years to be fixed by statute, but should be eligible for reelection.

3. That the reconstituted House of Lords should consist approximately of 350 members.

Two other resolutions dealt with the powers of the House with regard to Money Bills and the application of the Parliament Act of 1911.

These proposals found little favour in the House of Lords itself. Lord Selborne complained that they ignored the recommendations of the Bryce Committee. He emphasised the necessity for the repeal of the Parliament Act, which had not been worked for eight years. Under that Act this country might become a Republic within two years. By the Parliament Act a constitution had been framed under which things could easily be done even though the majority of the people of England were against them. In all quarters of the House the resolutions met with strong opposition.

A long debate took place on July 20, when Lord Crawford defended the proposals of the Government. He pointed out that the Crown might nominate Labour Peers. If a Labour Government came into power it could not be properly represented in the House of Lords as it was at present, and it was very important to have some constitutional means by which the Crown might nominate members of the House. Lord Crawford admitted that the resolutions did not cover the whole ground, but they did not pretend to do so. He observed that few members had attacked any one of them individually, although a strong opinion existed against any change. He pointed out that 120 members of the House had not taken their places since the opening of Parliament; some were minors, some were too infirm, and others did not wish to attend. There was a danger in excessive numbers because in moments of danger and crisis the additional Peers who attended did not add to the wisdom of their deliberations. They were a determining factor on questions of crucial importance without possessing that profound sense of responsibility which governed the action of every Peer who made it his business to attend regularly.

Defending the retention of the Parliament Act he said that the stability of Britain did not depend on its constitution; it was on the good sense of the British electorate that we had depended against the dangers of revolutionary movement. There could be no repeal of the Parliament Act unless they had an entirely elected House and the hereditary system was wiped

out.

The debate was continued on July 25 and 31. Lord Stuart of Wortley welcomed the arrival of an elected element, and of a nominated element. Lord Long objected to the Speaker of the House of Commons deciding whether a Bill was a Finance Bill or not, and he held that the age when a Peer could take his seat should be fixed. Lord Islington considered that the first aim

should be a reduction in the numbers of the House.

Lord

Salisbury said that the essential object was to put right the Parliament Act by modifying those parts which militated against the interests of the country. After a reply by the Lord Chancellor the House went into committee on the resolutions.

Great interest was aroused during July by an effort, instigated by The Times and other newspapers, to abolish the embargo on Canadian cattle. The policy adopted for many years past had been that imported cattle should be slaughtered at the port in order to avoid the introduction of pleuro-pneumonia. The subject was first raised in the House of Lords, and it was urged that a Royal Commission had concluded that Canada was free from pleuro-pneumonia, and therefore that there was no further objection to admitting cattle from the Dominions, subject to precautions being taken by means of quarantine. The debate was introduced by Lord Chaplin, who urged the House to decline to remove the embargo which had increased our herds and added to the value of our stock, because purchasers knew that it was free from pleuro-pneumonia. Lord Ernle referred to the pledge which had been given at the Imperial Conference of 1917, which was generally understood to mean a promise by the Government to remove the embargo, or at least to recognise the exceptional health of Canadian cattle. The Duke of Devonshire emphatically affirmed that there was no danger in allowing free admission of Canadian cattle into this country. Lord Long said that he maintained that an absolute pledge had been given, and was understood by the Canadian Government as such. Had not such a belief existed the Canadian representatives would have raised it at the Imperial Cabinet. If the decision of the Conference had been reversed either by the Imperial Cabinet or Parliament he would have placed his resignation in the hands of the Prime Minister. The question must be dealt with as an imperial and not a domestic one.

Discussion in the House of Commons took place on July 24, when the Minister of Agriculture maintained that a pledge had only been given to remove the stigma on Canadian cattle. He contended, moreover, that even if a definite pledge to admit these cattle as stores had been given, it had been given by an individual Minister who was not in the Cabinet, and who had not consulted the Cabinet, and therefore could not be binding on the House of Commons. Mr. Asquith, after reading declarations by Lord Long and Lord Ernle, declared that he could not see how it could be seriously maintained that the Government were not bound in honour to implement the solemn promises given at the Imperial Conference. The House could only repudiate the pledge by casting discredit and implying censure on the Government that gave it. It was all the more impossible to go back on the pledge when the Royal Commission had reached findings which showed that the pledge was based on

reason, experience, and public policy, and he warned the House of the responsibility it would take upon itself if it repudiated the pledge.

The Minister for Agriculture, however, opposed the removal of the embargo, saying that it was essentially an agricultural question, and that in this matter he represented the great bulk of the agriculturists in England and Wales. He denied that there was any real stigma on Canada, as the regulations applied to every other country. He described how stock-breeding had been fostered and become a great industry, and the success which followed the exclusion of animals from overseas in freeing the herds at home from disease. He asked what was the good of stamping out disease by slaughtering and then running the risk of importing it from outside. The policy pursued in the past had given traders a confidence that they never had before, and if that confidence was maintained we could produce all the stores we wanted in this country. He opposed the removal of the embargo on the further ground of the necessity for preserving the purity of our herds. He asked whether Canadian cattle were free from tuberculosis, and what was the good of taking steps to stamp out tuberculosis if animals were to be admitted without any test. He insisted that there must be quarantine. He poured contempt on the cry of cheap meat, and suggested that the Labour Party had been caught in a scheme which was preparing the way for a Meat Trust. On a division being taken the removal of the embargo was carried by a majority of 76.

