -21° C.

Dr. Walker, in the memoirs of the Indian Meteorological Department, emphasises the necessity for the correlation between two quantities to be a high one if it is to express the probability of a physical relation; chance may give a correlation factor which when carefully interpreted has no physical meaning.

In Terrestrial Magnetism reports appear of the work done by the Carnegie in her second cruise round the world. It is stated that along the Gulf Stream to Hammerfest the deviation of the compass west of true north is greater in general, by as much as 1° to 2°, than that given by British and American charts. The potential gradient is much the same over the sea as over the land, but the radio-activity is smaller, and the specific conductivity greater, on water than on land.

At Eskdalemuir Observatory electrical observations of the atmosphere have not been taken over any long period, but what have been recorded differ considerably from the results at Kew. In the north the conditions are much more disturbed than in the south, especially in the summer, the mean potential gradient being higher at Kew than at Eskdalemuir. At the latter station the number of ions between summer and winter is small and uncertain.

[Pg 56]

Messrs. Stewart and Jörgensen have made observations of the potential gradient of the atmosphere in the industrial district around Leeds, and they find it is exceptionally large, a result attributable to the gases poured into the air from the numerous furnaces in the vicinity.

The relation of annual drainage yield to rainfall has been discussed by D. Halton Thomson, who shows that a rainfall, over say twenty years, of a given frequency produces a yield of the same frequency, and that a simple formula can be obtained connecting these quantities. Thus at Sheffield the yield is equal to the rainfall minus fourteen inches, the evaporation of fourteen inches being quite constant whatever the rainfall. This constancy of evaporation does not hold at all places, for at Torquay the evaporation varies to a small degree with the amount of the rainfall.

An unexpected and curious see-saw between the rainfall of Havana and of the South-West of England and South Wales has been discovered by Mr. A. H. Brown in the course of a study of Cuban rainfall. In Havana during May to October there is a wet season, and an excess of rainfall in this season is very generally associated with a deficient rainfall at the beginning of the next year in the parts of England mentioned; on the other hand a deficiency at Havana is the precursor of excess in the south-westerly parts of England and Wales.

A paper on "Canadian Weather Forecasting," by Mr. B. C. Webber, has been issued by the Meteorological Office of Canada. It covers the period 1874-1904 and supplies a quantity of statistical information on percentages of low pressure areas causing storms, the directions in which depressions move, etc. On the Great Lakes November is the stormiest month, but on the Gulf of St. Lawrence storms are most frequent in January and February. Since January, 1912, the Canadian Meteorological Office has issued a daily meteorological chart of the northern hemisphere, but the advance of forecasting has not been very rapid and further progress will probably not be made until more detailed information of the upper air, especially of the stratosphere, is obtainable, as it is now recognised that the character of the ground weather is much influenced by the condition of this layer of air.

Professor W. R. Blair observes that up to 1½ kilometres above the earth's surface the same type of daily variation of weather elements is found as at ground level, but above this height a second maximum appears after midnight, the time of which alters with increasing altitude.

An interesting paper in Himmel und Erde, by Professor G. Hellmann, deals with superstitions relating to weather, and under the head of character and causes of the weather he reminds us of the prevalence of the belief in equinoctial gales, although the evidence of careful observers is not in favour of stormy winds at the equinoxes. Sayings in relation to the colour of the sky in the morning and evening are not without some measure of truth in predicting the weather, but prognostications of the weather from the moon, although persistently found, have very little to support them when tested by reliable observations. Lastly, the making of weather, for example the firing of cannon to produce rain, or the warding off of thunder by the ringing of church bells, still in vogue in parts of Switzerland, is a superstition which dies hard, although completely discredited by science.

[Pg 57]

Dr. A. E. Douglass has published an account of his investigations on tree growth in relation to rainfall, and from an examination of the growth of rings in trees, involving 10,000 observations, he concludes that definite rainfall information in the past can be obtained from the mode of growth of trees. The average age of the trees examined was 348 years.

Upper air investigations are likely to suffer from the advent of the war. International days were fixed to the end of the year but not after, and meetings of International Committees will probably be suspended. The Manchester station has been closed since the beginning of the year and the station at Pyrton Hill ceased to be available in the spring, but its work is now being carried on at Benson six miles W.S.W. of Pyrton Hill.

In all parts of the British Isles the mean temperature of the year was in excess by as much as 2° in the East and North-East of England and the Midland counties, and by about 1° in other parts of the country. The high temperature of 90° in the shade was touched in the South of England and the lowest temperature of the year, namely 7°, occurred in the East of Scotland. The rainfall was greatest in the North of Scotland, where it reached 49.31 inches, and least in the North-East of England, the fall there being 24.82 inches; in most parts of England and in the south of Ireland the amount was decidedly above the average. Sunshine was normal.

The Terrestrial Magnetic Elements at Greenwich for the year 1913 were:—

J. R. A.

Physics.

The constitution of the atom continues to be a subject of experimental inquiry. According to Sir Ernest Rutherford's views on the scattering of [Greek: a]α-rays the atom consists of a central nucleus of positive electricity around which one or more electrons revolve. Mathematicians have objected that such a system is not stable, but N. Bohr has evaded this difficulty by introducing Planck's theory of a quantum of energy, which states that energy is not emitted continuously but in discrete atomic quantities. For the simple atoms of hydrogen and helium Bohr's theory gives some remarkably accurate representations of certain properties of these elements; especially in relation to the spectral lines. Van der Broek contends that the nuclear positive charge is exactly equal to the atomic number, and certain experiments by Moseley on the x-ray spectra of the elements are regarded as confirmatory of this.

The quantum hypothesis of Professor Planck, referred to above, which regards energy as transferable in definite units and not continuously, is being applied to several physical problems with some measure of success. For example, Professor Nernst has recently investigated the specific beats of the solid elements at very low temperatures and by the application of a formula due to Debye, involving the quantum hypothesis, a very good agreement between theory and experiment is obtained. An excellent review of this work and the bearing of the quantum hypothesis on such[Pg 58] different subjects as photo-electricity, the line spectra of the elements, and radiation generally, has been written by Mr. J. H. Jeans and published by the Physical Society of London. Mr. Jeans inclines to the view that the classical Newtonian Mechanics must be revised to meet the conditions which the quantum hypothesis have called forth.

Professor Millikan has attempted direct proof of a cardinal feature of this hypothesis, namely the direct proportionality between the frequency and the energy of radiation, by showing experimentally that the energy of the electrons ejected from metals by the action of light is proportional to the frequency of the light vibrations.

