so that they could understand, if they desired to understand, the case of each other. In all their past history when disputes had arisen between them, sometimes on the side of Great Britain, decisions had been come to and popular outcry had arisen upon imperfect information, which, when fuller information was at the disposal of the people, entirely passed away. He believed with confidence that when a true statement of the case of Great Britain in this matter-which Lord Salisbury had fully and ably set forth in despatches-was laid before the people, either on this side of the Atlantic or on the other, the result would be happy, peaceful, and honourable to both parties.

Notwithstanding this prospect of a hopeful settlement of our most serious trouble, the year closed amid gloom and international distrust. Great Britain found that her policy of isolation was resented by her neighbours, who showed too plainly that they regarded it as a policy of ambitious selfishness. Russia-never really friendly since the Crimean War-had found her projects in the Far East hampered by English sympathy with Japan. Germany for two years had been thwarting and opposing us in Asia and Africa, as well as in Europe, in her eagerness to obtain for German trade the advantages which we were enjoying in all parts of the world. France in her new zeal for colonial empire looked upon us with jealousy and undisguised ill-will; and the support which we received from Italy-our one friendly power in Europe-served only to stimulate the unfriendliness of France. In our dealings with the Sultan, and our feeble efforts to succour the Armenians, the full extent of our isolation had been seen : for there Italy, bound by the conditions of the Triple Alliance, was unable to act in opposition to the views of the predominant partner, Germany. And Russia, the recognised champion of the Eastern Christians, sure for some time of the blind adherence of France, would take part in no international guarantee which might postpone indefinitely the realisation of her ambitions in SouthEastern Europe. The dawn of that millennium in foreign politics which was to mark the return of Lord Salisbury to power seemed for the moment dark with storm clouds gathering from every part of the horizon.

ALTHOUGH labour disputes marked both the opening and closing months, the chief events of the year were those connected with the general election. Ever since the great trial of strength in 1892, when Mr. Gladstone's name was a pillar of strength

to the Liberal party, the efforts of the Unionists to reverse the verdict then pronounced by the electors had been unceasing. The Liberal Unionists, even more than the Conservatives, had stumped the country from Berwick-on-Tweed to Inverness, and every possible argument-religious as well as politicalwas used to detach the waverers from the Radical Disestablishers. The successive victories of the Unionists in Linlithgowshire and Forfarshire in the previous year were followed by an increased Unionist poll in West Edinburgh, when Mr. MacIver contested the seat vacated by Lord Wolmer's succession to his father's peerage, and by the still more striking victory of Mr. Baillie of Dochfour over Mr. Macrae in Inverness-shire. The results of these contests justified the hopes of the Unionists that, at the general election, the balance of parties in Scotland would be reflected in the House of Commons. When Parliament was dissolved the Gladstonians-notwithstanding the results of the bye-electionsheld 47 seats and the Unionists 25. In Scotland, however, as in England, the dissolution found the latter better equipped and more fully prepared for the struggle, which, had the Gladstonians had their way, would probably have been postponed for some months. At any rate the Gladstonians allowed six seats to pass unchallenged; whilst the Unionists fought every seat held by a Gladstonian, with the exception of Central Edinburgh, which had been represented since 1886 by Mr. W. M'Ewan, a generous philanthropist and a great benefactor of the city and university. From the very outset, however, the set of the tide against the Radicals became manifest; the only seat which they were able to gain from their opponents was that for Perth City, which had been lost, in 1892, owing to a schism in the Liberal party. On the other hand, they lost seven seats, including the important College Division at Glasgow, for many years occupied by Sir Charles Cameronthe most prominent and active supporter of the Disestablishment movement-who was defeated by a Conservative (Sir John Stirling-Maxwell) by 1,100 votes; reversing the poll of 1892, when Sir C. Cameron defeated Sir J. Stirling-Maxwell by about the same number. The Central Division of Glasgow was similarly lost by Sir J. M. Carmichael, who had been Mr. Gladstone's private secretary during his last Administration. The Liberals attempted to explain their defeat by the fact that the elections were held during the Glasgow trade holidays, and that consequently a large number of working men voters were absent. There may have been some truth in this explanation, for the pollings showed a very considerable reduction on those of the previous election. The other burgh seats gained by the Unionists were those of Inverness, Falkirk, Ayr, Kilmarnock, and South Edinburgh where Mr. H. Paul lost the seat he had so cleverly carried in 1892.

Of the thirty-nine county seats, in eighteen there was no

change; the Radicals maintaining their hold upon the constituencies, and in some cases such as in East Fife and West Aberdeenshire - increasing their majorities. In Forfarshire, Linlithgowshire, Dumfries-shire, and North-West Lanarkshire they were successful in gaining back seats which had been for more or less time in the hands of the Unionists; but in nine other counties, of which Argyllshire, Stirlingshire, and Roxburghshire were the most important, the Unionists seated their candidates, and also retained Inverness-shire. The seat for Elgin and Nairn was also won from the Radicals, who on petition failed to support the charges of improper practices, and the Unionists retained the seat. The total result was that at the close of the election Scotland was represented in the new Parliament by 39 Liberals and 33 Unionists, or a net gain to the latter of eight seats. The actual shifting of the electors, by which this change was effected, was 21,558 votes; the Liberal poll showing a decrease of 12,138, and the Unionist poll an increase of 9,450 votes. For this change of political opinion there was no adequate explanation, unless it were the loosening of the ties by which Mr. Gladstone's personal influence had held the Liberal party together. It is possible, also, that the efforts made by the Disestablishment party in 1892, although temporarily successful, were transient in result; and that, on a second trial, they proved to have no solid hold upon the electors, especially in the southern and western counties. Again, the excitement produced by the grievances of the crofters in the northern districts had in a great measure subsided; and, although the Liberals had done much to apply remedies and to promise relief, there was still a feeling of discontent which took the form of political ingratitude at the polls.

