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. 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

In

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-1,500,0001. 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.

In the intervals of these exciting debates some ordinary business was done. The Vote for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (344,0277., 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 1007. 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

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 workingwomen 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

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