discussion as to his exact status in the present Administration. Is he to be regarded, as some insist, as a modern Casabianca, standing on the burning deck in obedience to the dictates of filial duty, and facing a painful end in preference to the desertion of his post? Or is he, as others suggest, the man in possession,' placed there by the real owner and master of the Government, whose duty it is to stay below: stairs in the ease and security of the servants' hall, always with an eye on the family plate-chest, whilst the nominal owner of the mansion is regaling himself and his friends in the upper chambers? Whatever the truth may be, it cannot be doubted that the present position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an anomaly to which the political history of modern times furnishes no parallel. It is hardly surprising that we have been living, for a month past, in a world of sensational gossip.

What is, in some respects, a subsidiary matter has attracted a good deal of attention during the month. This is the question raised by Lord George Hamilton's statement to his constituents explaining the reason for his retirement from the Government last September. Mr. Balfour, as my readers will remember, was unable through illness to attend the House of Commons during the opening weeks of the Session. In these circumstances the statement made by Lord George on the subject of his resignation necessarily furnished an inadequate explanation of the important events of last September. What the country wished to know was what measure of truth there was in the story widely current, to which the Times was the first to give publicity, that the retirement of Lord George Hamilton and Mr. Ritchie, before the Duke of Devonshire took the same step, was due to a game of finesse very skilfully played by the Prime Minister. Games of finesse, played between the chief of the Ministry and his colleagues, are not to the liking of the British public, more particularly when they are, or are supposed to be, played for the purpose of jockeying certain Ministers out of the Cabinet. It was unfortunate for the Prime Minister that the gentleman who wrote on the subject in the Times did not seem to realise this fact, and it is not surprising that Mr. Balfour should feel that he has good reason to complain of the maladroitness of supporters who laid him open to a very damaging accusation. On his return to his parliamentary duties it was felt the matter was one which ought to be probed to the bottom, and Mr. John Ellis, on a motion for the adjournment of the House, brought the whole question into the arena of public debate. It cannot be said that Mr. Balfour was happy in his method of meeting it. The charge against him was that he had succeeded in inducing Lord George Hamilton and Mr. Ritchie to resign office by withholding from them the fact that Mr. Chamberlain had already taken this step, and that he led the Duke of Devonshire to remain as it turned out for a very short term-in the Ministerial

ranks by confidentially revealing Mr. Chamberlain's resignation to him. The result of the debate on the 7th of March was to leave matters very much where they had been before. It is true that Mr. Balfour was able to show that Mr. Chamberlain had spoken of his resignation at the last meeting of the Cabinet attended by Mr. Ritchie and Lord George Hamilton. But he could not deny the fact that he had not communicated to these colleagues of his the definite resignation of Mr. Chamberlain, which he had in writing at the time when the Cabinet was held, and that they both retired from the Ministry under the impression that Mr. Chamberlain was remaining in it. Nor could he contest the statement that he had informed the Duke of Devonshire of Mr. Chamberlain's definite resignation, but had refused him permission to make it known to Mr. Ritchie and Lord George. One need not follow the example of the Times and speak of this as a brilliant game of finesse, skilfully carried out by the Prime Minister at the expense of two of his colleagues; but it is impossible to acquit Mr. Balfour of a certain amount of disingenuousness, or to regard the transaction as one creditable to our public life. Unfortunately the speech in which Mr. Balfour endeavoured to explain his part in these transactions opened up another question, not very important in itself, but of distinct importance as indicating the severity of the strain which has been imposed upon Ministers by the disastrous issue of Mr. Chamberlain's new propaganda. The Prime Minister spoke with some indignation of Lord George Hamilton for not having corrected the interpretation put by Lord Rosebery in more than one of his speeches upon a certain statement that Lord George had made in his explanation of the events that led up to his resignation. This was that at the last Cabinet of the Session of 1903, Mr. Balfour had appeared before his colleagues armed with two documents. One was the pamphlet subsequently published on retaliatory tariffs and the other a document in which preferential tariffs and a tax upon food were advocated. Lord George Hamilton's declaration on the subject was quite clear, and no one could impute to him any intention to deceive. Lord Rosebery naturally turned it to account when publicly criticising the policy of the Government, and for having done so he was charged by the Prime Minister with having 'calumniated' him. The only foundation for this charge-justly and hotly resented by Lord Roseberywas that, whereas of the two documents only one was a pamphlet, the other being a minute or memorandum for the use of the Cabinet, the ex-Premier had described both as pamphlets. If Mr. Balfour had seen fit to deal frankly with the matter at the outset, even this trivial error would have been avoided. But, instead of doing this, he refused to lift the veil of mystery from his second document, and the House of Commons had to witness a painful scene of mutual recrimination and contradiction between the Prime Minister and the

