Mr. Asquith deplored the introduction of the motion which was unsound in substance and impolitic in time, but while supporting the Government it must not be thought that Parliament was handing them a blank cheque. If the negotiations broke down the Government would be confronted with a situation of unexampled difficulty and danger, but he urged that they should not in advance commit themselves to this or that method of facing or healing such a situation.

Mr. Clynes commended the action taken by the Government as the only action that could have been taken by a self-respecting Government.

When Mr. Chamberlain rose to speak, he had to face considerable interruption at the hands of his own followers, and Colonel Croft was rebuked by the Speaker, who informed him that unless he ceased his interruptions he would have to ask him to withdraw-a caution which was heartily cheered by the Labour Party. Referring to the truce, Mr. Chamberlain said that so far as the principal delegates of the other side were concerned they had acted in the matter as men of honour. They had admitted the obligation to keep the terms of the truce and he believed they were doing their best to carry them out. If these terms were wilfully broken by those with whom the Government were negotiating it would be impossible to continue.

At the end of the debate the vote of censure was defeated by a majority of over ten to one, forty-three members voting for it and 439 against it.

At the end of October a Dinner was given in London to the British Delegates to the forthcoming Washington Conference on disarmament. It was still hoped that Mr. Lloyd George might be free himself to attend the Conference, though the pressure of the Irish negotiations did not permit this hope to be realised. The other two delegates were Lord Lee of Fareham and Mr. Arthur Balfour. Since Lord Lee had already left for America, and Mr. Lloyd George was too busy to attend, Mr. Balfour was in fact the only one of the three delegates who was present at the Dinner. The main feature of the Dinner was an important speech delivered by Mr. Harvey, the American Ambassador, on the purpose and prospects of the Washington Conference. He said that he had carried the invitation to Mr. Lloyd George one afternoon in July, and that the Prime Minister had immediately risen to his feet and accepted, saying that the British Government would do everything in their power to make the Conference a great success. Lord Curzon had likewise expressed great satisfaction when handing to the Ambassador the formal reply of acceptance. Mr. Harvey insisted that the design of the President was no challenge to the League of Nations. Behind the King and President and their Governments stood the entire peoples of our common race. No less assuring was the

attitude of our common friends such as France and Japan. He said that the position of America was plain; she did not fear war, she hated it. America was unconquerable and her moral position was impregnable. She would never seek additional territory by conquest and would not accept it as a gift. The Conference would be an ordeal not of battle but of faith. America had given evidence of its confidence in the outcome by the size of her Army. As regards the Navy, as soon as the decision to call the Conference was reached Congress had halved the normal appropriation. Two battleships were nearly completed but actual building had otherwise been suspended, and no new ship of any type could, except in case of war, be begun before July 1, 1922.

Mr. Harvey said that the real question for the Conference was not whether the nations could agree on all things, but whether they could reach an understanding with respect to anything. It would be a great test of the capacity of Governments to satisfy a universal longing for peace, prosperity, and happiness. The Conference was certain to change conditions either for better or for worse. The bonds of friendship between Britain and America would be either strengthened or relaxed, and if the two countries could not act in unison now there was slight reason to believe that they would ever be able to do so. said that the Conference was only the beginning of greater works to follow, and finally promised a most grateful welcome to the British Delegates on their arrival in the United States.

He

A discussion on the Conference took place in the House of Commons on November 4, when Mr. Clynes proposed a resolution warmly approving of the meeting of the Conference, and expressing the hope that it would secure a substantial reduction in the crushing burden of armaments. He said that the competition in armaments was a fruitful cause of wars, and unproductive output in this connexion contributed to economic unsettlement. It was true that it created work, but it was also the greatest possible contributor to national waste. We had not got peace by the League of Nations, by the Treaty, or by any other arrangement. We could only get peace by releasing ourselves from narrow alliances, by bringing ourselves into a frame of mind for peace, and by establishing such effective machinery for securing peace that war would be impossible. Plain dealing and not the subtleties of diplomatists was the surest way of arriving at the point which we desired to reach.

Sir Donald Maclean, in the absence of Mr. Asquith, supported the motion. He said that in the last year-three years after the Armistice-the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Sweden, Holland, and Belgium were spending no less than 1,252,000,000l. on armaments. It was a melancholy reflection that 4s. out of every £ of Income Tax went to the cost of armaments. He did not see in the Washington Conference a rival to the League of Nations.

Mr. Chamberlain interpreted the debate as giving a clear and unanimous message of good wishes for the success of the Conference, and as impressing upon the people how vast were the issues which hung on its deliberations. The Government attached such importance to the Conference that, although the absence of the Prime Minister presented many difficulties, they had unanimously requested him to be the principal delegate of Great Britain. Both the Prime Minister and the Government profoundly regretted that circumstances made it impossible for him to carry out his intention, but he still hoped that it would be possible before long to do so, and to take the headship of the British delegation. Replying to a request that he would define the policy of the Government, he said that their policy was to seek peace.

Lord Robert Cecil associated himself with the statement of the American Ambassador that the Conference was no more antagonistic to, or inconsistent with, the League of Nations than it was with the Monroe doctrine. The analogy was happily chosen, for both institutions existed for the maintenance of peace. The Conference was by far the best hope they had yet had for an immediate reduction of the burden of armaments, and on its success or failure the hopes of the happiness and safety of mankind depended. He could not bring himself to contemplate such an awful catastrophe as the failure of the Conference, and he hoped that the Conference would not launch upon too general or too elaborate and ambitious a programme. After further discussion the House unanimously approved the motion.

