formally discuss the whole Irish question, with a view of arriving at the basis of a settlement acceptable to both sections of the Liberal party. Mr. Gladstone lost no time in giving the proposal his support, and in showing that he was ready to co-operate in any scheme of reconciliation. To Sir William Harcourt, who had been the ostensible originator of the Conference, he wrote as follows:

"Hawarden Castle, Chester: Jan. 2, 1887.

"My dear Harcourt,-As I wrote to you some days ago, I consider the recent speech of Mr. Chamberlain at Birmingham to be an important fact, of which due account ought to be taken. I think that, if handled on all sides in a proper spirit, it ought to lead to what I may term a modus vivendi in the Liberal party. I should be very glad if any means could be found for bringing about a free discussion of the points of difference, with a view of arriving at some understanding for such common action as may be consistent with our respective principles, or at least of reducing to a minimum the divergences of opinion upon the Irish question in its several parts and branches.

"Having, as you may remember, spoken in this sense when you were here some weeks ago, I shall not excite your surprise by retaining the opinion now that some encouragement has been given to it by an occurrence such as the recent speech of Mr. Chamberlain; and I think that if such a consultation is to take place it is desirable that there should be no concealment about it, because rumour in these cases easily springs up, and travels fast to untrue or premature conclusions.

"You are, therefore, at liberty to make such use of this letter as you may think proper.-Believe me, yours sincerely,

"W. E. GLADSTONE."

Mr. Chamberlain's original intention had been to postpone Home Rule, and to discuss the questions of Irish land, local selfgovernment, and municipal reform-points on which there was fair ground for agreement. But in view of Mr. Gladstone's strongly expressed wishes the original limits of the discussion were, it was agreed, to be extended so as to embrace all points of the Irish question. From the very first it must be said that public opinion anticipated few, if any, practical results from the Conference. The divergences of opinion between the members were too radical to permit any settlement short of an absolute abandonment of conditions which one or other considered vital. The first sitting, however, took place on the day originally fixed (Jan. 13), and the discussion, it was understood, turned chiefly upon the land question. As, however, the proceedings were private, nothing definite transpired as to the result of the meeting, beyond the fact that, after sitting for some hours on three consecutive days, they adjourned until after the meeting of Parliament.

Meanwhile the first object of the reconstructed Cabinet had been to find a seat for Mr. Goschen. The death of Mr. Duncan, a Gladstonian Liberal who had been returned by a majority of 170 for the Exchange division of Liverpool (the only seat carried by that party in Liverpool at the General Election), offered an opportunity of testing how far the alliance of the Unionists and Conservatives would prevail against the Liberals of that constituency. The struggle promised to be a severe one, and the result doubtful; but Mr. Goschen, after a short hesitation, decided to engage in the contest. In his address to the electors he said, "A Liberal all my life, I have yet thought it the duty of men of all parties to close their ranks in the face of a common danger. Under the influence of that deep conviction I have rallied to the government of Lord Salisbury, and I now ask the electors of this division, Conservatives and Liberal Unionists alike, to rally to me. . . . The issue between us and our opponents is a plain one-the maintenance of the legislative union between Great Britain and Ireland. This issue is as paramount to-day as it was at the General Election six months ago. Now, as then, Unionists of all parties see in the proposal to establish a separate Legislature in Ireland, with an Executive responsible to it, not only disaster to both countries, but an abandonment of national duty. Nothing has occurred in the past six months to weaken that conviction, and much has occurred to strengthen it. The majority of Englishmen will be less willing than ever to surrender any portion of the United Kingdom to be governed by the advocates of the Plan of Campaign. Thus far the efforts of the Unionists have been triumphant in averting such a catastrophe, but unwearied patience and unflinching courage will be necessary to maintain the victory which we have won.

