of a farmer. No amount of scientific knowledge would enable him to dispense with these. The duke's account of the genesis of the agricultural depression was interesting. At first the farmers leant on protection; when that prop was withdrawn they sought relief in the reduction of rents. But rent reduction had nearly reached its limits, because it was making the possession of land unadvantageous. "Rather than submit to further reduction of rent, in my opinion landlords will be disposed to sell their estates, or the greater portion of them, for what they can get, and endeavour to see whether they cannot make an income out of them by cultivating the remainder of them for themselves." Considering what was expected from them in the shape of permanent improvements, and looking at what was generally done by landlords in the matter of permanent improvements, the duke doubted whether many tenant farmers would consider their position materially improved, even if they could get rid of rent altogether and be in the position of occupying freeholders with all charges which that freehold entailed. In a second speech the duke dwelt upon the extension of the factory system to agriculture. After noticing that foreign dairy produce did not undersell English dairy produce, but actually got a higher price, he went on to suggest that it might be that it was not possible to produce butter or other articles of dairy produce in the highest perfection "when the manufacture is carried on in small quantities and with insufficient appliances." "If that be so, it only shows that you ought to turn your attention to another system altogether, and that you may find your advantage, as Lord Belper suggested, in co-operative factories, in which the farmers themselves will be interested, in which you may have the advantage of the best machinery, the best appliances, the best means of sending your produce to market, and the best means, in short, of carrying on the business." The Duke of Devonshire left the solution of these difficulties to his audience, who seemed, however, to have carried away the idea that if they could combine to bring their produce in fixed quantities to certain points some help might be expected to carry it to centres of consumption and distribution at more reasonable rates. In connection, however, with the widely-spread belief in agricultural depression -supported as it was by evidence of the bankruptcy of farmers and landowners-it appeared from the Agricultural returns that at the commencement of the year the total cultivated area of Great Britain was 32,630,000 acres, as compared with 30,339,000 acres in 1869-the best year for farmers in the latter half of the century. At that time arable land represented about 58 per cent. of the whole cultivated land, but in the interval it decreased by about eight per cent., much of what had been arable having been turned into permanent pasture, whilst at the same time more waste land had been brought under cultivation. It was, however, a curious fact that, according to

these statistics, the imports of dairy produce were rising faster than any others, whilst those of wheat (especially from India) were falling.

The agriculturists having received somewhat cold comfort from the Lord President of the Council, it next fell to the turn of the President of the Board of Trade to dispel any hopes of restricting foreign competition which may have been aroused among the artisans. Mr. Ritchie, speaking at Croydon (Sept. 25) on British commerce and technical education, insisted strongly upon the need for more energy in our iron and steel industries, where Germany and Belgium were beating us by reason of their superior technical skill, and assured his listeners that the remedy of protection favoured by many would be no remedy. France, with her strict system of protection, was losing ground. It was not long hours or low wages that gave Germany and Belgium an advantage in the iron trade, for in both those countries wages were somewhat higher and hours shorter. Again, in taxes and rates they had no advantage. Why then did they beat us? By producing a better article with less waste. He referred in support of this view to the report of delegates who had recently gone from England to inquire into the matter: "The conclusion we have come to is that we in this country must go to school again with regard to these matters." That was a moral which Mr. Ritchie applied to our industries in general. We were, however, he said, waking up. In 1891 only 750,000l. was spent in technical education, whereas this year we were spending on it at the rate of 4,000,000l. But Mr. Ritchie omitted to give his reasons for thinking that this large sum was being spent profitably, and said nothing to remove a widespread belief that a large portion of it was muddled away, because no organised system of technical and scientific instruction had been devised by either local or imperial authorities.

The President's warnings coincided almost with the appearance of Sir R. Giffen's elaborate computations of the earnings of the working classes, showing that the average weekly earnings of labouring men, agricultural and artisans, were 24s. 7d. per week. Amongst these, however, 24 per cent. were earning less than a pound a week, whilst 33 per cent. of the working men were earning between 20s. and 25s. per week. Sir R. Giffen's tables, moreover, took no account of the large percentage of the poor who were not wage-earning in any sense of the term, and practically lived from hand to mouth. Labourers' wages, however, had a greater purchasing power than formerly, so that in every way the level of their comfort, in the country at least, had materially risen within the past twenty years. On the other hand, the rise of house rent in towns had seriously weighed upon those who in order to obtain high wages were forced to live near their work. The deduction from Sir R. Giffen's table was that the raising of

wages and the lowering of prices by the increase in the industrial product were surely though slowly improving the condition of the working classes, and passing men on step by step to a level of superior comfort to that occupied by their predecessors.

CHAPTER IV.

Apologies for Liberal Defeat-The Liberal Leadership-Lord Rosebery at Scarborough-Disappointment and Adverse Criticisms-Encouraging State of Ireland-Mr. Courtney and Liberal Unionism-Lord Salisbury Reviews the Repeal of the Corn Laws-Duke of Devonshire on Industrial QuestionsMr. Chamberlain on Colonial Enterprise-Municipal Elections-Guildhall Banquet to Ministers-Lord Salisbury and the Sultan-The Sultan's Reply to Lord Salisbury-Position of the Armenian Question-Colston Day Celebrations-Mr. Balfour at Glasgow-Lord Salisbury at Brighton-Voluntary Schools-Deputations to Prime Minister and Duke of DevonshireAgricultural Depression and Remedies for It-Deputations from HopGrowers and National Agricultural Union-Lord James of Hereford's Farewell to Bury-Lord Crewe a Tepid Home Ruler-Mr. Morley Refuses to Recant-Mr. Justin M'Carthy and Irish Dissensions-Sir H. CampbellBannerman Undiscouraged-President Cleveland's Warlike Message.

