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:-

GENTLEMEN,-It is with feelings of satisfaction and hopefulness that I receive you here to-day, and I thank you for the manner in which you have responded to my summons. It is also a matter of congratulation that the Speaker has consented to preside over your meetings.

My intervention at this moment may be regarded as a new departure. But the exceptional circumstances under which you are brought together justify my action. For months we have watched with deep misgivings the course of events in Ireland. The trend has been surely and steadily towards an appeal to force, and to-day the cry of civil war is on the lips of the most responsible and soberminded of my people.

We have in the past endeavoured to act as a civilising example to the world, and to me it is unthinkable, as it must be to you, that we should be brought to the brink of fratricidal strife upon issues apparently so capable of adjustment as those you are now asked to consider, if handled in a spirit of generous compromise. My apprehension in contemplating such a dire calamity is intensified by my feelings of attachment to Ireland, and of sympathy with her people, who have always welcomed me with warmhearted affection.

Gentlemen, you represent in one form or another the vast majority of my subjects at home. You also have a deep interest in my Dominions oversea, who are scarcely less concerned in a prompt and friendly settlement of this question. I regard you, then, in this matter as trustees for the honour and peace of all.

Your responsibilities are, indeed, great. The time is short. You will, I know, employ it to the fullest advantage, and be patient, earnest, and conciliatory, in view of the magnitude of the interests at stake. I pray that God in His infinite wisdom may guide your deliberations so that they may result in the joy of peace and honourable settlement.

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 incometax 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

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 super-tax; 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 350,000,000. 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,

L

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,

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. Harrel'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. 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.

He

Mr. Bonar Law declared that the question put to Sir John