the materials and all the guarantees which will ensure a safe and satisfactory working out of the question, whether its scale should prove to be a large scale, or whether, on the contrary, it should be found to be on a limited measure."

In the House of Lords (July 25) Lord Salisbury stated that an agreement had been arrived at by which the dispute as to certain portions of the Afghan frontier was settled. Lord Morley called attention to portions of the report of the Royal Commissioners on Patterns and Warlike Stores, to show that charges made by Colonel Hope against certain officers and other persons, which had been investigated by that Commission, were unfounded, and that public servants ought to be protected from such accusations. Lord Napier and Ettrick, having gone into some details respecting the military career of his relative, Colonel Hope, expressed his opinion that the gallant officer had not been actuated by any personal or unworthy feelings in making his charges. He thought that Colonel Hope owed an apology for having attributed a want of rectitude or honourable conduct to any officers in the Ordnance Department, and that such an apology was expressed by the gallant colonel in a pamphlet which he had written since the Commission issued its report. He hoped, therefore, that neither the House nor the Government would take any step which might prejudice Colonel Hope in a court of law. Lord Harris thought that Lord Morley was right in having brought this matter forward, and, having read Colonel Hope's pamphlet, he could not concur with Lord Napier that it contained any apology to men who had for months suffered under his unfounded charges of corruption. He was not aware that Colonel Hope had ever expressed any apology either in public or in private. The Commission, in a passage of their report, spoke of his having atoned for his offence. For himself, he did not see where the atonement was; but the Government could take no action against Colonel Hope. That must be left to anyone who still felt himself aggrieved by the gallant officer's charges after the Commission had reported that those charges were unfounded. In the House of Commons (Aug. 1) Mr. Smith announced the abandonment of the Land Transfer Bill and several other measures. Sir E. Watkin's Channel Tunnel Bill was thrown out (Aug. 3) by 153 votes to 107. In the House of Lords (Aug. 4 and 5) in a debate on the Margarine Bill, it was decided, by 52 votes to 14, that butter-substitutes must be sold as margarine" and not as "butterine."

In the House of Commons (Aug. 11) Mr. Labouchere moved the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to the British position in Egypt, and our relations with the European Powers arising out of the attempted Anglo-Turkish Convention. He strongly condemned the policy of the Government in Egypt, and complained that we were harassing the natives; and he made an attack on Mr. Goschen in connection with Egyptian loans, out of which he insinuated that Mr. Goschen's firm

had made an exorbitant profit. Sir J. Ferguson replied, and Mr. Goschen, in a personal explanation, repudiated the charges against his firm, and said he doubted whether the profit they had made and which Mr. Labouchere stated to be 11 per cent.was as much as 1 per cent.

An amendment to the Early Closing (Scotland) Bill was adopted in the House of Lords (Aug. 12) limiting the operation of the measure to towns under 50,000 inhabitants.

Mr. Graham (Aug. 20) presented a petition praying for a further reprieve of a convict named Lipski, who had been sentenced to death for murdering a young woman at Whitechapel, but whose sentence had been temporarily respited, pending the examination of some alleged fresh evidence. In reply to a request by Mr. Graham that the Government should intervene in the matter, Mr. Smith strongly protested against the attempt to bring Parliamentary pressure to bear on the Home Secretary. (The convict afterwards confessed his guilt, and was executed.) On the Diplomatic Vote in Supply (Aug. 20) a discussion arose on the failure of the Anglo-Turkish Convention and on the British policy in Egypt. Sir J. Ferguson said that it was impossible to name the precise date for our evacuation of Egypt. The Government, he said, were doing all in their power to replace European officials by natives. In regard to the Debt he pointed out that Europeans were now taxed equally with natives, while as to general expenditure, and especially expenditure for military purposes, there had been a large reduction during the last two years. The Allotments Bill passed through Committee (Aug. 27) after a short discussion. The House of Commons assented (Aug. 29) to the Lords' Amendment to the Scotch Early Closing Bill, excluding towns of 50,000 inhabitants from its operation. Sir J. Ferguson announced (Aug. 30) that the United States Government had agreed to a new Fisheries Commission of three on each side, and Mr. Chamberlain had agreed to act as First Commissioner. The remaining sittings of the session were chiefly occupied, in the House of Commons, with Votes in Supply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated (Sept. 8) that the new sixpences were no longer being issued, on account of their resemblance to half-sovereigns when gilded. In his statement on the Indian Budget (Sept. 9) Sir John Gorst estimated the deficit for 1887-8 at 59,000 tens of rupees. In Burmah the estimated deficit was 2,170,000 tens of rupees. Mr. Cunninghame-Graham (Sept.12) took exception to some of the Lords' amendments in the Mines Regulation Bill, and spoke of the Lords as "daring to dictate to the representatives of the people." He declined to withdraw the expression, on the ground that it was a matter of conscience with him, and he was named and suspended from attendance. Mr. E. Harrington was also named and suspended at the same sitting for refusing to regard the bidding of the Speaker, who, he said, had been "on the pounce" for him. Parliament was prorogued by Royal Commission on Sept. 16.

