candidate, he need only say that it would have been contrary to all Parliamentary precedent to propose a Cabinet Minister for the office of Speaker.

The House was already getting out of hand when Mr. Balfour again rose, and amid the general excitement said that it must not be understood that he admitted the accuracy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's version of the transactions in connection with Mr. Courtney's candidature. A division was then taken, and 285 votes were recorded in favour of Mr. Gully and 274 against him. The voting was altogether on party lines, the Parnellites present throwing in their lot with the Opposition. Mr. Courtney did not vote, and two other Gladstonians, Sir Charles Dilke (Forest of Dean) and Captain Fenwick (Houghtonle-Spring, Durham), walked out before the division. One Conservative, and one Liberal Unionist, and three Gladstonians were absent unpaired, as were also three Anti-Parnellites. On the result of the division being made known by the Clerk at the table, Mr. Gully, standing on the upper step of the chair, tendered thanks to the House for the signal and unlooked-for honour conferred upon him. Having taken his seat in the chair, and the mace having been placed on the table, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Balfour congratulated the Speaker, and assured him that both sides would have perfect confidence in his impartiality, and promised their support.

The remaining formalities connected with the installation of the new Speaker having by consent been postponed, the House at once adjourned for the Easter recess.

CHAPTER II.

Factories Bill-The Charity Commission-Crofters Bill-Light Railways-One Man, one Vote-Conciliation of Trade Disputes-Libels at Elections-The Budget The Coburg Annuity-The Leamington Vacancy and Unionist Differences-Mr. Balfour thereon-The Welsh Church Bill in Committee-The Irish and Welsh Parties-Crimes Act Repeal Bill-Scotch Grand Committee -Lord Selborne's Claim to sit in the House of Commons-Divorce Act Amendment Bill--Church Patronage Bill-Ministers at National Liberal Club-ByeElections-Amateur Agricultural Legislation-Dr. Macgregor's Revolt-Lord Salisbury at Bradford-Duke of Devonshire and Mr. Chamberlain at St. James's Hall-Mr. Balfour at Westminster- Mr. Chamberlain at Birmingham-Mr. Morley's Predictions-Uganda and the Mombasa Railway-The Vote for a Cromwell Statue-Conservative Banquet to Liberal Unionist Leaders-Gloomy Outlook for the Government-Withdrawal of Mr. Gladstone's Pair-Duke of Cambridge's Retirement-New War Office Organisation-Deficiency of Cordite -Defeat of the Government-Their Resignation-Lord Salisbury's Acceptance of Office-Mr. Campbell-Bannerman's Seal-Lord Rosebery and the House of Lords-Protest from the Duke of Argyll-The Policy of the New Government.

PARLIAMENT reassembled after the Easter recess (April 22) under auspices of ill-omen for the Government, who had just lost the bye-election at Oxford by a largely increased majority. The new Speaker was installed after the Queen's approval of

his appointment had been signified in the House of Lords, and the House of Commons discussed the Factories Bill on the motion for the second reading. Mr. Asquith (Fife, E.) was conciliatory, and the House showed the utmost readiness to deal with the bill on its merits. It was read a second time after a long but friendly debate on some of its proposals, and referred to the Standing Committee on Trade. On the following day (April 23), on the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Derby), the House granted a pension of 4,000l. a year for life to the late Speaker (Mr. Peel). An amendment for the reduction of the amount to 1,000l., moved by Mr. Keir Hardie (West Ham, S.), was not seconded. The rest of the sitting was occupied with a discussion on the work of the Charity Commissioners. Mr. J. E. Ellis (Rushcliffe, Nottingham) moved a resolution declaring that the Charity Commission ought to be reformed and made a subordinate department of the Government under a minister of State, on the ground that the existing commission was unpopular, unduly expensive, and out of harmony with public opinion. In the debate that followed the commission was attacked and defended by turns, and while there was a general admission that it was unpopular, there was an equally general admission that it had done its work well. But the Government, through the mouth of the Minister of Education (Rotherham), supported the motion, and then the House was counted out before any decision could be arrived at. In a House composed almost entirely of Scotch members (April 25), Sir George Trevelyan (Bridgeton, Glasgow) introduced a Scotch Crofters' Bill, which was read a first time with a sort of contemptuous toleration. The bill was read a second time some weeks later (June 11), but was not afterwards proceeded with. A fair attendance mustered (April 25) to hear Mr. Bryce's (Aberdeen, S.) explanation of his Light Railways Bill, which provided for the construction of light railways on the authorisation of County Councils, but gave no State aid, and did not permit any help from local rates. The lines were to be wholly the result of private effort. This led to grave complaint from the Opposition, who taunted the Government with the utter inadequacy of their sole attempt to deal with the problem of agricultural depression. The bill did not reach a second reading, for, though the second-reading debate extended to two sittings (June 10 and 11), the bill dropped before the debate could be concluded.

But the first event of importance after Easter was the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Derby) to give the Government command of Tuesdays, and of morning sittings on Fridays, for the rest of the session (April 29). Sir William Harcourt pleaded that the changed habits of Parliament did not give the Government time enough to make satisfactory progress with the business of the nation. He contended that they had made good use of the time they had had, and once more read the oft-quoted extract from a speech of Mr. Chamberlain's,

