that I see any prospect of an import duty being imposed on any article of foreign production which is generally used in this country. This is, I am aware, very cold comfort, but I do not think it is right to hold out prospects which we should not be able to realise."

Speaking at Oxford, at a joint-dinner of the Eighty and Russell Clubs (Nov. 29), Sir F. Lockwood contrasted Lord Salisbury's recent answer to the hop-growers with the reply he gave in a speech at Hastings, in 1892, to the question "What about hops?" The speech had reference to possible subjects of taxation, and, on this question being put to him, Lord Salisbury said: "Well, there is a great deal to be said for hops"--which Sir F. Lockwood interpreted to mean that the hop-growers might look for Protection. Lord Salisbury took occasion to notice this matter when he received-in conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Agriculture-the second of the two agricultural deputations (Dec. 11). The deputation represented the National Agricultural Union, and its object was to urge such an alteration in the beer duty as would encourage the brewing of beer from British barley, malt, and hops. Lord Winchilsea, who introduced the deputation, said that the Agricultural Union did not propose to ask the Government to make any change in the settled fiscal policy of the country with regard to free imports. Their suggestion was that the duty on beer brewed from British barley, malt, and hops should be reduced by 1s. a barrel, and the duty on beer brewed from foreign materials increased by an equivalent amount. Lord Salisbury assured the deputation of the sympathy felt by the Government with agriculturists, and of their anxiety that any remedy which Parliament might be able to find should be applied to the relief of the agricultural industry. He had never, however, held that it was to Parliament mainly that they could look for relief, and he went on to deny that he had ever, as alleged by Sir F. Lockwood, promised protection for hops in a speech at Hastings, in 1892. He had urged a very different thing that their measures of Free Trade should not exclude measures for obtaining reciprocity. He was sensitive as to the suggestion that he had ever urged on any audience a belief that Protection could return within any period to which this generation could look.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that what the deputation proposed would amount to a very serious interference with the process of manufacture. He thought that no favour should be shown to foreign materials, whether barley or sugar, in the way in which the duty was levied, but they would have to prove that their proposal was not really Protection in another guise. There was also the difficulty that, if a lower duty were levied on beer produced from British barley and hops, a strong temptation would be held out to

brewers to claim that their beer was so brewed, and for the Excise to attempt to check that would involve a continual inspection of the process of manufacture which would be found intolerable.

Lord James of Hereford took leave of his late constituents at Bury (Nov. 20) in a speech in which he vindicated the Liberal Unionists, and showed how completely they had succeeded, in spite of their relatively small numbers, in turning the scales in favour of a steady constitutional policy, and against the sensational policy of Irish Home Rule. He pledged himself that the Government would not promise a long list of measures solely for the purpose of gratifying sections of their party, and that whatever they did propose they would do their very best to carry. In reference to the question of Indian import duties on cotton goods, Lord James said that the view expressed by Sir Henry Fowler against a protective duty, if it could be shown to be protective, was fully shared by Lord George Hamilton. A representation on the subject from Lancashire had been forwarded to India, and it had been pointed out to the Government of India that if the duty was protective it ought, in the interests of India as well as of Great Britain, to be modified.

Lord Crewe, who as Lord Houghton was the Gladstonian Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, became a less ardent Home Ruler out of office than he appeared to be when exercising vice-regal functions at Dublin. Addressing the Palmerston Club at Balliol College, Oxford (Nov. 30), he said that he thought the importance of Home Rule for Ireland had been greatly exaggerated by both sides. Home Rule would be productive of some benefits, but they would not be very many, and they would be rather slow in making their appearance. He admitted that in a certain sense Ireland was not now an oppressed nationality, but the present system of Irish government was clumsy, very expensive, and thoroughly unpopular. He thought that the Liberal party would remain true to the cause of Home Rule for Ireland, but it was impossible to exaggerate the effect on public opinion in England of the disputes which had torn in two, or rather in three, the Nationalist party in Ireland.

Mr. John Morley showed no such abatement of zeal in a speech to his late constituents at Newcastle (Dec. 2). He ridiculed the idea that the defeat of July should induce him to modify his opinions on Home Rule or on any other of the principal items of the Liberal programme. He had nothing to withdraw or recant, and there was no such thing as a white sheet in his political wardrobe. But perhaps the most remarkable passage in the speech was that in which Mr. Morley gave cordial support to Lord Salisbury's foreign policy-a candid expression of opinion for which he was called to account by some of the Radical newspapers. Mr. Justin M'Carthy spoke less confidently on the subject of Home Rule in an elaborate speech at Walworth on the political situation (Dec. 10). He recognised

the change that had come over the mind of England, Scotland, and even Wales, but he said that Ireland's attitude remained the same. She would never be satisfied without a liberal concession to her desire for a separate Government and Administration. Nevertheless, he took a serious view of the dissensions among the Irish Nationalists, and said plainly that if unity could not be restored "Irishmen must give up any idea of Home Rule for the present generation."

If this was not an encouraging view of things for the Radical party, they could hardly derive more encouragement from the serene confidence of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who said at Blairgowrie (Dec. 12) that the perplexed lamentations of his friends over the result of the general election were even more unaccountable than the intemperate exultation of the other side. Really there was nothing to make a noise about. The Unionist majority was a large one, but he went into a calculation to show that if everybody had their rights it ought to have been only fourteen instead of 152. In reference to Home Rule he held that so long as the Irish declared by constitutional methods that they were in favour of self-government Liberals would be bound to support their demand.