An important discovery has been made by J. Stark that hydrogen in a state of luminescence when subjected to an electric field has its spectral lines resolved into three or more components, an effect analogous to the Zeeman effect in which the spectral lines are resolved into components by the action of a magnetic field. The effect has been observed independently by Lo Surdo whilst working on the positive rays in a vacuum tube. The two outer components of an electrically resolved line are polarised at right angles to the remainder, the separation of the components being proportional to the field intensity and increasing with decreasing wave length. The electric effect is not the same in all its details as the magnetic effect and is not always quite easily interpreted, but the discovery puts a new means in the hands of the physicist for the investigation of the structure of the atom.

Messrs. Kaye and Higgins have continued their researches on the emission of electricity from substances at temperatures of 2000° to 2500° C. from which currents, generally of negative electricity, are obtained of a density as much as 1 to 2 ampères per sq. cm. Boiling brass, however, emits a positive current of 0.5 ampères per sq. cm. The subject is of considerable interest in connection with the problem of the electric and magnetic state of the sun. These experiments, however, are not altogether in agreement with Professor Richardson's view that the emission of thermions from hot bodies is a kind of evaporation of electrons following a law like that of liquid evaporation under rise of temperature.

A most interesting experiment has been carried out by Professor K. Onnes as a branch of his low temperature researches. A coil of lead was constructed and cooled to within a few degrees of absolute zero at which temperature its resistance is 2 × 10^-10 of what it is at normal temperature, consequently an induced current when started persists after the inducing electromotive force is withdrawn, as there is no appreciable resistance and therefore no dissipation of energy into heat. In this way it has been possible to realise the conception of electric currents continuously circulating round atoms, which was first introduced by Ampère to account for magnetism.

Professor Jean Perrin in a recent course of lectures has explained his striking and beautiful experiments on the movement of small particles suspended in liquids. When an emulsion of such particles is dilute the laws which are applicable to gases are obeyed, but when the emulsion is concentrated van der Waal's law for dense vapours then holds good, and in this way these important laws of the behaviour of invisible molecules can be ocularly demonstrated.

[Pg 59]

Hiromu Takagi has examined the change of magnetic properties of magnetite with rise of temperature and is unable to confirm the sudden changes of susceptibility which were said to occur at definite points above the critical temperature. These changes Professor Weiss claimed as one proof of the existence of an elementary indivisible unit of magnetism, which he named the magneton, and the evidence for this unit must therefore rest upon other experiments.

The very large intrinsic field of a magnet required by the kinetic theory of magnetism receives some confirmation by the application of an experiment, by Hurmuzescu, on the electromotive force developed in a cell consisting of two identical pieces of soft iron in dilute acetic acid, one of which is strongly magnetised. Calculation then shows that if the electromotive force arises from an intrinsic field, such a field must have a magnitude of the same order as is required by the theory.

Electrification can be produced by the splashing of water, a subject which has received a good deal of attention as it has a bearing on the origin of atmospheric electricity. Mr. J. J. Nolan has found from his experiments that the charge is of positive sign and inversely proportional to the radius of the drops, and he deduces the result that the charge is proportional to the new surface formed as the water breaks up, and that the magnitude of the charge produced per unit area of water surface is 2.7 × 10^-3 electrostatic units.

An interesting example of how pure science is beneficial to industry is afforded by Professor Bone's experiments on surface combustion. It has been a popular lecture experiment for a long time past to exhibit the combination of combustible gases below the flame temperature when they are in contact with solids, and it is in this way possible to keep a solid incandescent by flameless combustion. Applying this result Professor Bone has constructed a boiler in which the water is heated by the metal tubes within it being raised to a high temperature by flameless combustion, and such a boiler has a very high efficiency. A trial on a large scale gave an efficiency of 92.7 per cent.

The work of the National Physical Laboratory has been extended to include a new department for the testing of radium preparations and for certifying the strength of radio-active preparations. This department is under the superintendence of Dr. Kaye.

The death of Professor John Henry Poynting in March last is a loss to English science. His name will always be associated with the theorem on the transference of energy in the electro-magnetic field which he was the first to enunciate.

J. R. A.

Chemistry.

The constitution of the atom is one of the chief problems in physical chemistry at the present time, and evidence is accumulating that the atomic weight of an element is not, as was once thought, a natural constant, like the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, but a quantity which can fluctuate within certain limits. Thus, according to Professor Soddy, radium F, on losing an atom of helium, has its atomic weight re[Pg 60]duced from 210 to 206, and then becomes chemically indistinguishable from lead. Thorium C (212), in the same manner, yields another form of lead with the atomic weight 208, and radium C (214) a third form with the atomic weight 210. A species of lead from Ceylon, whose atomic weight is slightly different from that of ordinary lead, lends colour to these assertions, though it cannot be supposed that all the lead in nature is derived from radio-active metals of higher atomic weight.

The subject of catalysis is assuming a greater commercial importance than heretofore, it having been discovered that hydrocarbons are enabled by this means to take up additional atoms of hydrogen, and form oils, while certain oils can be hardened into fats. Thus acetylene can be changed into complex products similar to and even identical with petroleum, and according to Professor Sabatier of Toulouse, it is even possible to imitate the Galician, North American, Rumanian and Caucasian oils at will, by varying the conditions. It is not likely that this will be done on a sufficient scale to compete with these types in the market, though a considerable industry has sprung up of late, founded on a variety of the same process. Oleic acid, for example, can be made to take up two atoms of hydrogen, and becomes converted into stearic acid; fish oils lose their smell and are turned into a hard odourless tallow. In France, the United States, and Germany, large quantities of butter substitutes and lard substitutes are made in this way. The hydrogenation is effected by spraying the oil, and compressing it with hydrogen in the presence of nickel, under suitable degrees of temperature and pressure.

Thoria is a powerful catalyst, and can change organic acids to ketones, while titanium dioxide causes certain of the fatty acids to turn into aldehydes.

At the British Association meeting Professor E. Goldstein gave an address to the chemical section on the influence of the kathode rays on the colour of metallic salts. Sodium chloride is turned brown by this agency; potassium bromide a deep blue; sodium fluoride rose-colour, lithium chloride bright yellow, and so on. The effect is very rapid, and endures for a long time if the salt is kept dark and cold, but disappears more or less quickly under ordinary conditions. It is supposed to be due to decomposition, and both the metal and the acid radicle are concerned in the result. Similar effects have been obtained by Giesel, and also by Kreutz, who found that rock-salt, heated in the vapour of sodium or potassium, also became coloured. The changes so produced are more permanent than those produced by the kathode rays, though if the latter be allowed to act for a sufficiently long time there is less discrepancy in the results. It is interesting to note that ordinary acetic acid shows no colour change, while chloracetic acid is turned yellow, and chloral a bright yellow. Substances so acted on are sometimes phosphorescent, and the effect is due to ultra-violet rays excited by stoppage of the beta and x-rays. The therapeutic effects of kathode and x-ray treatment are no doubt dependent in some degree on these changes, and it may be possible to discover which rays are hurtful, and to cut them off.

The chemical world has been affected by the war in various ways. Thus the supply of potash from Stassfurt has ceased; saccharine, synthetic drugs, and glass apparatus are no longer procurable from Germany, and,[Pg 61] most important of all, the dyeing industry is deprived of its mainstay, the aniline colours. With regard to the last, a scheme is under consideration by the Government to establish the manufacture of dyes in this country—which should have been its home after Perkin's discoveries—but the problem is fraught with many difficulties.

Sir James Dewar has recently been studying the composition of air from various sources with reference to rare gases contained in it, and finds that the breath expired by different individuals contains 23-52 parts per million of gases uncondensable at 20° absolute. From 2 to 20 or 30 per cent of this is hydrogen, the amount varying with the time of day and other conditions. In ordinary city air there are, in 1,000,000 parts, about 2.6 of hydrogen, and 22½ of mingled helium and neon; country air contains 22.8 of the former and .5 of the latter. With regard to permeability, helium easily passes through highly heated quartz, a power not possessed by hydrogen, though it passes easily through hot platinum. Oxygen permeates more quickly through a rubber film than hydrogen, and hydrogen than nitrogen. The occlusion of gases, the permeability of metals and the ubiquity of hydrogen add to the difficulty of these investigations, all rubber connections and greased stopcocks having to be discarded.

C. L. B.

Botany.

The year has seen the publication of a considerable amount of research of a detailed and specialised character, but it does not appear to have been marked by contributions of immediate general interest or of outstanding importance.

At the meeting of the British Association in Australia, the Presidential address, by Professor Bower of Glasgow, dealt partly with the history of Australian Botany from Joseph Banks, who sailed with Captain Cook in 1770, to the present day; and partly with special Australian plants on which Bower himself has worked, especially with Phylloglossum, a very primitive Lycopod, and Tmesipteris, a link between living Lycopods and fossils of the group Sphenophyllales; and other primitive Australian forms. Numerous other papers dealt with the Australian flora, etc.

Professor Lang has published the first of a series of communications describing the structure of the Quillwort, Isoetes. This is a curious plant, a distant relation of the Clubmosses (Lycopods), all of whose immediate relations appear to be extinct. This investigation of a familiar but little understood plant promises to provide a thorough explanation of its construction and a sound basis for a comparison of the stock of Isoetes with the Stigmarian bases of the fossil tree-Lycopods, whose morphology has long been a puzzle to fossil botanists.

Miss E. M. Berridge's recent account of the anatomy of the Fagaceæ (Beech family) is of much interest. Her observations lead her to the conclusion that the Amentiferæ (catkin-bearing trees) are not primitive, but derived from plants with large flowers. She finds the Fagaceæ connected by various links with the Rosaceæ.

Several American botanists have published investigations on the stem anatomy of flowering-plants, in which they have attempted to trace the changes that have occurred during evolution, and from which they con[Pg 62]clude as others have done from more general considerations, that the tree-habit is relatively primitive in flowering-plants.

Our knowledge of fossil seeds has been augmented by two important contributions. One comes from Dr. Wieland of America, whose researches in wonderfully rich material have added so much to our information on the Bennettitales; he describes yet another type of complex inflorescence, helping to build up our conceptions of the evolution of the flower. The other, by Salisbury, is a most careful and detailed account of some new fossil species of Trigonocarpon, old seeds from the Coal measures which make one realise more profoundly how complex were plant organs even in those days.

Professor Bottomley has carried a step farther his investigations on the fertilising influence of "bacterised peat," i.e. peat acted upon by the bacteria of ordinary soil. In a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society on "Some Accessory Factors in Plant Growth and Nutrition," he traces the increased growth of plants supplied with this fertiliser to certain organic substances of unknown nature present only in minute proportions, yet enabling the plants to make use of a larger amount of the food available in the soil. From quantitative cultural experiments he infers that wheat seedlings are able to form a certain limited amount of these substances during germination, from material present in the grain, but that after a time their rate of growth falls off considerably unless further supplies are available from without. These substances are obtained from ordinary soil, but are more plentiful in "bacterised peat" (though not in ordinary peat), so that their presence is due to bacterial activity. Professor Bottomley draws an interesting parallel with the substances that have been found necessary by Dr. Hopkins and others, likewise in minute proportions, for the growth of young animals. The diseases of beri-beri and scurvy have been traced to the lack of similar substances when the diet consists of polished rice or lacks green vegetables and fruit.

In a series of experiments Mr. F. Kidd has thrown new light on the conditions which lead to dormancy of the embryo in ripe seeds, and which must be removed if germination is to take place. Maturation involves a cessation, or at least a retardation, of the growth of the embryo, and this is shown to be the result of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the tissues, which acts as a mild anæsthetic. In the soil, carbon dioxide is frequently present in considerable amount, especially where manure and other organic matter is being decomposed, or in the deeper layers, and under such conditions the anæsthesis tends to be prolonged and germination delayed. During maturation the accumulation of carbon dioxide is due to the seed-coat becoming impermeable to it. If the seed-coat is removed the embryos, for instance, of peas can readily be induced to continue their growth without any period of rest.

Dr. W. Brenchley, working at Rothamsted with a view to the understanding of the peculiarities of certain natural soils, has found that zinc and arsenic have no stimulative effect on the growth of pea or wheat seedlings, but are toxic even in very minute proportions—a few parts per million—while boron has a small stimulating effect on growth when in very minute proportions, though it also becomes toxic when less diluted.

[Pg 63]

Knight and Priestley have begun an attempt to analyse the beneficial influence of an electrical discharge on the growth of crops, by examining its influence on the different functions of plants. Beginning with respiration, they find that an electric discharge has no appreciable effect on the rate of respiration until it is powerful enough to raise the temperature appreciably and that then the whole effect is attributable to the rise in temperature.

Professor Ewart of Melbourne has published an impressive account of researches on oxidation by organic and inorganic catalysts. He has studied the nature of the activity of enzymes responsible for oxidation in the Apple, Lemon, Maize, Parsnip, Beetroot, etc., and in view of his results controverts the generally accepted views, first promulgated by Chodat and Bach, that oxidising elements belong to several classes, differing in chemical value and their mode of action.

