petition-in Glasgow, Tyneside, the West Riding of Yorkshire, and in fact in every industrial district except Birmingham and its neighbourhood: in the working-class districts of London (Hoxton being the most striking exception), in the agricultural districts, where the fear of the "little loaf" was perhaps reinforced by the traditions of Corn Law days, and where the attacks against Chinese labour were most effective, and the Nonconformists most bitter against the Church. The Liberal tide, moreover, invaded the Home Counties and "residential" or "pleasure" towns like Cheltenham and Brighton, and but for the occasional conflicts between Labour and Liberal candidates it would have risen higher still.

The final results were: Ministerialists - Liberals, 377; Labour, 53; Nationalists, 83-total, 513. Opposition-Conservatives, 132; Liberal Unionists, 25- total, 157. Of the Labour members, however, 29 were approved by the Labour Representation Committee and pledged to sit and act as an independent party; the other 24 were more or less identified. with the Liberal party, making its total 401. Of the Nationalists, again, three or four, including Mr. W. O'Brien, were independent of the regular Irish Parliamentary party. Within the Opposition, according to a list published in the Times of January 30, 109 members were Tariff Reformers in Mr. Chamberlain's sense, 32 did not go beyond Mr. Balfour's programme, while 11 were returned as Unionist Free Fooders. This list, however, was not quite exhaustive, and three or four names were subsequently transferred from the Chamberlainite to the Balfourite list. Of the Unionist Free Fooders, Mr. Austin Taylor on February 21 announced his decision to sit with the Ministerialists.

The final computation, quoted by the Duke of Devonshire in his speech of March 6, was: Tariff Reformers, 102; Balfourites, 36; Unionist Free Fooders, 16-which left three unaccounted for out of the Unionist total. The Liberal and Labour majority over all other groups combined was 134, and the prediction that the Government would be dependent on Nationalist votes was falsified.

The territorial distribution of parties also calls for some remark. The Unionist strongholds were in Birmingham and its neighbourhood, in the better class residential districts of London and its suburbs, in Kent, and, of course, in Ulster, where Mr. T. W. Russell's followers were less successful than they had hoped. The Universities were uniformly Unionist. Labour members were numerous in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and came from most of the regions where the population was predominantly industrial. Wales did not return a single Unionist, and Scotland again became predominantly Liberal. In Ireland the Unionists won a seat in South Dublin, and the Nationalists in West Belfast.

The Jewish members were stated to number 16 and the English Nonconformists 157, the largest number in any Parlia

ment since Cromwell. Of these 65 were Congregationalists; 18 Baptists; 37 Wesleyan Methodists; 18 Methodists of other denominations; 6 Friends; 3 Presbyterians and 10 Unitarians.

The new Government was still denounced by the Opposition Leaders as incoherent and indeterminate, but it took steps to make its position clearer. Thus, in conformity with the repeated Liberal attacks on the Irish "Coercion " Act of 1887, it suspended that Act at the beginning of February in the few districts in which it was still in force; and a little later the Postmaster-General issued a circular stating that he was prepared fully to recognise any duly constituted association of postal servants-thus ending a controversy which had given much trouble to his predecessors. On Old Age Pensions again, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had an opportunity of explaining the views of the Government to a deputation from the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress (Feb. 15). Briefly they sympathised with the demand but had no funds wherewith to meet it. On other questions raised by this deputation, the Ministerial attitude. seemed to be regarded by it as satisfactory. At the conference of the Labour Representation Committee on February 15, the Chairman, Mr. A. Henderson, M.P., said that the Labour party would support this Government, as it had their predecessors, when possible and oppose it when necessary.

A new seat had at once been found for Mr. Arthur Balfour in the City of London, Mr. Alban Gibbs offering on January 24 to retire in his favour; but the prospect of his return opened up difficulties which tended further to divide and weaken the Unionist party. It was widely believed, in spite of Mr. Chamberlain's assertions to the contrary, that "fiscal reform " had been the chief cause of the Unionist defeat; on the other hand it clearly commanded a majority within the Unionist party itself and Mr. Balfour's plan was not clearly understood and had no attraction for the mass of the party. Should Mr. Balfour lead or Mr. Chamberlain, and could either leader reunite the party and restore its fortunes?

