ber. In the elections of this year the Unionists won 38 seats from the Liberals, and the Liberals won 35 seats from the Unionists--a net gain of three seats to the Unionists, counting six upon a division in the House, and thus raising Lord Salisbury's majority to 134. That is, he brought back the big majority he had at the dissolution, plus six; while he was nine seats short of the result of the elections of 1895. Naturally, the Government supporters regard their majority of 134 as a huge triumph, while the Opposition like to think that a net loss of only three seats was not so bad, considering that Lord Salisbury dissolved at the precise moment when the register of voters was worst for them-an action without precedent in British political history-and that the war fever and even the spirit of patriotism were used unscrupulously against them.

In England the Liberals gained ten seats upon the figures of 1895, but still the "predominant partner" returns 339 Unionists to 126 Liberals. Scotland, on the other hand, once the stronghold of Liberalism, went back five seats, and now sends to Westminster 38 Unionists to 34 Liberals. In 1892 Scotland sent 50 Liberals to 22 Unionists-the falling off is both mysterious and fatal. Wales alone remains faithful to her Liberal principles; she is now represented by 26 Liberals to 4 Unionists. London, of course, is hopelessly Tory: 54 Unionists to 8 Liberals. Ireland remains exactly as in 1895: 82 Nationalists to 21 Unionists. The Scottish débâcle is, however, much the most serious aspect of the recent elections from our point of view; Glasgow, for instance, which once sent to Mr. Gladstone the triumphant telegram, "We are seven," has now seven Unionist members in the House of Commons. The explanation is multiform-war feeling, disappointment that Lord Rosebery had not returned to the leadership, absence of good Liberal candidates, the canny logic that, as a Liberal majority was impossible, the Unionists had better be as strong as possible to finish off the job they had undertaken, and the staleness of the register by which large numbers of the working classes, of whom a majority would vote Liberal, were disqualified.

The totals of votes cast give some in teresting and instructive results, although

66

there is an element of uncertainty in these calculations because of the large number of members returned without a contest, in which cases the votes have to be estimated according to some theoretical principle. Mr. E. T. Cook, the editor of the Daily News," who is regarded as our most expert political meteorologist, adopts the plan, with regard to uncontested seats, of assuming that 75 per cent. of qualified voters cast their votes, and that of these votes two-thirds were cast for the party holding the seat and one-third for the other party. On this basis he finds that in Great Britain 2,465,935 votes belong to the Government, and 2,049,064 to the Opposition, giving a Government majority of only 416,871 votes. The 567 seats in Great Britain are now held by 381 Ministerialists and 186 Opposition members. According to the strength of votes upon the above calculation, there should be 310 Ministerialists and 257 of the Opposition. That is, while the actual majority is 195, the proportional majority should be 53. If Ireland be added, the figures are still more striking: actual, 134; proportional, 26. In the country there are five Unionists to four Liberals; in the House of Commons there are six Unionists to three Liberals. Figures like these constitute the case of the advocates of a system of proportional representation -a reform or a fad, according to your point of view, of which not so much is heard to-day as was heard ten years ago.

One other point may be mentioned in this connection, as it concerns a change which many Conservatives and Unionists have at heart, and which may therefore conceivably be embodied some day in a bill presented by them to Parliament. If representation to Parliament rests upon a basis of population, Ireland (I quote the figures of Mr. J. Holt Schooling) has in 1901 an excess of members of 33, while England and Wales have a deficiency of 34 because the population of England. and Wales is increasing-they had 74.5 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom in 1881, and 79 per cent. in 1901-while that of Ireland is decreasing; she had in 1881 14.8 per cent. of the whole, and in 1901 only 10.4 per cent. This statistician claims to show that on the bases of number of Parliamentary electors and of contribution to Imperial

services Ireland also has a great excess of representation. I confine myself to the comment that a Conservative will naturally regard with complacency, if not, indeed, with enthusiasm, any change which would take a number of Parliamentary representatives from Ireland, which in normal times is Liberal, and give from a dozen to a score of them to London, hopelessly and ignorantly Tory.