M. G. T.

Zoology.

Professor Arthur Dendy, President of the Zoological section of the British Association, which this year met in Australia, took as the subject of his address "Progressive Evolution and the Origin of Species." Darwin and Wallace established the main principle of evolution, but at the present time there is still great diversity of opinion among expert biologists as to the means by which organic evolution has been effected. Darwin and Wallace held that species originate under the influence of "natural selection"—the selection by nature of fit variations. Later, De Vries brought forward the view that species arise by sudden "mutations" or sports, and thus not by gradual changes, and the well-known Mendelian Professor Lotsy holds that all species originate by crossing. At present, it is mainly due to the impetus gained by the introduction of experimental methods that there exists so much difference of opinion. Professor Dendy's address was an endeavour to take a general survey of the situation.

A theory of organic evolution should account for the following principal groups of facts: (1) "that on the whole evolution has taken place in a progressive manner along definite and divergent lines; (2) that individual animals and plants are more or less precisely adapted in their organisation and in their behaviour to the conditions under which they live; (3) that evolution has resulted in the existence on the earth to-day of a vast number of more or less well-defined groups of animals and plants which we call species."

Professor Dendy seeks to explain the fact that organisms throughout nature show a slow progression by the "law of the accumulation of surplus energy." From Jennings's work on the "Behaviour of the Lower Organisms" one is led to the conclusion that the lower animals learn by experience to make the appropriate response to stimuli without having to pass through the long process of trial and error. They are thus able to perform a given action with less expenditure of energy. The same is true for higher animals, and the power of profiting by experience is apparently a fundamental property of living protoplasm. Jennings speaks of this property or principle as the "law of the readier resolution of physiological states after repetition," and this law probably lies at the root of progressive[Pg 64] evolution. As a corollary to the principle enunciated by Jennings, the "law of the accumulation of surplus energy" would follow. In the organism or in the egg cell, the oftener the process of absorbing food-material is repeated, the easier does the process become, and thus the organism tends to accumulate surplus energy in excess of its own needs. Professor Dendy lays emphasis on a progressive accumulation of potential energy by succeeding generations of animals and plants—each generation having a slightly greater amount than the previous one—and that by means of this cumulative energy, structural progressive changes are evolved, or in other words there is progressive evolution. He holds that there takes place in nature in the stricter sense something similar to that which seems to occur in human life, when certain families rise in general well-being and prosperity through the gradual accumulation of capital in successive generations, and in virtue of this handed-on capital each later generation starts with an advantage over the previous one.

Professor Dendy also holds that the law of recapitulation, which may be stated thus, that the life-history of the individual is a recapitulation of the life-history of the race, is a logical necessity if evolution has taken place. Leaving out, for the present, the complication introduced by the union of two germ cells of separate sexes, the behaviour of the germ cell during development is conditioned by two factors, namely its own constitution and its environment. It is now accepted that the living matter of the germ cell is continuous from generation to generation, and given the same environment, the germ cell should develop in a similar manner in succeeding generations, but with a difference arising from the "law of the accumulation of surplus energy." The organism developing from the germ cell will have a greater capacity for responding to stimuli—it will be a slightly more capable and efficient being in each successive generation. The organism must repeat in its life-history the stages passed through by its ancestors, because at every stage there is an almost identical organism exposed to the same environment, but there will be an acceleration in the individual life-history owing to the cumulative storing of potential energy.

As in human life, however, an organism really inherits from its parents two things, namely, living protoplasm with potential energy and an appropriate environment. When we say that an organism inherits a particular character from its parents, we really mean a special feature which is handed on if the appropriate environment is also present to bring out that character. The inheritance of the environment is as important as the living protoplasm, for in each life-history an animal is capturing and assimilating from the environment handed down to it from its parent.

The response which an animal makes to its environment is probably not merely purely mechanical, for Jennings has pointed out that in the case of the lower organisms, the response to stimuli is to a large extent purposive, namely that the organism has the inherent capacity of selecting those modes of response which are best for its own well-being. Those responses to stimuli may result in change of structure, and thus the evolution of the body will be adaptive and follow along definite lines. One has, however, to remember that while the germ cell may be slightly[Pg 65] different in successive generations, the environment is also changing in these generations.

In trying to understand evolution and the doctrine of recapitulation by the individual of the life-history of the race one must proceed slowly and by single steps, for there is no difficulty in understanding how any particular stage is related to the corresponding stage in the previous generation, but the whole series of changes is simply the sum of successive terms.

Space does not permit a complete review of Professor Dendy's contribution. Its most important part seems to be the "law of the accumulation of surplus energy." The complications introduced into the problem by the union of two cells of different sexes Professor Dendy regards as less important than is generally held, as the parents must have been alike in main respects or they could not have interbred. He also recognises the very important recent work on "mutation" and "hybridisation" from the point of view of heredity, but regards the unit characters arising by mutation and interchanged by hybridisation as chance characters due to chance modifications of the germ-plasm, and having comparatively little influence upon the general course of evolution. The characters inherited in the Mendelian manner are apparently non-adaptive, and with no particular value in the struggle for existence. Probably the nucleus of Professor Dendy's position may be found in the following quotation: "Surely that much-abused philosopher, Lamarck, was not far from the truth when he said, 'the production of a new organ in an animal body results from a new requirement which continues to make itself felt, and from a new movement which this requirement begets and maintains.' Is not this merely another way of saying that the individual makes adaptive responses to environmental stimuli?" As a counteractive to the foregoing, however, the reader may be referred to Professor Bateson's "Problems of Genetics," in which he writes: "When ... we contemplate the problem of Evolution at large, the hope at the present time of constructing even a mental picture of that process grows weak almost to the point of vanishing."

J. S. T.

[Pg 66]

ART, DRAMA, AND MUSIC.

I. ART.

In the history of art in England the year 1914 will be remembered chiefly as a period of trouble, unrest, and disappointment. To the picture lover the first disappointment of the year was the failure of the Royal Academy to hold the exhibition of Old Masters which had been arranged for January; a disappointment caused, not as some imagined by the difficulty of obtaining works, but solely by the death in the preceding autumn of Sir Frederick Eaton, the Secretary to the Royal Academy, who had been chiefly responsible for the organisation of the Winter Exhibitions almost from their commencement. The endeavours of enthusiastic supporters of the woman's suffrage movement to call public attention to their propaganda by attacking works of art resulted in serious damage to pictures in various galleries, several of which were closed for a time wholly or in part (pp. 71, 112). At the National Gallery the most serious case was the injury to the famous Velasquez, the "Venus and Cupid." This picture, which had been given an unfortunate prominence two or three years earlier by a ridiculous agitation about a supposed signature which proved to be imaginary, was now the victim of a more serious attack. Early in March a woman named Richardson broke the glass in front of the picture with a hatchet and managed to slash the canvas several times before she could be arrested. The outrages at the National Gallery caused the partial closing of the exhibition for some time, and the normal conditions had not been resumed when the war broke out and still further disarranged affairs at Trafalgar Square.

The German threats of attacks on London by airships called attention to the possible injury to the nation's pictures in such a case, and Sir Claude Phillips was especially prominent in urging that protection should be given to them. Numbers of the best works were removed accordingly to places of safety, and during the winter the Foreign side of the National Gallery was occupied mainly by second-rate pictures, and each room was disfigured by one or more huge bins of galvanized iron, filled with sand. At the Victoria and Albert Museum special precautions were taken with a view of protecting the Raphael Cartoons and certain other famous works of art.

At the Summer Exhibition of the Royal Academy the Hanging Committee for oil paintings was composed of Mr. David Murray, Mr. Seymour Lucas, Mr. W. W. Ouless, Mr. S. J. Solomon, Mr. H. H. La Thangue, and Mr. Lionel Smythe; the last named of whom also arranged the watercolours, which for the first time were placed in the Tenth and Eleventh[Pg 67] Galleries. Another new departure in Academy hanging was the arrangement of the Fourth Gallery by Mr. H. H. La Thangue, who allowed no pictures to be "skied," and did not overcrowd the lower lines. The result was eminently satisfactory, but it is to be feared that Mr. La Thangue's example will not be followed extensively unless the wall space at the Academy is largely increased. During the season several pictures were attacked by women, and Sir Hubert von Herkomer's portrait of the Duke of Wellington; Mr. Sargent's portrait of Mr. Henry James, the novelist; and Mr. Clausen's study of the nude, "Primavera," were all injured. Mr. Henry James, whose portrait by Mr. Sargent was one of the most discussed pictures in the exhibition, was also the subject of another portrait of great interest, a bust in marble by Mr. F. Derwent Wood. This bust was a commission from Mr. Sargent, who, however, surrendered it to the Chantrey Trustees, by whom it was purchased for 100l. A marble statue "Dawn," by Mr. C. L. Hartwell (1,100l.), was also bought by the Trustees; and two pictures, Mr. F. Cadogan Cowper's "Lucretia Borgia reigns in the Vatican in the absence of the Pope" (1,500l.); and Mr. Maurice Greiffenhagen's "Women by a Lake" (420l.). The general sales at the Academy were fairly numerous although not up to the level of some recent years. The King, when he paid his first visit to the exhibition, purchased Mr. B. W. Leader's landscape, "The River Llugwy, near Bettws-y-Coed" (150l.); and the other pictures sold included "The Annunciation," by Mr. J. W. Waterhouse; "The Little Archer" (400l.), by Mr. Charles Sims; "The Silent Woods" (350l.), by Sir Ernest Waterlow; "A Farm Loggia, Veneto," and "A Riva on the Grand Canal, Venice," by Mr. Henry Woods; "Primavera" (250l.), by Mr. George Clausen; "Noon, Equihen, France," and "To the Sea: Equihen, Pas de Calais, France," by Mr. Hughes-Stanton; "A Greek Water Carrier in Egypt" (250l.), by Sir W. B. Richmond; "And step from glowing heat to welcome depths of shade" (300l.), by Mr. Reginald Vicat-Cole; "Where Aspens Quiver," by Mr. Lionel P. Smythe; "Eternal Eve" (500l.), by Mr. Gabriel Nicolet; "Rag-time, Rio Mendicante, Venice" (250l.), by Mr. David Murray; "Dawn and the Shepherd" (200l.), by Mr. George Wetherbee; "The Silver Strand" (630l.), by Mr. Julius Olsson; "A Winter Morning" (350l.), by Mr. Harry W. Adams; "The Toast is England—Lord Nelson handing the loving cup to Benjamin West, R.A." (500l.), by Mr. Fred Roe; "Room at James Pryde's" (300l.), by Mr. Oswald Birley; "The Meadow Pool" (105l.), by Sir Alfred East; and "Napoleon's last Inspection of his Army" (315l.), by Mr. J. P. Beadle. It is curious that the largest picture exhibited in the Royal Academy at the time England declared war upon Germany was the portrait group by the late Sir Hubert von Herkomer of "The Managers and Directors of the firm of Fried, Krupp, Essen, Germany."

The exhibitions held in the earlier part of the year, before the declaration of war, included those of pictures by artists of the Venetian School, at the Burlington Fine Arts Club; of Old Masters and of the work of Mr. John Lavery, both at the Grosvenor Gallery; and of paintings or drawings by M. Steinlen, Sir Alfred East, Mr. H. H. La Thangue, and Mr. L. Campbell Taylor at the Leicester Galleries. An exhibition of Italian studies by Sir William Richmond was held at the Fine Art Society's gallery. The famous portrait by Millais of Mrs. Heugh, exhibited at the[Pg 68] Royal Academy in 1873, and afterwards sent to America, was shown in the spring at the International Society's exhibition, to which it was lent by Mr. Edmund Davis. A loan exhibition of examples of modern French art was held at Grosvenor House by permission of the Duke of Westminster. It was of singular interest, but, unfortunately, was opened too late in the season to attract the attention it deserved.

One of these exhibitions, that of Old Masters at the Grosvenor Gallery, was organised to raise funds for the purchase of modern pictures for the nation. It was so successful that the committee was enabled to purchase works by Mr. W. Orpen, Mr. Oliver Hall, Mr. H. Muhrman, Mr. A. McEvoy, Mr. W. W. Russell, Mrs. Mary Davis, Mr. John Lavery, and Mr. Gerald F. Kelly; all of which were presented to the Tate Gallery in July. A noble gift of some twenty examples of his art was made by M. Auguste Rodin to the Victoria and Albert Museum in November. The London Museum, admirably arranged in its permanent home at Stafford House, was opened in the summer; and other events of interest in the year were the unveiling of the Royal Academy memorial to Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema (designed by Sir George Frampton) at his birthplace in Holland, and of a memorial to the late Sir William Orchardson in St. Paul's Cathedral. An important new departure was made at the Victoria and Albert Museum, where the "sixpenny" days were finally abolished and free admission given to the public throughout the week. In the summer plans were made, for the consideration of Mr. Asquith, for a proposed Ministry of Fine Arts; and a non-party and unofficial committee was formed of members of the House of Lords and House of Commons for the purpose of noting and examining questions connected with the acquisition of pictures for the nation and other matters relating to the arts.