CHAPTER V.

The Unionists and Home Rulers in the provinces-Mr. Chamberlain at Birmingham-The Liberals in the West of England-Mr. Gladstone on the liberty of the citizen-Liberal Unionist Conference at Bristol-The "unemployed" in London-The Liberal Caucus at Nottingham-Mr. Gladstone's party programme-Mr. Goschen and Mr. Courtney in reply-Lord R. Churchill in the North-Lord Hartington at Nottingham - Sir George Trevelyan in Wales- Mr. Balfour at Birmingham-The Guildhall Banquet-Lord Salisbury on Foreign Affairs-Trafalgar Square Riots-Mr. Goschen in Lancashire-Conservative gathering at Oxford-Lord Salisbury's speech-Unionist Conference in London -Mr. Balfour and Lord Salisbury in defence of the Government - Mr. Gladstone's speech at Dover-Conclusion.

THE close of the session found the divergence between the two sections of the Liberal party more accentuated than ever. The hope entertained by the Gladstonians that, on the attempt to revive a coercion policy, the Unionists would desert their Conservative allies, had not been realised; whilst in the discussion of the Land Bill the balance of evidence had been in favour rather of a development of Lord Ashbourne's Act than of the adoption of Mr. Parnell's panacea. The consciousness, therefore, of their strength in Parliament emboldened the Government to put in force the powers with which they had been invested. Within three days of the prorogation of Parliament, proclamations were issued (Sept. 20) suppressing the National League throughout a large portion of the south-west of Ireland, thereby rendering the branches of the League in the district "unlawful associations." The majority of the English and Scotch papers either openly approved of or silently acquiesced in the practical application of a measure which Parliament had passed in view of the state of Ireland, leaving to the Executive the choice of the moment at which the law should be put in motion. The Daily News and a few other ultra-Liberal organs, it is true, denounced the policy of the Government as "a policy of deception and betrayal," and declared that by it "liberty, free speech, and freedom of political combination were stifled"; but such language awoke but little response among the more moderate organs of the Liberal party.

The truce of tongues, which the well-earned recess might have been hoped to inaugurate, was not destined to be of long continuance. Before the first week of the recess had passed Mr. Chamberlain found an opportunity (Sept. 23) of assuring his friends at Birmingham that it was the paramount duty of the Executive to maintain and enforce the law, and that the Government were rather to be blamed for their extraordinary leniency than for any attempt to strain the powers at their disposal. On the same evening, at Whitby, Lord Randolph Churchill started a wholly original view of the session which had just come to an