It is perhaps worth adding that of the new M.P.'s 140 belong to the legal profession, 65 are "gentry and landowners," 63 are officers and retired officers of the army and navy, 52 are manufacturers, 44 are merchants, 33 are newspaper proprietors and journalists, 23 are brewers, distillers, and wine-merchants, 22 are bankers and financiers, while shopkeepers, professors, and labor representatives are each of the sinister number of 13.

There is a fine flavor of mediævalism about the opening of a new Parliament. The new members, unsworn, unshepherded, assemble in the House of Commons, and to them presently enters, with repeated bows, a tall, slim gentleman, aged seventy-seven, in the full scarlet uniform and carrying the plumed hat of a General. This is Sir Michael Anthony Shrapnel Biddulph, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, and a very distinguished soldier in his time. Approaching the table, he summons "this honorable House" to the House of Peers. Although Black Rod has only about twenty words to say, so impressive is the atmosphere of the House of Commons that he cannot recollect them, and after a painful pause leaves out a line. But nothing happens in consequence, and when he next comes, and again breaks down in his message, Sir Charles Dilke is ready to prompt him. "This honorable House," as was observed, routs the man for whom the Alma, Balaclava, and Inkerman had no terrors. When we follow him, a jostling, laughing crowd, across the lobbies and through the halls to the House of Lords, we discover five gentlemen in scarlet and ermine robes, with cocked hats on their heads, sitting in a rather absurdlooking row, all evidently very conscious of their own peculiar appearance. A clerk reads the royal warrant appointing them Lord Commissioners to open Parliament in the Queen's name, and as he mentions

each "trusty and well-beloved" name and bows low to the owner of it, the latter solemnly lifts his cocked hat. Then the Lord Chancellor tells us to elect some "proper person" to be our Speaker, and we all go back to our own place. “A degrading ceremony," remarked a Scotch radical; but it is surely inconsistent to be so enthusiastic over the mediavalism of Mr. Maurice Hewlett and contemptuous of the mediævalism of the British Constitution. The re-election of Mr. Gully is a matter of form, for it would be impossible to find a more dignified, a more impartial, or an abler Speaker. We find him sitting in ordinary dress upon one of the Liberal benches; he is proposed, seconded, returns thanks, and is conducted to the chair, and, standing upon the lower step, once more makes his acknowledgments. Then he disappears, returning shortly afterwards in his official costume, but with only a "bob wig," and is congratulated by the leader of the House and the leader of the Opposition. Then we adjourn. Next day Black Rod summons the Speakerelect to the House of Peers to be informed that her Majesty approves him as Speaker, whereupon he promptly lays claim to all the ancient rights and privileges of the faithful Commons, which the Queen duly grants. Then Mr. Speaker assumes his full-bottomed wig, says, "Order, order," informs the House of what has taken place across the way, and we are ready to begin.

The Queen's Speech is a model of brevity. It simply informs us, sans phrases, that we have been called together to vote money for the expenses of military operations in South Africa and China. It even omits the customary prayer for the divine blessing upon our labors. That, as the Liberal leader subsequently remarked, is probably because the Government, which wrote the speech, considers us past praying for. In fact, her Majesty's “own words," as the composition of the Prime Minister and his colleagues is traditionally called, are "Pay, pay, pay !" A humble address in reply is moved and seconded by two unimportant members of the majority-a compliment paid them which, to our surprise, they turn into an opportunity of delivering rather long harangues about the causes and merits of the war- and then serious politics begins by the speech

of the leader of the Opposition. No more cocked hats and Black Rod, no more scarlet and ermine and bob wig, but bitter party thrust and parry, and all the angry passions of political partisanship.

Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was in his best form, and that is very good, for he is a lucid, forcible, witty speaker when he does not try to drive a pair of incompatibles in double harness. Of course he pulled the Queen's Speech to pieces on various technical grounds-that is part of the game—and he chaffed the uncomfortable Minister in this pleasant vein: "Lord Salisbury has given a turn of the wrist to the kaleidoscope, and all the brilliant little pieces of glass have fallen into a new coruscation. It is wonderful; we cannot yet say whether it is beautiful." But with eloquence and seriousness he reminded the House of the numerous matters upon which the Government's explanation was awaited, particularly the suppression of all despatches from the seat of war, and the failure to make to the Boers any proclamation of terms of peace which might be to them the dawn of a new hope-not, of course, of independence, but of freedom under the British flag. He concluded with these eloquent words, cheered loudly and long by every Liberal :

To make some modification in our attitude and action towards the people of the two conquered States in South Africa which, while completely preserving the results of our efforts and sacrifices and involving no departure from our fixed policy, may yet abate the exasperation or the estrangement of races, will do more than anything else, in my opinion, to bring this great war expenditure to an end. But of far greater value than any saving of money would be the initiation of an open policy of conciliation and harmony upon which alone can be founded a hope for better days for the people of South Africa and greater strength and security of the British power in that dis

tracted continent.

The Government's real reply to this came on another day, of which I shall speak later. Mr. Balfour contented himself by asking, "What more can be done than has been done?" The most important part of his speech was devoted to a chivalrous attempt to defend Mr. Chamberlain and others from the charge brought against the latter's electoral methods and appeals. This was not the first time that Mr. Balfour had been obliged to do this. During the latter part of the elections Mr. Chamberlain's speeches, letters, and tele

grams grew stronger and stronger, till at last they were endangering Conservative seats, and Mr. Balfour was obliged to go down hastily to the country and explain that if Mr. Chamberlain's statements about Liberal candidates were understood in a certain sense, "that would be a calumny upon honorable and patriotic men." "Such an explanation," said even the weighty and Tory "Quarterly Review," "ought not to have been required in connection with any statement put forward by a leading Minister."

I wonder if American readers have realized to what lengths Mr. Chamberlain went, and how far his supporters followed his example, during the election. On September 22, speaking of "two-thirds of the Opposition "—a ridiculous calumny, of course he said: "Now we have come practically to the end of the war; there is nothing going on now but a guerrilla business, which is encouraged by these menI was going to say these traitors, but I will say instead, these misguided individuals." Naturally, after this, the word "traitor "appeared on scores of Conservative platforms and in hundreds of Conservative handbills. With the above speech, to illustrate the difference between the two men, may be compared Mr. Balfour's words in the debate I have described: "I am perfectly certain I never used any phrase throughout the whole election which could be reasonably interpreted to mean that any opponent of mine was lacking in patriotism." Here is an extract from a letter written by Mr. Chamberlain to a Welshman during the election-the italics are mine: "I have heard that the wife of Edgar, who was murdered by the Boer police, was a Welshwoman. I hope, therefore, that the Welsh people will not allow the results of the war and the losses which have been incurred to be thrown away." A telegram from Mr. Chamberlain to the electors of Heywood said, "Every seat lost to the Government is a seat sold to the Boers," and this assertion had a wide circulation and was the subject of an energetic protest in the Conservative "Daily Mail" before Mr. Chamberlain's explanation was received that "sold to " was a telegraphic error of transmission for "gained by." Here are two typical Conservative posters-one was issued on behalf of Mr. Gerald Balfour,

as they did to us. Perhaps you are accustomed to estimate election literature of this class at its proper value. Certainly nothing like them has ever been seen in modern English political life, in which they were a new and startling degradation. But the worst of all was a Tory picture-poster at Newmarket, representing the Liberal candidate assisting Mr. Kruger to pull down the British flag, in response to Mr. Kruger's appeal, "Pull, my friend Rose! we may still lower it a bit." Now, Mr. Rose (who, by the way, was ready to challenge for the America Cup if Sir Thomas Lipton had not done so) was away in South Africa when this was issued. He had gone there to identify and mark the graves of his eldest son and his second son, who had died fighting for their Queen and country, and on the day that the news of the death of his second son reached England, his third son sailed with his regiment for the front. This sort of political warfare was new, as I said, in England. Heaven grant that we may never see it again! Mr. Augustine Birrell, QC., has well said of these posters, "More blackguard productions have seldom been seen. They deserve every epithet of disgrace that can be heaped upon them. A seat in the House of Commons must indeed be worth having if its possession can dull the remembrance or obliterate the stain of such things as these." You will doubtless recollect that the Tories used to like to be known as the "gentlemanly party," and that Mr. Chamberlain, when he joined them, expressed his satisfaction that he would at least thenceforth associate with English gentlemen?