The outbreak of the war was from every point of view disastrous to artists and picture dealers. The sale of pictures was brought temporarily almost to a standstill; the opening of some exhibitions was postponed indefinitely, and that of the Royal Institute of Oil Painters abandoned for the year. In these conditions, when artists were suffering severely themselves, it is to their credit that they made great and successful efforts to aid the funds of the war charities. For the Artists' War Fund they contributed more than four hundred paintings, pieces of sculpture and prints which were distributed by lot to subscribers. Mr. Sigismund Goetze defrayed the cost of collection and distribution; and Messrs. Dicksee lent their gallery free of charge; and the honorary treasurers and secretary, Mr. O. Wynne Apperley, Mr. Louis Ginnett and Mr. Martin Hardie, were therefore enabled to hand over the entire receipts, amounting to 2,615l., to the Prince of Wales's National Relief Fund. The Royal Academy called a meeting of the Presidents of the principal art societies to arrange an exhibition of pictures to be sold for the same purpose, and also lent several of its galleries to the United Arts Force whose members practised military exercises in the courtyard of Burlington House.

In the auction room the season was uneventful even before hostilities commenced and later there was so little doing that Messrs. Christie did not reopen their rooms in the autumn, according to custom. The Grenfell sale was the most important. It included the portrait by Titian for which the collector paid 30,000l. a few years earlier, and now, under the hammer,[Pg 69] realised £13,650. Other pictures sold in the spring and summer included a Peter de Hoogh (at Messrs. Robinson & Fisher's) for 8,200 guineas; a Gainsborough landscape, 7,000 guineas, and a portrait of a lady in white by the same artist which fetched a similar price; and a portrait by Lawrence, 5,600 guineas. The price paid for the de Hoogh was a record; and another auction room record was made when Valentine Green's mezzotint of Sir Joshua's portrait of Lady Betty Delmé was sold from the Northwick collection for 1,750 guineas.

W. T. Whitley.

II. DRAMA.

The drama of the year 1914 falls, like every kindred subject, into two sharply defined parts: the first, seven months of normal conditions; the second, five months of conditions not only abnormal but absolutely unparalleled. It is difficult to believe that any branch of art can have suffered more severely than the drama during these later months. No doubt, in times to come, this European war will furnish material for innumerable plays, good, bad, and indifferent; it will be treated, dramatically, from every point of view, as long as the world lasts; but while we are actually engaged in the struggle the chief incidents inseparable from a "war-play" are almost too poignant to be reproduced; artistic values are lost sight of in an overpoweringly painful impression. On the other hand, the average "drawing-room play"—to say nothing of the "problem play"—has been reduced to triviality by the readjustment of the public sense of proportion; domestic quarrels and social theories are shorn of their interest. Lastly, apart from sentimental or intellectual considerations, the darkening of the streets at night, and the all-pervading need for the reduction of personal expenses, have had disastrous results. There is reason to hope that the lowest ebb has now been reached, and that, even if the war should be prolonged, public tension cannot be kept always at the extreme pitch of the past autumn; but for the moment, the post of dramatic critic can be little more than a sinecure.

To deal first with those plays which enjoyed ordinary chances of success or failure, the year up to August had presented no very striking features. Perhaps the greatest promise of novelty was offered by Sir Herbert Tree's production of "Pygmalion," a new play by Bernard Shaw (His Majesty's, April 11). The prospect of seeing Sir Herbert Tree and Mrs. Patrick Campbell in first-rate comedy parts was inspiriting; but, frankly, it must be owned that the work was not of Mr. Shaw's best, and that the splendour of His Majesty's is less suited to his methods than the intimacy of the Court or the Little Theatre. The author may possibly have felt that the subtle effects of "Candida," or of "John Bull's Other Island," would be lost in so much space; what is certain is that in "Pygmalion" the humour is far more obvious—one might almost say crude—than in the earlier plays. Sir Herbert Tree as the "professor of phonetics" who undertakes the education of a Cockney flower-girl, and Mrs. Patrick Campbell as his pupil, did full justice to their parts, each proving once again a gift of comedy too often neglected. Mr. Edmund Gurney, as a London dustman—father of the flower-girl—was the chief[Pg 70] vehicle of Mr. Shaw's opinions, and expressed himself effectively, though at inordinate length.

A clever, though in some respects painful, play was "The Land of Promise," by Somerset Maughan (Duke of York's, February 26). The heroine, an English girl of good family, is forced to emigrate to Canada, where she finds herself incapable of earning a living, and marries a back-woodsman, whom, after some severe experiences, she learns to love. The process of "breaking her in" is partly conducted by brute force, and made the audience feel at times like eavesdroppers of the worst description; an impression much heightened by the really admirable acting of Mr. Godfrey Tearle and Miss Irene Vanbrugh in the principal parts. Indeed, Miss Vanbrugh won more sympathy for "Norah" than the character by right demanded; her personal distinction made us believe in the gentle breeding of Mr. Maughan's heroine, even while we felt that this very refinement would have taught her that the washing of cups and saucers is in itself a less degrading occupation than fighting and wrangling between husband and wife. The subordinate parts were well written and acted, especially those of Norah's peace-loving brother and shrewish sister-in-law.

"My Lady's Dress," by Edward Knoblauch (Royalty, April 21), showed an original idea, but one exceptionally difficult of treatment. The author's aim was to show—as a rebuke to vanity and extravagance—each stage in the creation of a triumph in dressmaking. We saw, among other episodes, the silk weavers toiling at the loom, in Lyons; the trapper in Siberia; and the cripple girl making artificial flowers in a London slum. Last, but not least, we were taken behind the scenes in the establishment of a famous man-milliner, who tyrannised with fiendish cruelty over the unfortunate mannequins. These scenes, some half-dozen in all, were linked together by a slender thread of story, but each might stand as a complete one-act play, with a distinct list of characters. In each, the chief parts were taken by Miss Gladys Cooper and Mr. Dennis Eadie, who thus appeared in six or seven different rôles in the course of an evening. The scenes were, naturally, of very varying merit; taken altogether, it may be said that the most dramatic was the episode of the Provençal peasants, who stake their fortunes upon silkworms. With regard to the acting, Miss Cooper succeeded best in the pathetic part of the flower-maker; and Mr. Eadie as the bully of the show-rooms.

Among the new works produced by well-known dramatists are "Plaster Saints," by Israel Zangwill (Comedy, Feb. 5), which had a career of some months; "The Clever Ones," by Alfred Sutro (Wyndham's, April 23), a comedy on somewhat obvious lines; "The Dangerous Age," by H. V. Esmond (Vaudeville, May 5); and "Outcast," by Hubert Henry Davies (Wyndham's, September 1). Mr. Stephen Phillips' blank verse drama, "The Sin of David," courageously produced by Mr. H. B. Irving (Savoy, June 9), proved no more successful than other like ventures in recent years. Adaptations from novels included "Helen with the High Hand," by Richard Pryce, and Arnold Bennett (Vaudeville, Feb. 17); and "The Impossible Woman," by Haddon Chambers, from Miss Anne Sidgwick's novel "Tante" (Haymarket, Sept. 8). This last should, if produced in happier times, have had a longer career, although the[Pg 71] delicacy of Miss Sidgwick's character drawing can scarcely be altogether reproduced on the stage.

Shakespearean revivals have numbered no more than three: "A Midsummer Night's Dream" (Savoy, Feb. 6); "Henry IV.," Part I. (His Majesty's, Nov. 3); and "Henry V." (Mr. Benson's company). Some surprise and perhaps a little disappointment were felt at Mr. Granville Barker's choice of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" as the successor to "Twelfth Night." Few of Shakespeare's plays offer more difficulties to the stage-manager, or give less scope for the greatest acting. It was even rumoured that these same difficulties were the attraction, and that the revival was in the nature of a tour-de-force, undertaken in reply to a challenge. In any case, Mr. Barker, if he did not triumph over all obstacles, might be trusted to avoid certain obvious pitfalls. His fairies were in no way reminiscent of pantomime; his Oberon was not a "principal boy" but a well-grown young man (Mr. Dennis Neilson-Terry); above all, his clowns were human and delightful, without a touch of exaggeration. The grouping of the fairy scenes was exquisite, and the forest background among the most beautiful ever seen on the stage. The fantastic element, however, was on some points overdone, as in the gilding of the fairies' faces; while the figure of Puck (Mr. Donald Calthrop) in scarlet clothes and a flaxen wig, was more grotesque than supernatural. The acting honours rested decidedly with the clowns; Mr. Arthur Whitby as Quince once more proved himself the first Shakespearean comic actor of the day.

The two later revivals—"Henry IV.," Part I., and "Henry V."—were a response to the patriotic enthusiasm called forth by the war. Sir Herbert Tree's Falstaff, and Mr. Benson's Henry V., are both too well known to require much comment. Sir Herbert, as we cannot but think, is still inclined to take the part too slowly; the tavern scenes all alike suffered from a certain heaviness, the result of over-elaboration in by-play and scenic effects. The tableau of the battle of Shrewsbury should have been entirely omitted; it was not only ineffective in itself, but it interrupted the action of the play at a crucial moment, and so lessened the effect of the later scenes. As to the innovations in the caste, Mr. Basil Gill showed great rhetorical power in the difficult part of the King; and Mr. Owen Nares was an ideal Prince Hal in appearance, though he did not, in all respects, give the character quite its full value. Mr. Matheson Lang's rendering of Hotspur must, unfortunately, be confessed inadequate; it was inclined to be ponderous rather than fiery, and was further marred by the assumption of an unnecessary and irritating stammer. Whether Sir Herbert Tree or Mr. Lang was responsible for putting this construction on the reference to Percy's "speaking thick," we cannot pretend to say; but surely it may be taken for granted that if Shakespeare had intended his Hotspur to stammer aggressively in the delivery of blank verse he would have given some more definite instruction to that effect.

For the last five months of the year, revivals of more or less recently successful plays have been seen at almost every theatre; an inevitable resource for stage-managers in this time of dearth. Among these we may note "Milestones" (Arnold Bennett and E. Knoblauch); "The Flag Lieutenant" (W. P. Drury and Leo Trevor), a particularly happy choice;[Pg 72] "Raffles" (E. W. Hornung); and "His House in Order" (Sir A. W. Pinero). Two most popular American importations, "Potash and Perlmutter," by Montague Glass (Queen's, April 14), and "Peg o' my Heart," by J. Huntley Manners (Globe, Oct.), appear to hold their own through all vicissitudes; but, as both are given by American companies, they cannot be reckoned under the heading of English dramatic art.

It is impossible to close this record without mentioning the tragic death of Mr. Laurence Irving and his wife (Miss Mabel Hackney), who were drowned together in the wreck of the Empress of Ireland on May 29. Laurence Irving was an actor whose gift matured slowly, hindered by certain superficial defects; but his work, which steadily increased in merit, was never weak, and never insignificant. His loss will be felt by all who value enterprise and sincerity on our stage.

Eveline Godley.

III. MUSIC.

Roughly speaking the year 1914 may be divided into two diametrically opposed halves, the first in which London suffered from almost a surfeit of music, the other, on the declaration of war, when she was almost entirely devoid of music. But in spite of this absence of music during the last six months the year was one of the most remarkable for a quarter of a century. It was essentially an opera year, a fact which, coupled with the success of one of the opera schemes, confirms the statement. Not in living memory were so many operatic performances to be seen in London between the beginning of February and the end of July. This annus mirabilis began on February 2 at Covent Garden with the first performance here of "Parsifal," the copyright of which had expired only on the night of the previous December 31. Of course the world was agog to hear this much-talked of stage work, and in consequence the original number of performances was increased to twelve from ten, while in the summer or so-called "grand" season five further performances were given. The conductor at first was Artur Bodanzky, from Mannheim, and the opening casts included Burrian and Sembach as Parsifal, with Mélanie Kurt and Rüsche-Endorf as Kundry. In course of the first season several performances were given also of "Die Meistersinger," "Tristan und Isolde," and "Die Walküre," while Méhul's "Joseph" was staged for the first time in a London opera house. Albert Coates, an Englishman of Russian birth who is musical director at the Imperial Russian Opera in Petrograd, created a fine impression as conductor of the Wagner operas on this his first appearance here as operatic conductor. The "grand" season opened on April 20 and lasted uninterruptedly until July 28. As usual operas were given in Italian, German and French, but not in English, and the changes were rung chiefly on well-worn operas such as "Aïda," "La Bohéme," "Madama Butterfly," "Samson et Dalila," and so on. But two new works were produced, namely Zandonai's "Francesca di Rimini" and Montemezzi's "L'Amore dei tre Rei," neither of which survived, however, for more than the customary three performances. But the point of the season was the revival of Verdi's "Falstaff," with Scotti in the title rôle, after neglect of twenty years; three performances were given also of "Don Giovanni," two of "Le Nozze di Figaro," and three of Boïto's "Mefistofele"[Pg 73] which was restored in an entirely new stage setting by Bakst. Two cycles of Wagner's music dramas were given and included "Der Ring" under Nikisch, "Lohengrin" under Coates, and "Die Meistersinger," the last of which was actually played on two consecutive nights. Of the new-comers the most powerful impression was made by Claudia Muzio, but among the season's singers were Melba, Caruso, Destinn and Matzenauer. On May 11 a gala was held for the visit of the King and Queen of Denmark.