"But, though the defence of the Union must at this moment be the supreme consideration, we have to look to it that other national interests do not suffer in the meanwhile. We cannot allow the discontent of some three millions of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom to reduce more than thirty millions to impotence. We cannot allow that discontent either to paralyse our power abroad or to destroy our capacity for legislation at home. The Separatist party delude themselves with the idea that surrender to sedition in Ireland will secure tranquillity in Great Britain and a peaceful era of beneficent legislative activity. I do not believe it. On the contrary, such surrender would, in my opinion, be the first step in a downward course of national disintegration and decay. While yielding to none in my desire to promote the welfare of our Irish fellow-citizens, and to foster in Ireland the growth of industries and the development of prosperity, which lawless agitation has done so much to check, I utterly repudiate the idea that our popular Government is not competent to maintain the law, and to cope with excesses which, if unchecked, will bring free institutions into disgrace."

Mr. Goschen then went on to say that he appealed to the electors as a Unionist, prepared to sink differences on questions which, great and important in themselves, must yet be subordinated to the supreme issue of the integrity of the State. After remarking that he rejoiced to think that, in accepting the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Salisbury's Government, he had the cordial concurrence of Lord Hartington and the great majority of the Liberal Unionist party, he concluded:

"Let me once more remind you that the Union is our watchword. I have broken some cherished ties in order to take up my post at that point of the line of battle where Lord Salisbury and the leader of the Liberal Unionists thought that I could render most effectual service. I do not conceal from myself that in voting for me some of you also may be sacrificing lifelong habits and traditions. But I ask you to make that sacrifice for the sake of our common cause."

The Gladstonian Liberals brought forward in opposition to Mr. Goschen a London barrister, Mr. Ralph Neville, who had contested another division of Liverpool at the General Election, and who in his address declared that the Irish difficulty should be boldly met by a scheme of self-government, in accordance with the sentiment of the Irish people.

In his first address to the Liverpool electors Mr. Goschen alluded to the altered aspect of affairs in Ireland, throwing the blame upon those "teachers of Ireland" whom the returning confidence did not suit. He declared that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's clemency, or "lenient enforcement of the law," had been met by increased agitation, and by the "Plan of Campaign," which, though not accepted by Mr. Parnell, had been viewed with silence by many English politicans. Mr. Goschen fully admitted the serious fall which had taken place in the price of cattle, but he attributed it not to bad seasons, but to the antagonism between landlord and tenant, which prevented the former from carrying out those improvements by the introduction of new stock which in other countries were their first duty and privilege. Mr. Goschen went on to say that the Land Act of 1881 had proved a gigantic failure, and that the system of purchase it inaugurated had broken down. He thought the duty of British statesmen was to develop to the utmost the industries of Ireland, and to promote its prosperity, whilst at the same time they maintained order. Their views, however, failed to satisfy the Liverpool electors that the policy of the Government would lead to the pacification of Ireland; and although Mr. Goschen succeeded in reducing the Gladstonian majority from 170 to 7, he failed to carry the seat, and Parliament met without a Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The sudden death of Lord Iddesleigh under circumstances almost dramatic drew away for a moment public attention from election contests. It was felt on all sides that Lord Iddesleigh's death was in some measure due to the unceremonious way in

which he had been treated by his colleagues in the rearrangement of the Cabinet. It was said that he received the first notice of Lord Salisbury's resumption of the Foreign Office through the newspapers, and that, although his complete unselfishness prevented him from complaining or resenting the treatment, he received a blow from which he never rallied. Lord Salisbury's intention may have been prematurely communicated to the papers, but there was no evidence of any misunderstanding between the two statesmen; but the action of the Prime Minister was fully justified by the critical condition which European politics suddenly developed, and by the growing irritation, publicly expressed, between France and Germany. The storm-cloud, however, which at one time seemed about to burst over Europe, dispersed by degrees, leaving behind it no other traces than increased elements of mischief on both sides of the Rhine.

