tion upon the return of the Unionists to office had been severely commented upon. No actual scandal had arisen, but there had been more than once angry recriminations in the Press and elsewhere with reference to the secret influence of ministers (not in the Cabinet) upon the fortunes of companies of which they were directors.
An even more academic discussion was raised by the Unionist Mr. Seton-Karr (St. Helens), and seconded by the Radical Mr. Atherley-Jones (Durham, N.W.), upon our dependence on foreign imports for the necessaries of life, and hinted at the establishment of national granaries as a safeguard, or the discovery of means to check the decay of agriculture. Mr. Arnold-Forster (Belfast, W.), was rather more in favour of instituting a scheme of national insurance against maritime risks in time of war, though he did not make if clear how this would benefit any but the foreign importer. Politicians so generally opposed as the Radical Mr. Allan (Gateshead) and the Tory Admiral Field (Eastbourne, Sussex) supported the vague and harmless amendment, which as Sir Charles Dilke (Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire), pointed out was wholly useless until some understanding was arrived at as to the scheme to be pressed upon the Government. Official optimism, never failing at such moments, was voiced by the President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Ritchie (Croydon), who hoped to reassure the public by the assurance that the subject had been considered both by the Admiralty and the Board of Trade. He made light of the gloomy views of previous speakers, and while admitting that the price of corn would rise in time of war, he did not believe that there would be any serious scarcity unless it was declared contraband of war, a step which would arouse the hostility of the United States and other countries. As for the expedients suggested, he dismissed protection in any shape as outside the range of practical politics, whilst either national insurance or national granaries would impose a burden too heavy to be borne.
The most important amendment on the address was moved by Mr. John Redmond (Waterford), the leader of one of the smallest sections of the Irish party. The retirement of Mr. Morley from the counsels of the front Opposition bench left the Irish Home Rulers without any distinct guarantee that their demands would be formally recognised by the Liberal party. Mr. Redmond, therefore, determined to obtain (Feb. 16) from the new Opposition leader some definite indication of his future policy by moving an amendment in favour of the "legislative independence" of Ireland. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, supported by Mr. Haldane and Sir Henry Fowler, met these tactics by a bold declaration that, though the Liberal party remained the only party attached to the principle of Irish self-government, they claimed the right to say when and how they should apply that principle. They were practical men, and refused to give a promise that Home Rule should be the first subject with which they would