But opera at Covent Garden was intrinsically of secondary importance, for the Russian season at Drury Lane, organised for Sir Joseph Beecham, Bart., by his son Thomas Beecham, very easily took pride of place from both the musically interesting and the dramatic and stage points of view. Indeed it is in no degree exaggeration to state that London had not previously seen opera given to ultimate advantage, at least for years too many to recall. The Beecham season, in fact, was a veritable riot of gorgeous performances. It began on May 20, and ran contemporaneously with that at Covent Garden till July 25; the prospectus was issued in February but not one single alteration had to be made in it, so that it was also a triumph for the management, a rare thing in metropolitan operatic affairs! Strauss's "Der Rosenkavalier" and "The Magic Flute" were capitally given several times in the early part of the season with Margarete Siems, Frieda Hempel, Claire Dux, Charlotte Uhr, Knüpfer and Bechstein, Beecham conducting. But it was not the German opera that was the thing, albeit much gratification came from the revival of Mozart's masterpiece. It was the extraordinary succession of magnificent Russian operas, ballet-operas and ballets, magnificently staged and performed, that completely revolutionised the Londoner's idea of opera. Moussorgsky's "Boris Godounov" and the brilliant "Khovanstchina" with Rimsky-Korsakov's "Ivan le Terrible" formed the nucleus of the season, in all of which the incomparable operatic artist, Chaliapin, reigned supreme. But there was much else that was entirely unfamiliar yet not a whit less attractive. An immense success followed the production of Borodin's "Prince Igor," Rimsky-Korsakov's "Le Coq d'Or" (this a particularly fascinating new form, for the singing was accomplished by the soloists and chorus who remain in uniform seated at the sides of the proscenium while the dramatic action was achieved by the corps de ballet), "Un Nuit de Mai," Stravinsky's "Le Rossignol;" Strauss's "La Légende de Joseph" an ultra-modern version of the tale of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, proved momentarily exciting rather than permanently valuable. Strauss himself conducted the first performance. Ravel's "Daphnis et Chloë" and Steinberg's "Midas" were given here for the first time, as also was Joseph Holbrooke's opera "Dylan" (in English). At a War Fund function in Covent Garden in the autumn Thomas Beecham produced a stage setting of Bach's cantata "Phoebus and Pan," which proved highly interesting and seemed to have provided Steinberg with his idea for "Midas."

As with any possible autumn opera season, so with the doings in the concert world the war put an end to nearly all individual effort, save only for the various war funds. But in the earlier part of the year concerts were abundant. During the first six months London was visited by nearly all of the Continental musicians who have been in the habit of coming here in previous years. The Royal Philharmonic Society obtained a fresh glory[Pg 74] by producing new works by Stanford, Delius and Frank Bridge, but not much by introducing Strauss's "Festliches Praeludium." Mengelberg was the chief conductor, and among the artists who appeared were Miss Muriel Foster, who received the Society's gold medal, Borwick, Lamond (since, according to report, become a naturalised German citizen), Lhevinne, Sapellnikoff and Cortôt. The Queen's Hall Symphony Orchestra, under Sir Henry J. Wood, brought forward several interesting new works, notably Schönberg's much abused "Five Orchestral Pieces," Mahler's "Das Lied von der Erde," Stravinsky's delightful "Fireworks" as well as Scriabin's "Prometheus" with the composer as solo pianist. The London Symphony Orchestra, on the other hand, devoted the whole of their programmes to quite familiar works, Steinbach, Nikisch, Mengelberg, Safonoff and Arbos being the conductors. Mr. Landon Ronald gave the first London performance of Elgar's "Falstaff" at one of the New Symphony Orchestra's concerts; Henri Verbrugghen conducted a Beethoven Festival at Queen's Hall in April, and in June Emile Mlynarski gave two concerts of Slavonic music in the same place; those of English music given by T. E. Ellis were chiefly remarkable for the first performance of Vaughan Williams's fine symphony "London." In the height of the summer a mild sensation was created by the ability of a seven-year-old boy, Willy Ferraro, as conductor. The Royal Choral Society produced only Saint-Saëns's "The Promised Land" as novelty, while the London Choral Society, under Arthur Fagge, brought out Barnett's "The Eve of St. Agnes," Speer's "King Arthur" and Balfour Gardiner's "April." Record should be made of the visit of the Orféo Catala from Barcelona, and of the Swedish National Choir, both of which were fine. In spite of the war the Promenade Concerts went their even way, and at them several new works were produced, but the most use was made of the old and the familiar. Towards the end of the year a wave of feeling amounting almost to Chauvinism swept over the country in musical affairs. It began with an attempt, happily frustrated, to put a stop to all performances of music at the Promenade Concerts by natives of hostile lands. Its spread, however, was not substantial, and was, at worst, largely confined to those whose musical instincts are chiefly commercial.

A considerable amount of righteous indignation was aroused extra-locally by the abandonment of the provincial festivals, those announced for Worcester, Norwich, Cardiff and Sheffield being given up and only those of Torquay (which took place in April) and Brighton (in Nov.), which were a complete artistic and financial success, actually took place.

No good purpose would be served by printing a lengthy list of the foreign artists who visited London during the year, for it would be much as in 1913. But the appearance of Ilona Durigo should be recorded in virtue of the genuine accomplishment of the singer. Sir George Henschel took farewell of the public as singer in April; a Leo Ornstein, a Russian from America, literally startled the music-lovers of London by the originality of the cacophony of his compositions as played by himself. Probably one effect of the war, and a most beneficial effect, will be the clearing off from the artistic world of all such grotesquely manufactured efforts at "originality" of musical diction!

Robin H. Legge.

OBITUARY
OF
EMINENT PERSONS DECEASED IN 1914.

[Pg 75]