1904

LAST MONTH

A few days later, thanks to Lord late Secretary of State for India. Rosebery's action in repudiating Mr. Balfour's charge of 'calumny,' the truth came out through the lips of Lord Lansdowne, and the country at last learned the precise nature of the document in which the Prime Minister had advocated doctrines so far in advance of his public utterances. To some persons it may seem that the whole business was but a storm in a teacup; but everyone experienced in political life knows that at critical times like the present it is from these trivial personal questions and misunderstandings that the gravest consequences often follow.

In the meantime, so far as the question of 'fiscal reform' is concerned, it hardly seems that much way is being made in any direction. A few months ago the topic seemed to occupy all minds and tongues. Now it is mentioned but occasionally, and the newspapers which devoted themselves with so much energy to the propagation of the doctrines of the 'new political economy' have found other subjects with which to fill their columns. It would almost seem that with Mr. Chamberlain's departure from England the whole movement in favour of a return to protection had collapsed. This, however, is not the case, and there can be no doubt that when the member for West Birmingham returns to his post, an attempt will be made to put fresh life into the campaign of which he is the leader. Free Traders, without ignoring this possibility, console themselves with the conviction that fresh and unmistakable proofs have been given of the strength of their cause, not only in such byelections as that at Normanton, where the Liberal candidate secured the huge majority of 3946 votes, or that in East Dorset, where the Liberal won the seat from the Ministerialists by a substantial majority of 820, but in the proceedings of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, who at their annual conference rejected a resolution proposed in the interests of Mr. Chamberlain and his policy. Within the ranks of the Ministerial party, the bitterness existing between Free Traders and Protectionists is great and apparently growing. The strenuous attempts of Mr. Balfour to provide a policy on which everybody within his own party can agree, so far from succeeding, have only accentuated the difficulties of the position. The debates on the Estimates, and on resolutions which more or less directly raised the question of confidence in the Ministry, have been memorable for the large reduction of the Government majority. On one occasion, indeed, the majority was actually turned into a minority. It was, of course, on a 'snap' division, cleverly engineered by Mr. Redmond, just as the 'snap' division on the cordite question was engineered in 1895 by Mr. Brodrick and Mr. Chamberlain. The two divisions stand precisely on the same footing; but Mr. Balfour, more philosophical, apparently, than his Liberal predecessors, or possibly warned by their example,

VOL. LV-No. 326

did not take the opportunity of resigning. How much longer he will attempt to keep his water-logged craft afloat no outsider can pretend to say; but everybody knows that defeats in Supply, even when they do not lead to resignation, sensibly weaken the Government which has to submit to them.