In our country public attention was soon called back to the strife of parties, and to the efforts of the leaders on both sides to animate their followers. The unwelcome, and in some degree unexpected failure of the Gladstonian Liberals in London and its suburbs set the party managers thinking how the disasters of the past could be repaired in the future. Under the auspices of Mr. Causton and Mr. Schnadhorst it was decided to establish a Liberal and Radical Union for London, which should take up in the metropolis the work which had been so successfully carried out in the provinces by the Birmingham Association. At the inaugural meeting, held in St. James's Hall (Jan. 11), Mr. John Morley occupied the chair, and sketched out the programme of the new association. He deprecated any attempt to interfere with local associations. The local associations, whether Radical or Liberal, or composed of Liberals and Radicals alike, would send representatives to that Union, which was intended to aid the Liberal cause in that, the most Conservative of English regions. Mr. Morley also discouraged mutual suspicion. The greater his experience in politics, the less suspicious he became. He was, indeed, quite convinced that the men who differed from him were just as honest as himself. Mr. Morley took credit to himself for having warned the Liberals that they should not say grace for Lord Randolph Churchill's promised banquet of popular measures until the dish-covers had been removed. Already the banquet had become a mere phantom banquet. Though the old Tory pump was fitted with a new Radical handle, the thread of water issuing from it was a very thin one even at first, and now the handle had come off. Mr. Goschen's secession to the Government had not, in Mr. Morley's opinion, very much altered the level of the Liberal party. An American who wanted to make the most of his successful fishing had boasted that when he got his fish out of the lake, the waters of the lake sank a couple of feet. He did not think that Lord Salisbury, after landing his fish, would be able to make a similar boast.

Mr. Bryce, whose confidence in the Liberalism of the London electors had been shown by his hasty retreat from the Tower Hamlets to Aberdeen, followed in a colourless speech. Its natural sequel was an amendment moved by the Radicals, who did not like to amalgamate the Radicals with the Liberals, and thought that the result would be to weaken Radicalism, and to render the Radicals less powerful for protest against such a policy as the Liberal Government had followed in Egypt. But this proposal was resisted by Mr. Bradlaugh, and the Radical amendment defeated by an overwhelming majority; and a resolution for the formation of the Liberal and Radical Union in London was passed.

With few and unimportant exceptions the interval between the remodelling of the Cabinet and the meeting of Parliament was unmarked by any political speeches. Both parties were watching the progress of events in Ireland, where Sir M. HicksBeach was using all his influence to restrain bad landlords from converting the law into an instrument of oppression. With singular courage, and in spite of the murmurs of his own supporters, he held to the policy announced in his Bristol speech; and for his reward he could point to a marked diminution of lawlessness and crime throughout Ireland. The hopes which were rising that the winter might be got through without any serious outbreak of disaffection, were rudely dispelled by an opinion pronounced from the Bench during the trial of the Woodford rioters. Lord Chief Baron Palles, before whom the case was tried, laid down that the attempt to withdraw the police from supporting the legal claims of private individuals was altogether unjustifiable. Sir Redvers Buller, who with the approval of the Chief Secretary had been exercising a "dispensing power," at once found himself censured by the mouthpiece of the law, and his influence destroyed. The "Plan of Campaign forthwith took the field, and was warmly welcomed on those estates where rack-renting and ejectment were rife. In reply, the cry for the enforcement of "law and order" began to be heard, especially in the English press, and the Government was urged to take prompt measures to vindicate its authority. The Times in this conclave took a prominent part. In the course of an article (Jan. 11) on the political situation it observed that "what is seriously to be feared is the failure of the Irish executive to grapple effectually with the conspiracy to prevent the payment of rent and to depress the value of land in Ireland." It went on to explain: "We do not underrate the difficulties which impede the course of the law in Ireland, and we are willing to believe that the attempts to cope with the Plan of Campaign by prosecuting a few agitators are not meant to remain without result. A more important question, however, is involved in the attitude of the Irish executive towards the landowners whose rights are assailed, and who cannot resort to the