Since Canadian cattle were at present excluded by the Diseases of Animals Act, effect could not be given to the resolution without special legislation, and the Government offered no prospect of such legislation being introduced in the present session. On July 27 the Prime Minister declared that the Government accepted the decision of the House as a mandate to deal at their earliest convenience with the problem.

The Navy Estimates were dealt with in the House of Commons on July 18. Viscount Curzon said that the Government had only nine flying aeroplanes in contrast to eighty-five possessed by the United States Government. Mr. George Lambert referred to the alleged differences between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry, and asked if these departments quarrelled who was to decide. He said that expenditure on the Navy would be useless without an efficient Air Service. We were going to spend 16,000,000l. on new battleships, but it was futile to spend money on capital ships unless there was sufficient aircraft for the ships we already possessed.

Mr. Amery assured the House that there was not the slightest idea of challenging the general position laid down by the Leader of the House in March as to the existence of a separate independent Air Force. The only question was how naval control for the air units that actually worked with thẹ

fighting fleet could be most effectively secured, consistently with the fullest training of the personnel of those units in every aspect of air work, and how co-operation could be secured most effectively, economically, and in such a way as to encourage to the greatest extent the development of that aspect of the Navy. The question was at present under discussion by the Committee of Imperial Defence, by the Chief of the Air Staff, and the First Lord, together with the help and advice of the Colonial Secretary. He made reference to the tests recently made in the Channel. Torpedo-carrying aeroplanes were sighted fifteen minutes before they discharged their torpedoes, they were caught by fighting aeroplanes, and they were under dummy gunfire. He thought it would be realised and agreed that there was a great deal of difference in the morale and steadiness of a flier under dummy fire as compared with what it would be with real fire directed against him. Dummy gunfire was opened by light cruisers and destroyers before the torpedoes were fired.

One of the Government Bills which excited opposition during July was the War Services Canteens Bill, which provided for the disposal of sums in respect of the carrying on of the Expeditionary Force Canteens and the Navy and Army Canteen Board. When the second reading was introduced Colonel Nall asserted that the measure was nothing short of an attempt to defraud the ex-service men and the widows and orphans of the men who fell in the war of certain funds which, by moral and legal right, were theirs. He protested against balances due to the men who contributed to the profits of the Expeditionary Force Canteen being applied to the liquidation of debts created by an entirely different organisation. In reply Colonel Stanley explained that the Bill was necessary to legalise payments already made to the troops and others. The Secretary for War then admitted that the accounts of the organisations which had a turnover of 150,000,000l. were complicated. Disclaiming any pretensions to being a financial man, he said he went for advice to Sir William Plender and asked whether the sum that was being paid over was the right sum, or whether the exservice men were entitled to something more. Sir William Plender's report was that the payments already made to Lord Byng's Committee and its successor, the United Services Fund, amounted to 3,729,5541., and that it was proposed that a further sum of 3,471,000l. should be handed over in cash, making a total of 7,200,5541. Sir William Plender added that in his opinion that was a fair and equitable settlement. In view of the persistent allegations that, owing to trade losses which ought not to have been incurred, the profits were less than they otherwise would have been, and suggestions that there had been fraudulent practices, the Secretary for War said that he would grant a committee in order that the ex-service men might have the satisfaction of knowing whether the sum they were to receive was the right sum or not. Regarding allegations

that canteen managers had remitted home large sums to their private accounts, the Secretary for War said that if any member would bring forward a prima facie case against any official of the canteens he would at once have an investigation made. The second reading was then carried. No amendments were made either in the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and the Bill received the royal assent on August 4.

The anxiety which was felt on many sides about alleged deficiencies in the Air Service gave rise to a debate in the House of Lords on July 27. The debate arose on a question by Lord Londonderry as to whether the Government realised the fact of this anxiety. For some days before, many questions upon the subject had been brought forward in the House of Commons, and the Prime Minister had announced that the whole subject was under the consideration of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Lord Londonderry, who was formerly Under-Secretary for Air, expressed the view that it was imperative that real co-ordination between the three arms of the Service should be established, and that the combined as well as the separate functions of each and all should be fully understood and clearly defined. He therefore asked whether there was any serious menace to this country from the air, and whether that menace was as great as, or greater than, the menace from the sea. Less than one-tenth of our expenditure on the Services was devoted to the Air Force. The financial provision should, in his view, follow the degree of importance which was attached to the services rendered.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu referred to the recrudescence of jealousy between the Navy and Army and the Air Force. The two former, however brave and skilful, would not be able, he said, to ward off the attack which would come, in the first instance, by air. Lord Sydenham, on the other hand, considered that the anxiety expressed in the Press was fully justified. We had already lost the strong position we had won in the war, and the present position was a dangerous one. He held that the Navy should have control of its own Air Forces. Lord Long said that he had held that the proposal to set up a separate Air Ministry with control of the Air Forces of the Army and Navy was foredoomed to failure. Lord Selborne said he was wholly incredulous that the Navy was a back number. The Navy had its work to do in maintaining sea communication in the future. He did not believe that either aircraft or submarines would drive battleships from the seas, much less cruisers and destroyers. If the Navy was to fulfil its function it could not be dependent on any ministry for what was, and must be, an essential part of its training. He hoped the Government would reconsider the whole position and on a wider scale.

Lord Gorell, the Under-Secretary for Air, complained that in certain quarters there had been deliberate misrepresentations