SELDOM had a recess been more welcome than that which began in the early days of September. The weariness of doing nothing, or nothing that can serve any useful purpose, is always more exhausting than the fatigue of serviceable work, and the last Session of the old Parliament wearied everybody. The general election brought its own wear and tear, and, except to members returned for the first time, the short session of the new Parliament was only a tedious postponement of holiday. When, therefore, the holidays came they were enjoyed, particularly by the winning side, with more than ordinary zest. Great as was the feeling of relief to the Liberal party, they could not shake off the remembrance of their defeat. Its very completeness made them silent for a time, but when the first effect of the blow had passed off, they began to try to account for it. The Liberal journals opened their columns to letters on the subject, and a host of beaten candidates stated their impressions as to the causes of their failure. It is perhaps hardly a matter for surprise that in no instance did the unsuccessful candidate attribute the result to any greater merit in his opponent than could be claimed for himself. With almost one consent they were silent as to their own imperfections, while with the same unanimity they had much to say about those of their leaders. The measures of the defeated Government were sharply criticised for the share they had had in causing the general rout, the Local Veto Bill in particular being singled out for censure. The prevailing opinion was that too much had been attempted; but while some candidates thought that the policy of the late Government was too bold,

others complained that it had not been bold enough. These grumblings and criticisms ended at last in an arrangement to hold a conference, at the National Liberal Club, on the causes of the Liberal defeat and the open question of the leadership. The conference was to have been held at the end of October, but for some unexplained reason the project was dropped, and the conference did not come off.

One of the grievances of the Liberal rank and file was the absence of any counsel of comfort, and of any indications of future policy, from the heads of the party-Lord Rosebery and Sir W. Harcourt. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer continued his silence, but Lord Rosebery was under an engagement to open a new Liberal Club at Scarborough, and his speech on the occasion (Oct. 18) was awaited in some quarters with anxiety and in others with curiosity. In the circumstances, the task must have been an unwelcome one to Lord Rosebery, who had no policy to unfold and no comfort to give. In all, he delivered three speeches-the first, at the opening of the club; the second, at a luncheon; and the third, at a public meeting in the evening. His difficulties were obviously too much for him, for there was a singular inconsistency between the line taken in the first speech and that adopted in the others, particularly the evening speech. In opening the club, he said that the one thing in the late elections which had most surprised political observers was the extreme gullibility of the electorate. At the public meeting, after premising that he wished to speak quite frankly, he said: “I am not one of those who only acknowledge the verdict of the nation when it is given in their favour. I recognise it with equal fulness when it is given against me. I have a firm belief in the shrewd collective common-sense of the great mass of the nation, and I believe that if that common-sense has rejected us, it is because unconsciously, and in some way of which we were not aware, we have deserved that rejection."

The supposed gullibility of the electorate suggested to Lord Rosebery, in his morning speech, the need for a wider spread of information. He accordingly proposed that "Educate, educate, educate!" should be the watchword of the party. He did not doubt, he said, that there would be a reaction from the present defeat, which might float the Liberal party into power again, but he did not wish to return to power under false issues or in consequence of the mere petulant impulse and disappointment of the electorate. He desired that, if the Liberal party returned to power, it should "go for the sober and wellconsidered support of sober and well-considered reform "; and to his mind the primary question for all Liberals, the primary obstacle to all reform, the greatest danger to the stability of the State, lay in the present constitution of the House of Lords. He left that subject to be considered in the long winter evenings, when no other amusement or occupation was avail

able. He pleaded for the late Government that if it had its faults, and made mistakes, it yet had aimed high. It fell, not from dereliction of duty, but from inadequate support. Curiously enough, it was in acknowledging the toast of the House of Lords that Lord Rosebery spoke at the luncheon, and here he said that the reverses of the Liberal party should not make them dispirited. He deprecated indiscriminate criticism of the Government, of whose foreign policy, as far as it had been disclosed, he approved; while as to its domestic legislation he would not criticise before he knew. But if rumours about the disturbance of educational settlements were true, the Liberal party would strongly oppose such disturbance.

At the evening meeting Lord Rosebery admitted that the Liberal party had been soundly beaten, and he declined to seek comfort from an analysis of figures. When they found some 150 Tory seats uncontested, they might be sure that there was something rotten in the state of Denmark. After remarking, in the words which have been quoted, that if the common-sense of the country had rejected the Liberal party, the rejection must be treated as deserved, Lord Rosebery went on to indicate several causes which had contributed to the Liberal defeat. Among those causes was the length of their programme. "When you want to produce music on the pianoforte you do not strike all the notes at once, and I am inclined to think that, by producing all the articles of a policy, which it may take years to carry out, simultaneously to the people, you produce very much the same want of harmony." Another cause was the loss of Mr. Gladstone's magic personality. "In the third place," Lord Rosebery continued, "I am bound to infer from the number of votes that were cast against us at the election, that we must have lost, to some extent, our hold on the masses of the country." That loss he attributed to more causes than one. "In the first place, we were compelled by the pledges that had been given, to devote most of our parliamentary time to comparatively small portions of the United Kingdom, and, therefore, to questions in which England was not greatly interested. There was the Welsh Church, and there were the Irish measures for land and for Home Rule-great measures in themselves, but which did not so greatly and directly affect Englishmen." Perhaps there was not much sympathy between the working classes of England and the Irish working men resident among us. It had also been the misfortune of the Liberal Government to alienate the well-to-do. Yet he saw nothing disheartening in the prospect before them if they would only look facts in the face. For one thing, he rejoiced that they were finally delivered from the embarrassing companionship of the dissentient Liberals, now serenely seated in Downing Street as members of a Tory Government. Then, too, they had time before them for organisation and reorganisation.

These Scarborough speeches were a general disappointment.

www