Mr. Balfour dined with Mr. Chamberlain on February 2, to arrange a plan of joint action, but it was understood that no agreement was reached. Mr. Chamberlain was believed to have urged that Mr. Balfour should accept his fiscal policy, or he would form a separate party; Mr. Balfour that the party should temporarily drop Tariff Reform and concentrate its efforts in some other direction. Mr. Balfour, again, was said to have refused to lead a party united on Tariff Reform, while Mr. Chamberlain refused to act as leader. It was therefore stated that the leadership would be undertaken provisionally by Mr. Walter Long, who had found a seat in Dublin County, but this was felt to be a somewhat grotesque solution.

The situation was partly elucidated, however, by a lengthy letter from Mr. Chamberlain to Lord Ridley, the President of

the Tariff Reform League, written to clear up misapprehensions of his position and that of tariff reformers, and published on February 8. From the first (he said) he had made it clear that he would under no circumstances be a candidate for the Unionist leadership. Tariff Reform could not be dropped, and the union of the party on the programme contained in Mr. Balfour's halfsheet of notepaper was not inconsistent with the aims of tariff reformers. There was no truth in the report of an attempt to impose on Mr. Balfour the exclusion from the party of nontariff reformers as a condition of union. The party machinery required to be popularised. He believed that the great majority of Unionist members were quite ready to accept Mr. Balfour's general leadership, but would welcome a declaration from him that Tariff Reform was not to be dropped. Should the majority, however, either agree with the Free Fooders or desire the whole question to be left in abeyance, the tariff reformers, though not separating from the party, might properly constitute themselves into a Parliamentary group, ready to bring forward their views in the House on occasion.

Mr. Balfour, speaking in the City on February 12, declared that the verdict of the country on fiscal reform was not final, and the Unionist party were not in the same position with regard to it as the Liberals were, for example, towards local veto. The economic world would be conducted on national not on cosmopolitan lines; fighting for external markets might be necessary again, as in the past, but negotiation was preferable: but it could only be successful when backed up with power to deal with those who asked for extravagant or impossible terms. The policy he recommended was quite apart from the controversy between Free Trade and Protection. He would not admit either that a duty on food was a question of principle, or that it was impossible to retaliate without a general tariff.

This speech seemed to indicate that Mr. Balfour maintained his position of obscurity and independence; but two days later, on February 14, he wrote to Mr. Chamberlain, in order, as he said, to remove the prevalent impression that the practical differences between fiscal reformers were much deeper than they really were. He held that fiscal reform was, and must remain, the first constructive work of the Unionist party; that the objects of such reform were to secure more equal terms of competition for British trade and closer commercial union with the Colonies; and that while its exact methods need not at present be specified, the establishment of a moderate general tariff on manufactured goods, not imposed to raise prices or give artificial protection against legitimate competition, and the imposition of a small duty on foreign corn were not in principle objectionable, and should be adopted if shown to be necessary for the attainment of the object in view or for purposes of revenue. Mr. Chamberlain replied cordially welcoming Mr. Balfour's letter and the policy indicated, and placing his services at Mr. Balfour's disposal for its attainment.

These "Valentine letters" were generally regarded by both Tariff Reformers and Liberals as involving the establishment of complete harmony between Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain, and their publication naturally deprived of much of its interest the meeting of the Unionist party which had been summoned to Lansdowne House on Thursday, February 15. This meeting was attended by about 650 persons, comprising Unionist peers, members of Parliament, and defeated candidates. Mr. Balfour, who presided, recommended the party to consider the question of organisation, and expressed confidence that its future depended on a united constructive policy and on defence of the Conservative principles held by the mass of the British people. The Duke of Devonshire saw no reason why the Opposition should not be able to act together under Mr. Balfour's leadership if a modus vivendi during the present Parliament could be devised on the fiscal question; but he complained of the compromise shown. in the correspondence published, and indicated that he and those who agreed with him would keep to their old line of independent action. Lord St. Aldwyn, however, saw nothing in the policy contained in the letters which definitely committed the Unionist party to a general tariff or to a tax on corn, and Mr. Chamberlain, who was enthusiastically cheered, said that a constructive policy was vital to the party and must be the policy of the majority; but the letters involved a definition, not a compromise. Mr. Balfour, in answer to Lord Hugh Cecil, indicated that the choice of candidates must rest with the party in the various constituencies, but that he himself would naturally prefer one who agreed with the fiscal policy set forth in his letter. Finally, a vote of confidence, moved by the Duke of Norfolk and seconded by Colonel Saunderson, was carried unanimously.