The interest of the session centered round three topics-the alleged nepotism of the Prime Minister; the alleged improper relations of Mr. Chamberlain, Colonial Secretary, and his son, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with certain commercial companies supplying the Government with materials; and the war. The first of these took the form of the following amendment to the Address to the Queen moved from the Conservative benches:

But we humbly express our regret at the advice given to your Majesty by the Prime Minister in recommending the appointment of so many of his own family to offices in the

Five members of this great family thus hold very important offices under the Crown, all appointed by the head of the family, and draw among them over $75,000 a year in salary. Moreover, while Mr. A. J. Balfour holds his office by virtue of pre-eminent ability, admitted and admired by everybody, it is beyond question the general opinion in this country that three of the above gentlemen, Lord Selborne, Mr. Gerald Balfour, and Lord Cranbornecertainly the first two, for Lord Cranborne is undoubtedly a young man of ability, though he has never shown any acquaintance with foreign politics-would not occupy the positions they do except for their fortunate relationship to the Prime Minister. And this opinion, right or wrong, is as common among Conservatives as among Liberals. At any rate, Mr. Bartley, a lifelong Conservative, who has in past years worked devotedly for his party in the House of Commons, moved the above amendment, and Mr. T. G. Bowles, one of the cleverest and bestinformed Conservatives in the House, supported it. Suppose, asked Mr. Bartley, Mr. Gladstone had appointed to high and lucrative office five members of his own family and loud Liberal cheers drove the remark home. How many of the early disasters of the war could be traced to improper appointments? How many reverses were due to the incompetence of commanders and officers who largely owed their appointment to family influence and intrigue? Such were the questions men required to be answered by full inquiry, and it was a little awkward to have the inquiry instituted under the auspices of a Government so tainted. So spoke Mr. Bartley, and there seems no possible

answer. At any rate, Mr. Balfour could only make a counter attack, beginning by the remark that no Parliamentary task is more easy than, amid the cheers of your opponents, to make a personal attack upon your friends, and ending by an allusion to Mr. Bartley as a disappointed candidate for office. This last laid him open to a smashing retort, which Mr. Bowles promptly proceeded to deliver. "Perhaps my honorable friend," he said, " is a disappointed candidate. At any rate, he was a Tory when right honorable gentlemen now sitting on the Treasury bench were Radicals and Socialists." This, of course, was a swinging left-hander for Mr. Chamberlain and his faithful follower, Mr. Jesse Collings, and an acid smile flitted across the face of the former. No influential Liberal spoke to this amendment, but they all voted for it, and when Mr. Bartley insisted on dividing the House, the Government had a majority of only 102, and it must be remembered that about eighty Irish members, who would have voted with the Opposition, were absent. As usual, the best thing in this connection was said by Lord Rosebery, who, by pungency, style, and courtesy of thrust, is beyond comparison the political wit of contemporary England.

We are enabled [he said] to congratulate the noble Marquis on being the head of a family with the most remarkable genius for administration that has ever been known. remember it was said in the history of the

I

Jews that it was the practice of that nation to confine the priesthood to a single family; and I am not at all sure that this great backward stride towards the traditional methods of that ancient civilization is altogether welcomed by some of the aspirants to office in her Majesty's present Administration. But there is a solace for every consideration. We have often felt in the festive season which is rapidly approaching that some danger may accrue to the country from the fact that some Ministers may be so much scattered that there would be no center of administrative power in which we could feel that our interests are safe. But when the festive circle assembles around the noble Marquis at Christmas we shall feel, not, indeed, that the whole Cabinet is therebecause I do not believe that even the palatial accommodation of Hatfield could receive the

whole of the Government at one time-but that there is an ample section of it, the inner section, assembled round the noble Marquis's family table, and that our interests and our future are safe.

This amendment, though it dealt with. a sufficiently serious topic, raised only