The country received a surprise, amounting to a shock, in the last few days of the year from the United States. President Cleveland sent to Congress (Dec. 17) a message in which he declared that British action in the boundary dispute with Venezuela was a breach of the Monroe doctrine. The message held that that doctrine must be maintained, and Mr. Cleveland suggested that Congress should provide for the expenses of a Commission, to be appointed by the Executive, who should make the necessary investigations, and report upon the matter with the least possible delay. When the report of the Commission had been made and accepted it would, in his opinion, be "the duty of the United States to resist by every means in its power, as a wilful aggression upon its rights and interests, the appropriation by Great Britain of any lands which, after investigation, may be determined of right to belong to Venezuela." The President added that in making those recommendations he was fully alive to the responsibility incurred, and keenly realised all the consequences that might follow.

The effect of the message upon English public opinion was remarkable. The menace of war was not met, as it would have been had it come from any other quarter, with an indignant rejoinder. It was rather a pained than an angry response that was made to it. Men of all parties, and newspapers representing all opinions, replied with a dignified protest to the pretension that the United States was to decide on the boundaries of British Guiana over the heads of the English people, and that England was to accept the decision under penalty of war. President's extraordinary proposal was believed to have been made in view of the approaching Presidential election, in which

The

the American-Irish vote would be an important factor, and this belief was strengthened by the eagerness of Republicans and Democrats alike to associate themselves with a policy which affected to appeal to a sentiment of patriotism. For several days politicians in the United States, with a few exceptions, gave themselves up to a delirium of jingoism, and had that feeling continued and been reciprocated by the English press and the English people, the two countries might really have drifted into war. But the bankers, merchants, and thoughtful classes in the United States, some of the principal newspapers, certain leading jurists, and ministers of religion interposed with wiser counsels, and before the year was over all possibility of war had disappeared.

The New York World was one of the newspapers which from the first disapproved of the Presidential message, and in its efforts to promote a good understanding between the two countries it cabled to several leading personages and representative men in England, requesting them to send back

of peace." Mr. Gladstone, thus appealed to, replied: "I dare not interfere. Common sense only required. I cannot say more with advantage." The Prince of Wales, notwithstanding that he was bound to stand aloof from controverted questions, found it possible to say more than Mr. Gladstone. His reply to the appeal of the New York World was, that both he and the Duke of York "earnestly trust, and cannot but believe, that the present crisis will be arranged in a manner satisfactory to both countries, and will be succeeded by the same warm feeling of friendship which has existed between them for so many years." In strong contrast with the Prince's reply was that of a very different person-Mr. John Redmond-who said: "You ask for an expression of opinion from me, on the war crisis, as a representative of British thought. In this, as in all other matters, I can speak only as a representative of Irish opinion. If war results from the reassertion of the Monroe doctrine, Irish national sentiment will be solid on the side of America. With Home Rule rejected, Ireland can have no feeling of friendliness for Great Britain."

A dignified and adequate reference to President Cleveland's message was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the only member of the Cabinet who spoke on public affairs in the remaining days of the year-in a speech at Bristol (Dec. 19). After some general observations on the subject Sir Michael Hicks-Beach said that he did not believe, nor did he think that many, if any, on the other side of the Atlantic believed, that either the people of the United States or the people of Great Britain wanted to go to war. There was this special security for peace between them, that they were both peoples brought up under free institutions, accustomed to read and to think for themselves in all these great matters, and not to follow blindly the judgment of their rulers. They talked the same language,

so that they could understand, if they desired to understand, the case of each other. In all their past history when disputes had arisen between them, sometimes on the side of Great Britain, decisions had been come to and popular outcry had arisen upon imperfect information, which, when fuller information was at the disposal of the people, entirely passed away. He believed with confidence that when a true statement of the case of Great Britain in this matter-which Lord Salisbury had fully and ably set forth in despatches-was laid before the people, either on this side of the Atlantic or on the other, the result would be happy, peaceful, and honourable to both parties.

Notwithstanding this prospect of a hopeful settlement of our most serious trouble, the year closed amid gloom and international distrust. Great Britain found that her policy of isolation was resented by her neighbours, who showed too plainly that they regarded it as a policy of ambitious selfishness. Russia-never really friendly since the Crimean War-had found her projects in the Far East hampered by English sympathy with Japan. Germany for two years had been thwarting and opposing us in Asia and Africa, as well as in Europe, in her eagerness to obtain for German trade the advantages which we were enjoying in all parts of the world. France in her new zeal for colonial empire looked upon us with jealousy and undisguised ill-will; and the support which we received from Italy-our one friendly power in Europe-served only to stimulate the unfriendliness of France. In our dealings with the Sultan, and our feeble efforts to succour the Armenians, the full extent of our isolation had been seen for there Italy, bound by the conditions of the Triple Alliance, was unable to act in opposition to the views of the predominant partner, Germany. And Russia, the recognised champion of the Eastern Christians, sure for some time of the blind adherence of France, would take part in no international guarantee which might postpone indefinitely the realisation of her ambitions in SouthEastern Europe. The dawn of that millennium in foreign politics which was to mark the return of Lord Salisbury to power seemed for the moment dark with storm clouds gathering from every part of the horizon.

CHAPTER V.

SCOTLAND AND IRELAND.

I. SCOTLAND.

ALTHOUGH labour disputes marked both the opening and closing months, the chief events of the year were those connected with the general election. Ever since the great trial of strength in 1892, when Mr. Gladstone's name was a pillar of strength