end. Instead of having been wasted in sterile discussions, he argued that it was thoroughly and entirely in harmony and in accord with the gratifying and satisfactory character of the Jubilee year. This Parliament had had the special characteristic which caused it to differ from all other Parliaments, that it was the first Parliament in which the whole mass of the people of the United Kingdom had been fully and fairly represented. He found, moreover, in this Parliament a marked, a resolute, and a sustained assertion of the just principles of government, of order, and of law. Men had disdained and become indifferent to the power, the patronage, and what was very stupidly called the sweets of office. They had abandoned many old prejudices and prepossessions, and had, between them, worked the machine of government through a session of unexampled duration with the most complete success. Turning then to his favourite topic of financial reform, Lord R. Churchill expressed his pleasure at the strong disposition manifest on the part of Parliament to initiate and to sustain a vigorous campaign against the extravagant expenditure of public money. He was perfectly certain that if he could have his way, and could see the great departments of the State filled by men who thoroughly believed in the possibility and necessity for economy, he could make more millions for the service of the State, for remission of taxation, or for meeting legitimate expenditure out of economy, retrenchment, and departmental reform than any protectionist, fair trader, bi-metallist, or other magician could extract, no matter how ingenious might be the remedy which he might persuade Parliament to adopt.

On the following day (Sept. 24) at Newcastle Mr. John Morley reviewed his own course of action with regard to the Irish question. Whilst intimating pretty clearly his preference for his original proposal to exclude the Irish members from the English House of Commons, he declared that he would rather "have Home Rule with the Irish members retained at Westminster than not have Home Rule at all." His only proviso was that the retention of the Irish members at Westminster should not be made the excuse for a sham Home Rule, which should give to the Irish legislative body merely mock powers and delusive responsibilities. For the Liberal Unionists the question was whether they were in favour of an arbitrary and violent system of government in Ireland. He asserted that a large majority of the present Parliament (which would be known as the unblessed Parliament) was returned upon the distinct understanding that there was to be an equality of law between England and Ireland. He repeated that no such emergency had arisen in Ireland as would justify the Crimes Act, and that a more wanton, a more gratuitous, a more mischievous provocation had never been offered to a nation. They had got to deal no longer with kid-gloved Conservatism, but with the genuine, old, black, tyrannous Toryism. With regard to the land question, Mr. Morley regarded its settlement by the Imperial

Parliament as indispensable to the good government of Ireland. It touched too many interests, roused too many passions, and had too deep and bitter roots in old historic hatreds to permit of its solution being thrown upon a new legislative body.

An immediate appeal from Mr. Morley's conclusions was lodged by one of his own party. Mr. E. Robertson, M.P. for Dundee, had throughout the session distinguished himself by his consistent support of Irish autonomy, and had voted for Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill without apparent reluctance. In a letter to the Times (Sept. 27) Mr. Robertson attributed to Mr. Morley's persistent defence of the Irish Land Bill and of the exclusion of the Irish members a large measure of responsibility for the Liberal disasters of 1886. He argued that it was the Gladstonians rather than the Tories or the Unionists who demanded the retention of the Irish members, in order that when Home Rule was established there should be no pretence for doubting the sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament even in Irish affairs. As for the land question, Mr. Robertson was ready to accept Mr. Morley's settlement, provided that the British texpayer was not burdened with obligations for the benefit of either landlord or tenant in Ireland. In conclusion Mr. Robertson warned his Liberal colleagues that Mr. Morley's settlement would in its main points be more acceptable to his opponents than to themselves, and bade them beware of the repetition of the Parliamentary tactics by which Mr. Forster carried his Education Act and wrecked his party in 1874.

Mr. Chamberlain was not long in taking up the case on behalf of the Radical Unionists. Addressing his constituents of West Birmingham (Sept. 29), he commenced by denying the report that he had accepted a mission to Washington in order to shirk the struggle at home, declaring that he felt it was not open to him to refuse the opportunity of rendering important service to the three great English-speaking communities. Passing rapidly on to the less personal question, he argued that if any section of the Irish people desired further reforms, or even great constitutional changes, the English people would consider them fairly and favourably, "but they will never yield one jot, they will never bate one hair's-breadth, to the noisy threats of a clamorous and disloyal faction." "History tells us how, in the time of the Spanish Armada, all differences were hushed and all contentions silenced, while all classes and all sects and all opinions of the people united against the common foe. Our danger is greater than theirs, for our enemy is within our gates, and our foes are they of our own household; but all the more it is our duty to join with every honest man and with every loyal citizen to resist to the last the attacks which still threaten the strength and the influence, and even the existence, of our own country."

Upon the two secondary Irish questions, the agrarian revolution and obstruction, Mr. Chamberlain was both hopeful and