Much stir was excited in the sporting world by a judgment of the House of Lords delivered on October 25, holding that under Section 2 of the Gaming Act of 1835 the loser of a bet on a horse race who had paid his loss by cheque might recover the amount from the winner in an action at law. It was not disputed that if the loser paid in cash or notes he could not recover the money. This decision produced so great a disorganisation in the racing world that a short Bill was immediately framed by Lord Muir-Mackenzie to repeal Section 2 of the Gaming Act of 1835. The Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on November 1, and the second reading was taken next day. Lord Muir-Mackenzie said that he had had conversations with members of the legal profession and judges in the highest position, and they did not repudiate his description of the present situation as ridiculous. One obstacle to the Bill was that it referred to gaming, a subject to which many excellent persons took exception. The Bill could not proceed except by general consent, which he trusted would be forthcoming.

The Lord Chancellor said that the decision of the House of Lords had produced a very inconvenient train of consequences. While it was true that there were not many persons who would seek to avail themselves of the decision, there were some who would feel under an obligation to bring forward claims, and

sometimes on a very large scale. If the executor of a deceased person, who had lost 200,000l. and had discharged his liability by cheque, felt himself called on to bring an action to recover, what would be the position of the individual bookmaker? He had no doubt that the latter would wish to act a dignified part and in a proper spirit, but he would be confronted with the fact that, unless he took advantage of the technicalities of the law he would be bankrupt. He would therefore be bound to take action against other persons to whom he had discharged his liability by cheque.

The Lord Chancellor expressed his alarm at the resultant congestion which would arise in the Law Courts, and said he would greatly welcome a decision of Parliament to apply the remedy contained in the Bill. He could not see how any person who was deeply concerned in the prevention of gambling could object to the measure. The Bill was then read a second

time.

On November 1 the retirement was announced of Sir Basil Thomson from the position of Director of the special branch at New Scotland Yard. In this capacity it had been his duty, during the war, to deal with the German spy system. His retirement followed immediately upon a reorganisation scheme under which he ceased to be responsible directly to the Cabinet, but was placed under the Commissioner of Police, Sir William Horwood. On the following day it was announced that General Sir Joseph Byrne had been appointed his successor. The eminence of Sir Basil Thomson, and the success with which he had carried out his highly responsible duties during the war, caused a wide-felt regret to be expressed on the announcement of his resignation, and the matter was immediately taken up in the House of Commons where it gave rise to considerable excitement. Questions were asked as to whether Sir Basil Thomson had voluntarily resigned or had been dismissed, and the answer was given that he had resigned. A general belief prevailed, however, that the resignation had been forced upon him as a political move instigated by those who were opposed to his measures for keeping under observation the revolutionary element in the country. When, therefore, the Home Secretary failed to give a direct answer to the question as to whether the resignation had been voluntary or not, a demand was immediately raised for a discussion, and Admiral Sir Reginald Hall moved the adjournment of the House to call attention to the matter.

In bringing forward his motion Sir Reginald Hall asked the Home Secretary why pressure had been brought to bear to make a valuable officer resign when dangers were ahead. The proof of the efficiency of his work was to be found in the jubilation of the extremists at his dismissal. He remarked upon the hearty support which the Labour Party were giving to the Government in this matter.

The Home Secretary agreed that the matter should be discussed at length in the House. He denied that any appointment had yet been made to the post vacated by Sir Basil Thomson. The post had been offered to Sir Joseph Byrne, but Sir Joseph had replied that in view of the public feeling on the matter he could not undertake the duties offered to him. Mr. Shortt explained that when Sir Basil Thomson was appointed he was an Assistant-Commissioner, and this arrangement continued until a change occurred in the office of Chief Commissioner. From the first Sir Basil Thomson had not worked well with General Horwood. He had, however, agreed to meet the Chief Commissioner once a week and keep him fully informed of the work of the special branch, but this did not continue long. Mr. Shortt stated that he then felt that the Chief Commissioner ought to have more control of the special branch. Sir Basil Thomson had made it clear that if such a decision were taken he would resign. The decision was taken, and Sir Basil Thomson was invited to take leave on full pay for a certain time, but was pressed to stay on for a week to clear things up. He said, however, that he preferred to go at once.

Following a general discussion Mr. Chamberlain intervened and told the House that if it was thought that the Government were not competent to decide, or were not to be trusted to decide, who was to be responsible for the administration of law and order, then the House should withdraw its confidence from the Government and place somebody else in their position. If they were not to be trusted to decide what was the proper organisation in a department like the Criminal Investigation Department, or the proper man to conduct that department, then the House ought to replace the present Government. On the motion going to a division 41 members voted in favour of it and 144 against.

A further explanation of the retirement of Sir Basil Thomson was given by the Home Secretary on November 8. It appeared that some of the replies which he had already given in the House of Commons were in conflict with the facts, and Mr. Shortt now disclaimed any intention of seeking to misinform the House, and frankly admitted that upon two points he was wrong. Sir Joseph Byrne had, as a matter of fact, gone to the office in order to obtain some insight into the work of the department. Mr. Shortt said that he was unaware of this circumstance during the previous debate on November 3, and that he had been misinformed regarding a communication which had appeared in the Press.

On the motion for the second reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement on the financial position of the country. When speaking during the debate on the unemployed relief measures Sir Robert Horne had drawn a somewhat gloomy picture, but he was now able to declare that there would be no deficit