I have mentioned one widespread rumour touching the state of things in the innermost councils of the Ministerialists. This has reference to the serious differences of opinion which are understood to have arisen in the Cabinet on the subject of the Report of the Committee appointed to deal with the reorganisation of the War Office. It was on the last day of February that the second Report of the Committee, whose members have certainly not allowed the grass to grow under their feet, was published in the press. This publication, it was announced, was approved by the King, and we have since learned that the Prime Minister was directly responsible for it. In these circumstances, men naturally assumed that the Report had been virtually adopted by the Cabinet, and was to all intents and purposes as good as law. It was even more drastic and sweeping in its recommendations than the first Report prepared by the Committee. Not only were the proposals it contained of the most revolutionary kind, but its criticisms upon previous schemes of reform, and notably upon those of Mr. Brodrick, were of the severest character. The Committee did not hesitate to declare that the scheme they were preparing constituted a logical whole, and that, if it were to be of any service to the nation, it must be accepted en bloc. Some timid persons seemed to be filled with astonishment at the courage and independence with which Lord Esher and his colleagues stated their proposals. Perhaps one ought not to be surprised at the fact, remembering how long it is since either independence or courage (of the moral description) has been allowed to express itself in connection with the vexed question of Army reform. In the eyes of the general public the Report was certainly not less welcome because it was marked by these qualities. But the condemnation of Mr. Brodrick's unhappy Army Corps scheme was strong and unreserved, and one cannot wonder at the fact that the publication of the document was immediately followed by widespread rumours of a bitter struggle within the Cabinet, not only over its recommendations, but over the terms in which those recommendations were set forth. the moment at which I write we have no definite information as to the decision of the Cabinet, but the proceedings in the House of Commons during the debates on the Army Estimates have unquestionably alarmed the advocates of a thoroughgoing reform of the Army system. Mr. Arnold-Forster, who at the beginning of the month stoutly upheld the second Report of his Committee, and even used words which appeared to signify his support of it as a

At

whole, has since modified his language, and with a 'manifest desire to propitiate his predecessor in office, has deprecated the terms used by the Committee with regard to Mr. Brodrick's Army Corps scheme. It is not at present clear whether the Cabinet is prepared to carry out the chief recommendations of the Committee, or whether a sudden halt has been called in the bold attempt of the reformers to introduce sweeping and radical changes. The best ground for hope lies in the fact that Mr. Arnold-Forster is still Secretary for War, for it is difficult to believe that a man of his clear vision and strenuous fibre would consent to remain at his post if the changes he has supported so warmly and which owe so much to his initiative were to be indefinitely postponed or laid aside by the Government. It must be admitted, however, that the prospects of a revolutionary alteration in our military system, the necessity for which has been so clearly established by recent events, are not so bright to-day as they were a few weeks ago. The question is not one of party. It has unfortunately been proved that some Liberals are to be found in the ranks of those who regard the proceedings of Lord Esher's Committee with open hostility. But, on the whole, the feeling both of the House of Commons and the country is in favour of the reorganisation of our military system on the lines of the Committee's Report, and if only the Prime Minister were strong enough to grapple with the opposing forces in his own Cabinet, we might see the adoption of the whole scheme without mutilation or material amendment.

It was by a melancholy coincidence that when the whole question of the organisation of our War Department was thus passing through the melting-pot, the Duke of Cambridge, so long the chief representative of the British army in the eyes of the public, passed away. His Royal Highness had many admirable qualities, and during his long life had gained an enviable position in the esteem of his fellowcountrymen. He was shrewd, energetic, and capable; above all, he was an Englishman, and an English gentleman. Even those whose opportunities of knowing him personally were limited could not fail to recognise his force of character and his real intelligence. Of his social qualities there is no need to speak here, but everybody knows that he was an almost universal favourite. With regard to the Army and to Army reform, his position was different. He was the deliberate and pronounced opponent of reform in all its possible and impossible shapes. Down to the day of his death he had never even expressed his approval of Mr. Cardwell's reforms of more than thirty years ago. Being thoroughly constitutional in his action, and most loyal in the performance of his duty, he accepted those reforms, and did his best to carry them into effect, but he never concealed his opinion of them or of the policy by which they had been dictated. What he may have thought of the schemes of Lord Esher's Committee I do not pretend