admitting that more work had been done by the present Parliament than by any other Parliament of recent times. Mr. Chamberlain (Birmingham, W.) protested that the quotation had been torn from its context, and twisted into a meaning which it was never intended to have. What he really did say was that no previous Government had ever "forced so many measures through Parliament, but they had done this by the gag and the closure. He asked what the Government were going to do with the time of the House when they got it. They passed their bills by smaller majorities than any similar bills had ever been carried by before, and they openly declared that their measures had no chance of being passed into law. They were bills of which a majority of the country did not approve, and for which their sanction had not been asked, and he did not feel disposed to grant time that might be better employed for the discussion of bills which were not wanted and which were never intended to be passed. It was an open secret that the Government were going on with the full knowledge in the mind of every man who sat on the Treasury bench that they were in a minority in the country. Such a position would be intolerable to proud men"; but this was "not a proud Government." They suffered humiliation after humiliation without any of the ordinary feelings of humanity. They had confidence in their slender and diminishing majority, and possibly in themselves, but they had no confidence in the people to whom they must ultimately go. If they liked to "cling to office without power" that was their own affair, but it was not the business of the Opposition to assist them in this "burlesque of Parliamentary procedure." Mr. Labouchere (Northampton) was willing to give the Government all the time they wanted, whether they used it in "ploughing the sands of the seashore or not. Mr. Balfour (Manchester, E.) said that the measures of the Government were only to be treated as a huge joke, but he hoped that the joke would not be made unduly tedious. The motion was eventually carried by a majority of 22.

66

The greater part of a dull sitting was given to the introduction of the "One Man, One Vote Bill of the Government (April 30), which proved to be a measure shorn of all reference to registration, and simply providing for the abolition of plural voting, and for the holding of all the contests at a general election on one day, that day being a Saturday. Mr. ShawLefevre (Bradford, C.) contended that Saturday was the most convenient day for a large majority of the electors, and argued that the abolition of plural voting was necessary as a matter of justice and equality between the poor and the rich. Sir John Gorst (Cambridge University) ridiculed the bill as unreal, and as not seriously intended to pass, for, as it stood, it was a mere wirepulling device to jerrymander the constituencies for the benefit of the party in office. If any real effort was to be

made to deal with the question, one man, one vote" would have to be accompanied by "one vote, one value." On these lines the debate proceeded, Mr. Chamberlain (Birmingham, W.) in particular pointing out that Ireland was over-represented by twenty-three seats. After a long discussion the bill was read a first time, but nothing was heard of it afterwards. The rest of the sitting was cccupied with the first stage of the secondreading debate on the bill of the Government for the conciliation of trade disputes. The debate was twice adjourned, and though the bill was ultimately read a second time (June 10) it made no further progress. The objection urged to it had reference to its ineffective character. It permitted things to be done for which no permission was necessary, and, while providing machinery for the accomplishment of certain objects, did not supply any motive power to make the machinery work.

A useful measure which had the good fortune to pass into law during the session was that of Mr. T. H. Bolton (St. Pancras, N.) for rendering illegal the making of an injurious untrue statement against the character or conduct of a candidate at a parliamentary election. The bill imposed a fine, on summary conviction, of some sum not exceeding 100'., and provided that the person convicted should not be registered as an elector within the constituency in which the illegal practice occurred for five years from the time of the offence. It was read a second time without opposition (May 1), and after passing through its subsequent stages received the Royal Assent on the last day of the session.

The Budget was introduced in the thinnest House perhaps ever seen on a Budget night (May 2). Sir William Harcourt (Derby) spoke for nearly two hours, but his material had to be beaten out very thin, and the one little secret which his statement contained was reserved until the last three or four minutes of the speech. He showed that the revenue had realised 94,634,000/., while the expenditure had amounted to 93,918,000l., so that there was a surplus of 776,000l., which had been applied to the reduction of debt. The copious manuscript from which he read the whole speech enabled him to make the usual interesting comments on the various items of revenue, showing how one item had yielded well and another badly, how tea had improved in its yield and coffee fallen off, how there was more tobacco used but less wine, how spirits had not realised expectations but beer had fully come up to them, how the dreadfully cold weather of the past winter had given a little fillip to spirits for a time, but how, notwithstanding everything in the shape of severe weather, depression of trade, agricultural distress, and labour troubles, the consumption of the non-dutiable commodities which formed the necessaries and comforts of life had gone on increasing. He showed, further, how the increase made last year in the death duties had brought in an extra million to the Treasury, how speculation on the Stock Exchange, and particularly mining speculation, had brought in another additional half-million, how

the Suez Canal shares held by the Government had increased in value until they were now worth very nearly 24,000,000l., and how the National Debt had been reduced during the year by 7,809,000l. and now stood at 660,000,000l., it having been diminished by no less a sum than 100,000,000/. during the last twenty years. Then he went on to estimate the expenditure for the coming year at 95,981,000l., and the revenue, not calculating the temporary additions made last year to the beer and spirit duties, at 95,662,000l., which left an estimated deficit of 319,000l.; but he also pointed out that the total expenditure, including the amount contributed by the State from Imperial resources for local purposes, came to 103,243,000. But he declined to preach economy, as no one would listen to him. Greater demands were constantly being made for all sorts of purposes, and there were continual proposals to cut off particular sources of supply. Indeed, economy had become a lost art at the end of the nineteenth century, and whether it would ever grow fashionable again he really did not know. To meet the deficit he "naturally turned to beer and spirits," but the House laughed greatly when he explained that he would not reimpose the additional duty put on spirits last year, and would simply reimpose the last year's additional duty upon beer, but only for the coming year. He defended this course by explaining once more that the extra spirit duty had really added nothing to speak of to the Exchequer, while the extra duty on beer had produced extremely good results; and, besides, while beer was only taxed to the extent of 34 per cent. of its value, spirits were taxed 700 per cent. upon their cost. The additional beer duty would give him 500,000l., and would thus provide a surplus of 181,000l. The following table shows the estimated revenue and expenditure respectively, before the addition of the extra beer duty :

:

Upon these estimates, as Sir William Harcourt pointed out, there was a deficit of 319,000. The subjoined table represents the final balance sheet with the extra beer duty added, and upon this the estimated surplus of 181,000l. is shown: