[Sidenote: It is Misconstrued by Lord Randolph.]

The letter was, no doubt, intended to enumerate in substance the very functions that the Council had hitherto performed; but the committee affected to receive it with joy as a complete acceptance of their plan.

They prepared a report to the Council, stating that the duties which, according to Lord Salisbury's letter, ought to devolve upon the Council, were such as, with the exception of lecturers, they had not hitherto been permitted to undertake. "The Council," they went on, "will, no doubt, perceive that for the proper discharge of these duties, now imposed upon them by the leaders of the party, the provision of considerable funds becomes a matter of first-cla.s.s necessity." They ought, therefore, to claim a definite sum out of the funds in the hands of the Central Committee, from which they had as yet received only irregular and uncertain contributions. The report recommended that a small executive committee be appointed with directions to carry out Lord Salisbury's scheme, to incur liability for urgent expenditure, to enter into communication with all the local a.s.sociations in order to learn about their candidates, elections, funds, and agents, and to invite from those a.s.sociations the "fullest and freest communication of all information bearing upon political and parliamentary questions as viewed in the localities." All questions involving large and general principles of party policy were to be reserved for the determination of the Council, but the chairman and vice-chairman were to be authorised to perform all ordinary executive acts between meetings. It is needless to point out the imitation of the National Liberal Federation as it worked at that time, or the great power that these changes would throw into the hands of Lord Randolph Churchill.

[Sidenote: Further Correspondence.]

Lord Salisbury was informed of the report, and hastened to remove any misapprehension. In a letter to Lord Randolph, on March 6, he said he had not contemplated that the Union should in any way take the place of the Central Committee, and he hoped there was no chance of their paths crossing. Lord Randolph replied that he feared that hope might be disappointed. "In a struggle between a popular body and a close corporation, the latter, I am happy to say, in these days goes to the wall."[547:1] A correspondence took place also between Lord Salisbury and Lord Percy, in the course of which the former wrote: "the Central Committee represents the leaders, by whom it is appointed. So far as those duties are concerned which attach, and always have attached, to the leaders of the party, and depend on their sanction, these can only be delegated to gentlemen whom we appoint." He said that in his opinion no change in this respect would be desirable, and that he could not think the adoption of the report would be expedient. Lord Percy laid the letter before the Council, and moved that the report should not be accepted, but his motion was rejected by a vote of nineteen to fourteen; the report was then adopted, and the committee was instructed to confer with the leaders of the party as to the best way of carrying out the plans foreshadowed in their letters.

[Sidenote: Lord Salisbury's Letter of April 1, 1884.]

The temper of the leaders may be imagined, and may well excuse a step, which was, nevertheless, a mistake, because it offended members of the Council of local importance,[548:1] who had probably intended no disrespect to Lord Salisbury. Three days after the adoption of the report a curt letter came from Mr. Bartley, the princ.i.p.al agent of the party, giving the National Union notice to quit the offices occupied jointly with the Central Committee. Lord Randolph Churchill displayed no open resentment at this; but treating the objections of the leaders as if they applied only to the details of the report, he proposed to modify it in part, especially by a change which showed that the general questions of policy reserved for the Council were to relate not to public affairs, but merely to party organisation. He held also a conference with Lord Salisbury, which was again an occasion for misunderstanding; for on April 1 that n.o.bleman wrote that as he and Sir Stafford Northcote had already expressed their disapproval of the report, they could not consider it further in the absence of explanation, but that some pa.s.sages had been explained at the conference, and it had been made clear that the National Union did not intend to trench on the province of the Central Committee, or take any course on political questions not acceptable to the leaders of the party. It was very satisfactory, the letter said, to find the Council agreeing that matters. .h.i.therto disposed of by the leaders and the whips must remain in their hands, including the expenditure of the funds standing in the name of the Central Committee. Lord Salisbury then went on to describe the proper functions of the Council in language evidently intended to cover the same ground as his letter of Feb. 29.[549:1] He added that to insure complete unity of action it was desirable to have the whips sit _ex officio_ on the Council, and be present at the meetings of all committees; and he ended by saying that under the circ.u.mstances a separation of establishments would not be necessary.

[Sidenote: Lord Randolph's Caustic Reply.]

Lord Randolph called at once a meeting of the committee on organisation, and although only three members besides himself were present, he sent to Lord Salisbury, in the name of the committee, a letter unique in English political annals. The doc.u.ment is long, but the following extracts may serve to show its meaning and portray its tone: "It is quite clear to us," it said, "that . . . we have hopelessly failed to convey to your mind anything like an appreciation, either of the significance of the movement which the National Union commenced at Birmingham in October last, or of the unfortunate effect which a neglect or a repression of that movement by the leaders of the party would have upon the Conservative cause. The resolution of the Conference at Birmingham . . .

signified that the old methods of party organisation, namely, the control of parliamentary elections, by the leader, the whip, the paid agent drawing their resources from secret funds, which were suitable to the manipulation of the ten pound householder were utterly obsolete and would not secure the confidence of the ma.s.ses of the people who were enfranchised by Mr. Disraeli's Reform Bill. . . . The delegates at the Conference were evidently of opinion that . . . the organisation of the party would have to become an imitation . . . of the Birmingham Caucus.

The Caucus may be, perhaps, a name of evil sound and omen in the ears of aristocratic and privileged cla.s.ses, but it is undeniably the only form of political organisation which can collect, guide, and control for common objects, large ma.s.ses of electors. . . . It appeared at first, from a letter which we had the honour of receiving from you on the 29th February, that your Lordship and Sir Stafford Northcote entered fully and sympathetically into the wishes of the Council.[550:1] . . . The Council, however, committed the serious error of imagining that your Lordship and Sir Stafford Northcote were in earnest, in wishing them to become a real source of usefulness to the party. . . . The Council have been rudely undeceived . . . the precise language of your former letter of the 29th February is totally abandoned, and refuge taken in vague, foggy, and utterly intangible suggestions. Finally, in order that the Council of the National Union may be completely and for ever reduced to its ancient condition of dependence upon, and servility to certain irresponsible persons who find favour in your eyes, you demand that the whips of the party, . . . should sit _ex officio_ on the Council. . . .

It may be that the powerful and secret influences which have hitherto been unsuccessfully at work on the Council with the knowledge and consent of your Lordship and Sir Stafford Northcote, may at last be effectual in reducing the National Union to its former make-believe and impotent condition; in that case we shall know what steps to take to clear ourselves of all responsibility for the failure of an attempt to avert the misfortunes and reverses which will, we are certain, under the present effete system of wire-pulling and secret organisation, overtake and attend the Conservative party at a general election."

A copy of the letter was read to the Council the next day, when a motion was made regretting its disrespectful and improper tone, and declining to accept any responsibility for it. This was defeated by a vote of nineteen to thirteen, and then an executive committee was appointed to carry out the recommendations in the report.

[Sidenote: Negotiations Reopened,]

It might be supposed that after receiving a letter of that kind Lord Salisbury would have had no more to do with Lord Randolph Churchill forever, and would have refused to hold further communication with the Council; but politics makes strange bedfellows, especially in a parliamentary form of government. Lord Salisbury could not afford to alienate a body which represented a considerable fraction of the Conservatives in the country; while it would have been folly for Lord Randolph to burn the bridges behind him. Negotiations were, therefore, opened through a third person, very nearly on the lines of Lord Salisbury's letter of April 1, except that three thousand pounds a year were to be paid to the National Union; and an understanding was nearly reached, when an event took place which broke it off for a time.

[Sidenote: and Interrupted.]

Mr. J. M. Maclean, one of Lord Randolph's supporters in the Council, whose object had been simply to supplant Sir Stafford Northcote, became alarmed lest the movement might result in supplanting Lord Salisbury also, or might cause a real breach in the party. Not being aware of the pending negotiations, he moved at a meeting of the Council on May 2 the appointment of a committee to confer with the Central Committee in order to secure harmony and united action.[552:1] Although letters were read showing that steps already taken would probably lead to an understanding, and although Lord Randolph told Mr. Maclean that he should regard the motion as one of want of confidence, the latter persisted, and, as several of Lord Randolph's friends were absent, carried his proposal by a vote of seventeen to thirteen. Lord Randolph then resigned as chairman of the Council; but his popularity in the country was great, and there was a widespread feeling of regret at a quarrel among influential members of the party. A conference of chairmen of the Conservative a.s.sociations in eight of the chief provincial towns acted as peacemaker. It drew up a memorandum regretting the lack of harmony, suggested an arrangement very similar to that almost reached in the negotiations recently broken off, and submitted that if these suggestions were accepted Lord Randolph should withdraw his resignation.

[Sidenote: A Truce Effected.]

The memorandum was laid before the Council at a meeting on May 16, and Lord Randolph was unanimously reelected chairman. At the same meeting, the committee, composed mainly of Lord Randolph's opponents, which had been appointed to confer with the Central Committee, reported that they had effected an agreement. Again the terms were almost precisely the ones indicated by Lord Salisbury in his letter of April 1, save for the payment of three thousand pounds a year to the Union.[552:2] Coming from this source it is not surprising that they were unsatisfactory to Lord Randolph's friends, and they were referred back for further consideration to the committee reenforced by new members. A month elapsed, and at a meeting on June 13 the committee reported that they had suggested some changes, which the leaders would not accept.[553:1]

The matter was again recommitted, but finally on June 27, the committee reported that they had made an agreement on the lines of the earlier plan, and this was adopted as it stood.

Except for a moderate annual subsidy, Lord Randolph Churchill had really obtained nothing for the National Union.[553:2] Personally he had become the leading figure of what purported to be the great representative organisation of the party, for the chairman of the Council was the most important officer in the Union; but the position of the organisation itself remained substantially unchanged. The agreement that had been reached was, however, merely a truce, and both sides canva.s.sed eagerly the delegates to the approaching Conference, each hoping for a decisive victory that would give undisputed control of the Council.

[Sidenote: The Conference at Sheffield.]

The Conference of the National Union for 1884 met at Sheffield on July 23. It was unusually well attended, with some four hundred and fifty delegates in the hall, representing two hundred and thirty-four a.s.sociations. In his speech on presenting the report of the Council Lord Randolph described the dissensions that had occurred, and begged the delegates to elect members who would support one side or the other. His object, he said, had been to establish a bona fide popular organisation, bringing its influence to bear right up to the centre of affairs, so that the Tory party might be a self-governing party; but as yet this had been successfully thwarted by those who possessed influence. The speech was followed by a fierce debate, ending, of course, in the adoption of the report. The real interest of the meeting centred in the ballot for the Council, and before that began a change was made in the method of election. Instead of choosing twenty-four members, and allowing them to add twelve more to their number, a resolution was adopted, whereby all thirty-six were elected directly by the Conference, thus making the ballot there conclusive upon the complexion of the Council. Judging from the action of the Conference on certain minor questions of organisation, and from the size of Lord Randolph's personal vote for the Council, he had the sympathy of a majority of the delegates; but they did not, as he had hoped, divide on a sharp line for one side or the other. Lord Randolph himself received 346 votes, while the next highest on the list, although his supporter, received only 298. When, however, the result was announced, his friends formed only a small majority on the Council.

[Sidenote: Lord Randolph Makes his Peace and Abandons the Union.]

Lord Randolph Churchill had won a victory; but a victory that was little better than a drawn battle. His own reelection as chairman was a.s.sured, and for the moment he controlled the Council, but his control would be neither undisputed nor certain to endure. He could use the Union in a way that would be highly uncomfortable for Lord Salisbury, but he had not captured it so completely that he could do with it as he pleased.

Again it was for the interest of both sides to make peace, and the negotiations were completed in a few days. The Central Committee was in form abolished; the Primrose League, recently founded by the Fourth Party, was recognised by the leaders; Lord Randolph withdrew from the chairmanship of the Council; and mutual confidence and harmony of action were restored. These appear to have been the nominal conditions.[555:1]

Whether the real terms were ever definitely stated, or were merely left in the shape of a tacit understanding, it is at present impossible to say. The practical upshot was that the Fourth Party was broken up; Lord Randolph abandoned the National Union to its fate, acted in concert with the parliamentary leaders, and was given a seat in the cabinet when the Conservatives next came to power. The reconciliation was sealed by a dinner given by Lord Salisbury to the Council of the Union.

[Sidenote: His Later Career.]

The subsequent career of Lord Randolph Churchill may be told in a few words. In the reorganisation of the Union he took no part, and, indeed, he ceased before long to attend the meetings of the Council altogether.

But when Lord Salisbury formed a ministry in June, 1885, he was offered the post of Secretary of State for India, with a seat in the cabinet. He made it a condition of acceptance that Sir Stafford Northcote should cease to lead in the House of Commons. Lord Salisbury, who had been hitherto loyal to Sir Stafford, hesitated, but at last the old statesman was transferred to the oblivion of the House of Lords, and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach took his place as leader of the Commons. Lord Randolph's success had been extraordinary, but he was destined to reach even greater eminence in the near future. The Home Rule Bill, in the session of 1886, gave him a chance to increase his reputation as a debater, and when the general elections following the rejection of that bill brought a new Conservative government into office, he was given the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer with the leadership of the House of Commons.

His popularity in the country was greater than ever; his appearance on the platform at a Conference of the National Union, on Oct. 26, 1886, "was the signal for a tremendous outburst of long-sustained cheering,"[555:2] and addresses were presented to him from several hundred a.s.sociations. But he overestimated his personal power, and is commonly supposed to have thought that one more quarrel would leave him master of the party. His battle-ground was unfortunately chosen, for he took his stand in the cabinet for a reduction of the army and navy estimates, at a time when the national desire for economy was on the wane. His colleagues did not agree with him, and on Dec. 20 he tendered his resignation to the Prime Minister. He was apparently confident of coming out victorious; but Mr. Goshen, a Liberal Unionist, took his place, and the government went on without him.[556:1] He failed to realise that a conflict in 1884 with the leaders of the Conservative party in the Houses of Parliament, two men neither of whom had yet proved his capacity to be at the head of the cabinet or won the full confidence of the country, was a very different thing from a quarrel in 1886 with the government of the nation, at a time when it stood in the eyes of the majority of the people as the bulwark against disunion. His miscalculation was fatal, and during the few years of his life that were left he never regained a position of political importance.

[Sidenote: Reconstruction of the National Union.]

Meanwhile the National Union underwent a transformation. The leaders of the party were determined that it should not be captured again, or used to force their hand. But any changes must be made without losing the semblance of a democratic organisation; and, in fact, it was believed that if the Union were in reality broadly popular it would be more inclined to follow the leaders of the party, and less easily captured, than if it represented only a fraction of the local a.s.sociations. In this respect the position bore some resemblance to that of the National Liberal Federation after the Home Rule struggle a year later. The time was propitious for reconstructing the Union, because the redistribution act of 1885 had marked off the const.i.tuencies on new lines, and thus involved the formation of many of the local a.s.sociations afresh. It is interesting to note that the changes provoked no struggle between those elements in the Union which had recently been in conflict; and, indeed, the dissensions ceased with the withdrawal of Lord Randolph Churchill.

[Sidenote: The First Changes; 1885.]

The first alterations, made in 1885, were designed merely to give the Union a broader basis, and the Council a more representative character.

The most important provision was that every Conservative a.s.sociation should be affiliated without the need of any formal action. The Union thus came to be a really national party organisation in a way that it had never been before, the report for 1887 stating that the affiliated a.s.sociations numbered 1100. The changes of 1885 did not affect seriously the structure of the Union, or its relation to the whip's office, but these questions were taken up at once by three men. One of them was Sir Albert Rollit, who drafted and carried through a new set of rules.

Another was Captain Middleton, who devised the scheme on which those rules were based. He was appointed princ.i.p.al agent of the party in 1885, and in 1886 was made honorary secretary of the Union. He continued to hold both positions until 1903, and so far as the success of the Conservatives at the polls during the period of their ascendency was the result of political organisation, it was due to him more than to any one else. The third was Mr. Southall, who became in 1886, and has ever since remained, the secretary of the Union. His constant cooperation with Captain Middleton removed the severe friction that had existed between the Union and the whip's office, and enabled them to work in perfect harmony.

[Sidenote: The New Organisation.]

The new rules were adopted at a special conference held in May, 1886, at which more than six hundred delegates were present. Slightly modified so far as the National Union itself is concerned in 1887, and as regards the divisional unions in 1888, 1889, and 1890, they remained in force until 1906; and hence they governed the organisation of the Conservative party during the period of greatest and longest prosperity that it has known since the Reform Act of 1832. They recite that the objects of the Union are: to form a centre of united action, communication, and cooperation, among a.s.sociations; to promote the organisation of a.s.sociations; to spread Conservative principles; and to enable a.s.sociations to give expression to Conservative feeling by pet.i.tions and resolutions. They provide that the chief a.s.sociation of each const.i.tuency in England and Wales shall be a member of the Union without payment, while any other a.s.sociation or club with fifty members may be admitted on paying one guinea a year;[558:1] and that any person may be admitted as an honorary member or vice-president on payment of a sum appropriate to those dignities.[558:2] The Conference was made to consist of the officers and honorary members, and of delegates from subscribing a.s.sociations, from the ten new divisional unions, and from the chief organisations of Scotland and Ireland.[558:3] The Council was composed of the president and trustees; of one of the whips, and the princ.i.p.al agent of the party; of twenty-one members elected by the Conference; and of the chairman and three representatives elected by each of the divisional unions.