Some light was thrown indirectly on the mode in which the unity of the Unionist party was being secured by the expulsion a few days later (Feb. 21) from the Constitutional Club of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, on the ground that, as President of the Chelsea Free Trade League, he had signed a circular supporting the Liberal candidate in Chelsea; and, as the effect of the meeting, the executive of the Liberal party in the City resolved immediately to oppose Mr. Balfour in view of what was described as his "surrender" to Mr. Chamberlain.

Meanwhile the Prime Minister, on the eve of the assembling of Parliament, had been entertained (Feb. 14) at a congratulatory dinner by the National Liberal Club. In responding to the toast of his health, which was proposed and supported by the victors respectively at Leamington and at East Manchester, he remarked that the attempt of the Opposition to entrap the Liberals by letting them form a Government had redounded to the benefit of the Liberal party, though it had somewhat impeded the public service by necessitating haste in framing the Estimates. The King's Speech would contain no surprises, and there was no mystery about Liberal policy. After a reference

to the distraction of the Opposition, he declared that the elections exhibited a revival of the old spirit which had made Liberalism a moral force. They now wanted to get to work. The Liberals, aided by the special knowledge of the Labour members, would devote special attention to the condition of the people.

CHAPTER II.

Opening of Parliament-Election of Speaker-The King's Speech-Debate on the Address in the Lords-Commons: Discussion of Issue of New Writ for Westbury, Wilts, and Interference of Peers in Elections-Debate on Address: Speeches of Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Redmond and others-Amendments on Flogging in the Navy, and Irish Legislation-The Fiscal Question in the Lords: Speeches of the Duke of Devonshire, Lord Lansdowne and Lord Goschen-The Address in the Commons: Amendment on Chinese Labour-Lord Milner on South Africa in the House of Lords: Debate-Mr. Byles' Resolution in the Commons-Conclusion of the Debate on the Address: Amendments dealing with India, Alien Immigration, Coast Erosion, Unemployment-Mr. Balfour's Return for the CityThe Redistribution Committee-Reform of Parliamentary Procedure—The Navy Estimates-The House of Lords on the New Naval Policy "-The Government and Domestic Questions-The Home Office Estimates; the Aliens Act; the Sugar Convention and other Matters-Social Reform in the New House; the Feeding of School Children; Payment of Election Expenses and of Members; the Land Tenure Bill; Sunday Trading-The First Census of the British Empire-The Army Estimates: Statement of Mr. HaldaneFurther Army Debates-The Debate on Sir James Kitson's Free Trade Resolution-Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman at the Reform Club-Major Seely's Motion on Chinese Labour-Mr. Winston Churchill and Mr. Chamberlain-Mr. Chamberlain's Motion for a Commission of Inquiry into Chinese Labour-Mr. Byles' Resolution of Censure on Lord Milner-The Redistribution Report-The Working of the Aliens Act-Irish Education-The Legislative Programme of the Government: the Merchant Shipping Bill-The Workmen's Compensation Bill-Second Reading of the Bill-The Trade Disputes Bill; the Labour Members' Alternative; Acceptance by the Government The Criminal Appeal Bill-The Public Trustee Bill-The House of Lords on South Africa: Land Settlement; Formal Recognition of Lord Milner's Services-The Rebellion in Natal: Debates in Parliament-Parliamentary Procedure: Report and Debate-Prevention of Corruption Bill— Future Plans of the Government-Foreign Affairs: Morocco, the Akabah Difficulty, the Congo, the Outrages on Jews in Russia-Another South African Debate The Education Bill-Its Introduction and Reception-Its Provisions-The Easter Adjournment.

PARLIAMENT was formally opened on Tuesday, February 13, by Royal Commission. In the House of Lords on that day, the new Lord Chancellor, Lord Loreburn, took the oath as a Peer, and subscribed the roll with some ceremony.

The Commons, having been summoned to the House of Lords to hear the reading of the Royal Commission, returned to their own Chamber and unanimously elected to the Speakership Mr. J. W. Lowther, who had held that office in the last Parliament since the resignation of Mr. Gully in 1905. He was proposed by Sir Wilfrid Lawson (Cockermouth, Cumberland) and seconded by Mr. Stuart-Wortley (Hallam, Sheffield), and, after appropriately acknowledging the honour, was congratulated on behalf of the Government, the Opposition, and