officer to be styled major-general (or brigadier) in charge of administration, who would be entrusted with the administrative services of the command. This officer was to exercise his authority by order of the general officer commanding-in-chief, and the latter would delegate to him such extended powers as would enable him to deal with all administrative matters which did not involve questions of principle or policy; and upon all such matters he would be authorised to correspond with the War Office direct. In the case of the London district the general officer commanding was also to "carry out the duties. laid down for a major-general.'

The commands, exclusive of Aldershot and the London district, were to be subdivided into fourteen groups of regimental districts, each under a brigadier, and each having an officer in charge of recruiting and records, who would relieve the brigadier of correspondence and routine work. The Order also embraced -in this respect varying from the Esher Committee's report -the establishment of coast defence commanders, enjoying the privilege of direct correspondence with the War Office.

Before passing to the notice of questions of a more or less controversial character, it may be recorded here that the terrible grievance against the administration of justice established in the case of Mr. Adolf Beck (see ANNUAL REGISTER for 1904, p. 223) was finally dealt with by the offer of 5,000l. by the Treasury "by way of compensation for his wrongful conviction and imprisonment." Mr. Beck accepted the grant, though naturally dissatisfied with the amount, as to which he stated that the dislocation of his business had caused him losses to the amount of £40,000, and that he had contracted chronic bronchitis at Portland. It was stated, however, that so large a sum as 5,000l. had only once been granted before in similar circumstances.

The turn of the year had brought no change in the set of opinion or feeling, or both, in favour of parliamentary candidates who represented opposition both to the Unionist Government and to Mr. Chamberlain's fiscal propaganda. On January 7 for the vacancy caused at Stalybridge by the accession of the Hon. M. White Ridley to the peerage, Mr. J. F. Cheetham, the Liberal candidate, was returned on an exceptionally large poll by 4,029 votes against 3,078 recorded for Mr. J. Travis-Clegg, the majority of 951 thus secured by the Liberal replacing a Conservative majority in 1900 of 81. Mr. Travis-Clegg, it was complained by thorough-going supporters of Mr. Chamberlain, had chilled enthusiasm on the Unionist side by limiting his support of tariff reform to the Balfourian measure. But, even adopting the implied assumption that the great majority of Unionists were out-and-out Chamberlainites, it might be supposed that from their point of view Mr. Travis-Clegg would be very greatly preferable to an uncompromising Free Trader like Mr. Cheetham, good local candidate though the latter gentle

man was. The simplest explanation of the result seemed to be the most probable that apart from the discontents accumulating against the Government, there as elsewhere, on other grounds, the electors of Stalybridge, which, though actually in Cheshire, is practically within the Lancashire cotton area, were strongly imbued with the belief that the interests of that great industry would be prejudicially affected by any tampering with Free Trade.

The Stalybridge poll was therefore a depressing form of prelude to Mr. Chamberlain's next missionary engagement, which was at Preston on January 11. In the speech which he then delivered to an audience generally sympathetic but not without critical elements, and numbering some 5,000 persons, Mr. Chamberlain made no reference to the recent reverse, but devoted a large share of his time to the endeavour to persuade his hearers that the cotton trade was in a much less satisfactory and secure position than, in view of its unquestionable present prosperity, might be supposed. The Board of Trade returns, he admitted, had shown that in value the cotton exports of 1904 were a "record," having increased by more than 10,300,000l. as compared with those of 1903. But he maintained that this great rise was chiefly due to the necessity for recouping the manufacturers for the excessively high price of the raw material in 1904. (This was to a considerable extent true, but the quantities both of cotton yarn and of cotton piece goods exported also showed a substantial advance in 1904.) Mr. Chamberlain's main point, however, was that the condition of the Lancashire cotton trade, though for the time positively prosperous, exhibited, on a view of a series of years, a marked relative decline as compared with competing countries. Statistics, he said, showed that since 1896 Great Britain's consumption of the world's cotton supply had declined from 41 to 25 per cent. And coming to the period 1892-1903, while our trade had been practically stationary, the principal protected countries-Germany, Austria, France and the United States-had increased their trade more than 50 per cent., and it now amounted to the sum of 35,000,000%. "Mr. Asquith," said Mr. Chamberlain, referring to a speech delivered a few weeks before at Preston by that Liberal statesman, "tells you that your trade is still larger than theirs. Yes; but go back a few years and see the rate at which they are catching you up. How long do you think your trade will still be greater than theirs? Theirs has already increased so greatly. There is another point about these figures. This enormous increase extends to every class of market. It extends to the neutral markets, including China, the British Colonies and possessions, including India; it even extends to the United Kingdom. . . . Your trade is being taken from you in these neutral markets by your foreign protected competitor." Mr. Chamberlain's remedy in this, as in other cases, was to secure an increase in our trade with foreign countries by compelling a

revision of their tariffs. To say to these countries, "We will pay you in your own coin," would at once produce a considerable amendment, and would also prevent the dumping which Mr. Asquith had described as a blessing in disguise. Replying to certain questions received from representatives of the cotton trade, Mr. Chamberlain was careful to declare that under no circumstances would he tax raw cotton.

Of more general interest were a few sentences in a short speech made by Mr. Chamberlain on the same evening after the passage of a resolution which had obviously been drawn in terms designed to allow of the support of those who confined their tariff-reforming aspirations to the limits set by Mr. Balfour. The mover, Sir W. N. Tomlinson, Member of Parliament for Preston, had observed that the resolution did not commit the meeting wholly to Mr. Chamberlain's policy. If not, Mr. Chamberlain rejoined, it at all events left them "in a very embarrassing position. For," he continued, "what does it say? It in effect commits you to that policy avowed by Mr. Balfour of retaliation if necessary in order to secure reciprocation. It commits you to the calling of a conference also advocated by Mr. Balfour, and I cannot believe either he or you would think of calling a conference with your own Colonies if you do not subsequently intend to pay great and favourable attention to its decisions. Mr. Balfour intends a full and free and an absolutely unfettered conference. I am convinced at that conference the Colonies will propose, as probably one of the most important questions on which they could be consulted, some scheme of mutual protection with the object that the inter-Imperial trade may be developed, that we may do more with our relations, even though that will involve doing less with our competitors, and that thereby we may draw together the bonds which still unite us. To all that you are committed."

Earlier in the same week the Attorney-General (Sir R. B. Finlay), speaking at Inverness, had expressed the opinion that the conference advocated by Mr. Balfour in his Edinburgh speech would declare against any taxation of food or raw material. In view of this indication of the persistence of Free Trade sentiment within the Government, Mr. Chamberlain's practical identification, in the sentences above quoted, of the Prime Minister's policy with his own prompted a general desire, and even expectation, that in a speech which he was pledged to deliver at Glasgow on January 12 Mr. Balfour would deem it necessary to define his position more clearly. Such anticipations, however, were altogether disappointed. The Prime Minister said that he had nothing either to add to or to take away from his Edinburgh utterance on the fiscal question, and proceeded to deal with other Imperial topics. He claimed that during the past twelve months the Government had discharged the very difficult task of reorganising the War Office in accordance with the recommendations of the Esher Commission.

They had also been dealing with the great military problem of the Empire, which he held was not that of home defences, for which "with the help of the auxiliary forces a very small regular force would be amply sufficient to supplement that which is the real defence of these shores-the British fleet." Nor was the great problem one of our fortresses and coaling stations nor of our Colonies. The problem was that of "the defence of Afghanistan." Mr. Balfour claimed not only that the changes being carried out by the War Secretary were of a kind that would enable this country "more effectively to intervene in any contest upon the North-western Frontier of India," but that in India under Lord Kitchener's strong hand a military reorganisation was in progress which would "add enormously to," he "had almost said double, the efficiency" of the Indian forces as a field army, without any material addition to their

numerical strength."

66

Recent criticism in regard to artillery equipment had been, Mr. Balfour contended, unjust and imperfectly informed. There had been "no delay that could be avoided," and it might be "confidently said that the whole Army would be re-armed two years after next March, that we should long before that be in advance of most of the nations of the world, and that the guns themselves were better than any possessed by any foreign nation." As to naval administration, Mr. Balfour spoke with enthusiasm of the work done by Lord Selborne and his Board of Admiralty in striking off the active list 130 obsolete vessels, and still more in its strategic redistribution of our fighting ships, so as to deal with any emergency at a moment's notice, and in its provision for the immediate availability of the fighting ships in reserve by supplying them with nucleus crews kept in practice. He believed that the result of all these changes taken together was that the potential "fighting strength of the British fleet during the first twenty-four hours, let us say, of hostilities" had been" augmented not once nor twice, but threefold." Having also spoken with fervour of the value of the Anglo-French agreement, the Prime Minister dwelt upon the great importance of securing closer Imperial union. As to the possibility of finding a solution for that most difficult problem he drew encouragement from the difficulties-very different in kind but even greater in degree-which had been surmounted in the union. between Scotland and England. The organisation of the Defence Committee was one important advance in Imperial development made under the present Government; and as to Colonial conferences-without saying a word as to what the next one might do or ought to do-Mr. Balfour avowed his hope that they would soon be "as much a part of the ordinary working of the machinery of the Empire as the House of Commons itself."

This speech of the Prime Minister's gave satisfaction by the tone of its general treatment of Imperial questions, but in addition

to the disappointment caused by his refusal to throw any fresh light on his fiscal attitude, it was felt that his claims as to the value of the military reforms in progress under the Government remained to be substantiated. Other Ministers who spoke during the same week-Mr. Arnold-Forster and Mr. Long-plainly recognised the possibility, which practically from such speakers meant the probability, of a Unionist defeat at the general election whenever it should come; and the result announced late on January 12 of the election for the Mile End division of the Tower Hamlets afforded no consolation to Ministerial pessimists. For although the Hon. Harry Lawson (eldest son of Lord Burnham, principal proprietor of the Daily Telegraph) retained for the Conservatives the seat which had been held by the late Mr. Spencer Charrington for twenty years, his majority over Mr. B. S. Straus, the Liberal candidate, was only 78 as compared with 1,160 in 1900, 867 in 1895, and 273 even in 1892. A considerable discount was, no doubt, to be made from the significance of this result in view of the great local popularity which Mr. Charrington had enjoyed, but to set against that consideration was the fact that Mr. Lawson possessed the advantage of appearing as the definite supporter of the policy of the Aliens Bill -which the Government had undertaken to press through in the coming session-in a constituency fully alive to the disadvantages of the unchecked influx of more or less undesirable foreigners. Mr. Straus's attitude on this subject was somewhat obscure, but he was a very clear opponent of Protection in any form, while Mr. Lawson had the support of the Tariff Reform League. Naturally, therefore, the Mile End result was claimed as a moral or virtual victory for the Opposition and for Free Trade. The Board of Trade returns for 1904 (already referred to) undoubtedly tended to quicken the resistance to the Tariff Reform propaganda, which required for its acceptance the admission that the trade of the country, as a whole, was in a precarious position. For their general effect was to exhibit improvements in the quantity, as well as in the total value, of our manufactured exports in 1904, notwithstanding the fact that during a part of that year trade had been understood to be rather exceptionally depressed.

The divisions among Unionists on the fiscal question were further illustrated by the resolution announced, in a letter published on January 13, on the part of Mr. H. D. Greene, K.C., the Conservative Member for Shrewsbury, not to seek re-election. One of the reasons which he gave for this decision was his desire to see the "revival of a powerful progressive Conservative party resolutely determined to resist the introduction of Protection." On the same day Lord George Hamilton delivered a vigorous speech at a great Free Trade meeting at Blackburn, in the course of which he observed that the two pillars supporting the gigantic fabric of the Lancashire cotton industry were cheap food and cheap money, at both of which