[Sidenote: The Ten Divisional Unions.]

Within the National Union, which included only England and Wales, there were created ten new territorial divisions; and a provincial or divisional union consisted of all the members of the National Union, whether a.s.sociations or individuals, within that division. It had its annual meeting corresponding to the Conference, and its council.[559:1]

In fact, it was intended to be a miniature of the National Union itself, with similar structure and functions.

The mechanism of the National Union, and its subordinate branches, looks formidable; but it has not proved in practice so complex as it appears.

The princ.i.p.al change was the creation of the provincial or divisional unions, which were interposed between the local a.s.sociations and the central Conference and Council. The object in creating them was said to be the development of local effort as essential to the success of the party. Representation, it was pointed out, thus pa.s.sed by graduated steps from the individual elector, through the branch or district a.s.sociations and clubs, and through the central a.s.sociations in each const.i.tuency to the provincial councils, to be summed up in the Conference and Council of the whole Union.[559:2] Perhaps the words "strained" or "filtered" would, better than "pa.s.sed," have signified the real intention, for the divisional unions were designed as a safeguard against popular caprice and personal ambition. They were expected to act like water-tight compartments, as it was believed that all ten divisions would not go mad at once, and that any man would find it very hard to capture enough of them, one at a time, to control the Union. They did not, however, develop any vigorous life of their own, and have not had corporate solidity enough to maintain separate deliberative bodies. The annual meetings have been little more than an occasion for an address by the president. In short, the divisions did not turn out to be of much consequence as a basis for representative party gatherings.

[Sidenote: Concentration of Power.]

Although the divisions did not prove important from a deliberative point of view, they have had a very distinct value for administrative purposes, and have been distinctly convenient as districts for the spread of Conservative doctrines. Moreover, they have furnished a means for controlling the party from headquarters, and a channel through which it could be kept in touch with the whip's office. This was darkly hinted at when, on behalf of the committee that framed the new rules, a hope was expressed that "In your local a.s.sociations, in the provincial unions, and in the National Union, and with the help also of the princ.i.p.al whip and the princ.i.p.al agent of the party, you will have a chain of a.s.sistance, experience and authority, which will bind together our party." One of the whips and the princ.i.p.al agent of the party were, indeed, given seats _ex officio_ not only upon the Council of the National Union itself, but both upon the Council and the Executive Committee of each of its divisions. This was, of course, part of the "chain of a.s.sistance, experience and authority which will bind together our party."

Another provision in the rules relating to the divisional unions has also proved important in this respect. It is one that contemplated the employment as divisional secretary of a sub-agent of the central office without cost. By doing this the division saved both salary and rent; while the princ.i.p.al agent, who represented the leaders and the whips, had in the secretary an agent selected and paid by him. The relation was the more useful because the habit of changing every year the president of the divisional union, and the chairman of its council, prevented any one from acquiring a large influence, except the secretary, who was permanent. The arrangement was made in most of the divisions. Even where it was not, the secretary acted as though he were a subordinate of Captain Middleton, and being in constant communication with the local agents, he could give information about political matters throughout his division, thus keeping the princ.i.p.al agent in touch with the whole organisation of the party. Personally popular and tactful, Captain Middleton was enabled by his relation to the divisional agents, by close cooperation with the National Union, with the Conservative clubs, and with other ancillary bodies, to draw all the threads of the Conservative organisation into his office without provoking jealousy, or appearing to exert more power than naturally belonged to his office. The result was that while he held the place of princ.i.p.al agent the Conservative organisation was a highly efficient administrative machine, working in perfect harmony with the leaders.

[Sidenote: Resolutions on Political Questions]

Any popular party organisation in England involves two dangers, one personal and the other political; one that a man may use it for selfish purposes; the other that it may force upon the leaders a policy which they were not prepared to adopt. We have seen how this second peril actually confronted the Liberal Ministry in the form of the Newcastle Programme, and how it was met by muzzling the Council of the National Liberal Federation. In the National Union the difficulty has been solved in a very different way. Until 1885 the Conference pa.s.sed no resolutions on general policy, save in the form of expressing confidence in the leaders, or congratulating them on their exploits; but in that year, when an effort was made to give to the Union the appearance of a free popular organisation, confessions of faith on current politics began.

Resolutions of this kind soon became numerous and included demands to which the Conservative leaders could not a.s.sent, such as woman suffrage, and fair trade, that is, protection in a modified form.[561:1]

[Sidenote: are Free;]

But, except for occasional cases where a delegate was persuaded to withdraw his motion, or where it was shelved by the previous question on the ground that a vote on the subject would be impolitic, no attempt has been made by the managers to fetter the free expression of opinion. The Conservative leaders, however, made it clear almost at once that they did not take the action of the Conference very seriously. In 1887 it adopted resolutions in favour of fair trade, woman suffrage, and reforms in the tenure and sale of Church livings; but although Lord Salisbury, then Prime Minister, in a public speech immediately afterward said, "More and more in this day political leading and the making of political opinion must be a matter of local effort," and although he referred to agricultural distress, and the forthcoming budget, he made no allusion to fair trade, or for that matter to woman suffrage or Church livings.[562:1] There was, at first, no doubt, some dread of the effect the resolutions might have on the public, and on several occasions the chairman called attention to the fact that among the delegates were men connected with the press, warning them not to report the proceedings.[562:2] At one time, in fact, an unofficial proposal was made to forbid the pa.s.sing of resolutions altogether. In 1889 a delegate moved that although general questions of policy might be discussed, no vote should in future be taken upon them. The fair trade resolution of 1887, which had provoked criticism, was referred to, and several gentlemen said they wished to prevent a repet.i.tion of that incident. The matter was referred to the Council, which reported in the following year that they had considered both this suggestion and another that no resolution should be placed upon the agenda without the consent of the Council; but that they had decided to recommend no change in the rules, except an increase in the number of days prior to the Conference that notice of a motion must be sent in. They went even further, and advised that reporters for the press should be admitted to the meetings, which was done forthwith.

[Sidenote: but are Ignored.]

The proceedings at the Conference of the National Union are thus quite free. Any delegate or other member has a right, on giving the prescribed notice, to prepare a resolution on any subject, and amendments can be moved upon the spot. The result has been a large number of declarations of opinion on public questions, not always consistent or unopposed. A resolution in favour of woman suffrage was adopted in 1887, 1891, and 1894, and then defeated in 1897 by a substantial majority. The action of the Conference is not fettered; it is ignored. Some great n.o.bleman presides, and one of the party leaders usually addresses a public meeting in the evening; but statesmen of the first rank take no part in the regular proceedings, which have, therefore, no political weight.

[Sidenote: The Fiscal Question.]

A proof of the small importance attached to the votes is furnished by the history of the movement for fair trade or preferential tariffs.

Resolutions in favour of such a policy were pa.s.sed over and over again, but they did not bring the question even within the range of active political issues until Mr. Chamberlain made his speech on the subject to his const.i.tuents at Birmingham in the spring of 1903. The meeting of the Conference at Sheffield in the following October then awoke a real interest; and yet the proceedings at that very meeting show how the National Union shrank from a decided stand at a critical moment. The situation was extraordinary. Mr. Chamberlain had taken his stand for a preferential tariff in favour of the colonies, including a duty on grain, and had recently resigned from the cabinet to advocate his views more freely before the country; while other ministers had resigned because they could not abandon the principle of free trade. Mr. Balfour had expressed no definite opinion, and was expected to make a statement on the subject at a public meeting after the close of the first day's session of the Union. Under these circ.u.mstances a resolution was placed upon the agenda which stated the need for reconsidering the fiscal system, thanked the Prime Minister for inst.i.tuting an inquiry on the subject, and welcomed the policy of retaliatory tariffs he had foreshadowed. To this Mr. Chaplin moved a rider favouring explicitly Mr.

Chamberlain's views; while Sir John Gorst stood ready to move another against any protective duty on food. During the afternoon the fiscal question was hotly debated, and, judging by the way the free trade speakers were interrupted, a large majority of those present must have agreed with Mr. Chamberlain's opinions; but in order not to pa.s.s a vote before hearing the Prime Minister, the debate was adjourned until the following day.