In the formation of his Administration, Lord Salisbury had been, doubtless, less attentive to the claims of Scotchmen than either Mr. Gladstone or Lord Rosebery. Both of these naturally looked to their fellow-countrymen for support and assistance, and liberally recognised their administrative merits; Lord Salisbury, however, by no means underestimated the value of his Scotch adherents. Places were found for four native-born Scotchmen sitting for English constituencies-Mr. A. J. Balfour, the First Lord of the Treasury, and his brother, the Chief Secretary; Mr. C. T. Ritchie, the President of the Board of Trade, and Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the Secretary for Scotland. Outside the Cabinet, the Earl of Hopetoun, as Paymaster-General; Sir R. Finlay, Solicitor-General; Mr. T. W. Russell, Secretary to the Local Government Board; Sir H. Anstruther, Junior Lord of the Treasury; Sir C. Pearson, Lord-Advocate; and Mr. A. G. Murray, Solicitor-General for Scotland-all came from north of the Tweed.

The only important labour disputes during the year were at Dundee, in the spring, and on the Clyde, at the close of the

year. The former case was interesting, from its having been almost the first case in which the boys employed in a trade had succeeded in bringing out the older hands. At Dundee, in the jute factories, a considerable part of the rough preparatory work was done by boys, who considered that they deserved a higher rate of pay. The advance they asked was trifling in amount; but, as the work required was quite unskilled, the masters were aware that the supply of workers was practically unlimited, and the demand for a rise was refused. The delay caused by replacing the boys momentarily stopped operations in a portion of the works, and a few men were thrown out of employment. Upon this, the whole body of the operatives in the trade demanded an advance of ten per cent., and these were followed into enforced idleness by the mill hands-numbering between 30,000 and 40,000. The strike, however, had been entered upon without forethought, and without sufficient funds; and, after several weeks of unnecessary suffering and privation, the men and boys had to resume work on the old terms.

The strike on the Clyde was the result of an understanding between the ship engineers of Belfast and those of Glasgow and the neighbourhood. The Belfast men about the middle of October, finding business in the shipbuilding yards rapidly increasing, decided that an immediate advance of wages was warranted. The Belfast masters, whilst admitting the improvement in trade, objected that their contracts had been made upon the basis of lower wages, and, whilst promising a revision of the rates at a future date, declined to give any present increase. About the same time the engineers in the Clyde yards asked for a small advance, which the masters at first seemed disposed to concede, but before a decision was arrived at a grave difference of opinion arose as to the cause of the dispute on the Clyde. It was not denied that, in the first instance, the rupture took the form, not of a strike by the men, but of a lock-out by the masters. It was maintained on the one side that the lock-out on the Clyde was a movement " in sympathy" with the masters at Belfast. On the other side it was argued that the dispute between the Glasgow masters and their men had never been fully or formally settled, and that the action of the masters was designed to bring it to a crisis. Thus by the middle of November there were nearly 7,000 men idle on the Clyde. Efforts were made by Lord Provost Bell, by Sir Donald Currie and others to effect a settlement, but without success. In the midst of their negotiations a manifesto appeared, purporting to be issued by the Amalgamated Association of Engineers in London (but immediately repudiated by that body), raising new points of difference, and embittering the feeling on both sides. Towards the end of November, a meeting of the master engineers from the Clyde, Belfast, and the north-east of England was held at Carlisle, at which it was resolved to form a federation of employers for defensive purposes. This naturally led to proposals

for a federation of trade associations, on the alleged ground that the aim of the masters was to wreck the unions. At the same time the non-union engineers threatened to take work wherever it was offered, unless they received support from the funds. of the union. The strike very soon began to tell seriously on other classes of tradesmen employed in the yards-on riveters, joiners, and labourers, a number of whom had to be paid off. Several firms at once put their yards on short time. A conference, attended by representatives of the masters and the men, and presided over by Lord James of Hereford, was held in Glasgow early in December. The offers of the masters, both for Belfast and for the Clyde, fell short of the demands of the operatives, but they were distinctly in advance of the offers that had been made at Carlisle, which, on all points but one, the Clyde men had agreed to accept. When these proposals were submitted to a ballot of the men they were almost unanimously rejected, as the similar proposals were in Belfast. This decision generally deprived the men on strike of the sympathy of outsiders, which, up to that point, had been freely extended to them. It also widened the area of suffering, for several classes of workers, such as pattern-makers, who had been kept on in the expectation that the strike was about to end, were at once paid off. Yet another effect of the decision was to define anew the precise nature of the conflict, making it clear that a strike had been deliberately entered upon by the men, and at the close of the year there was no symptom of its being speedily brought to a conclusion.

The meetings of the National Assembly in Edinburgh were looked upon with especial interest as likely to give a clue to the part which the three great Presbyterian bodies would take in the ensuing elections. The Synod of the United Presbyterian Church renewed its testimony in favour of Disestablishment and Disendowment, and expressed regret that the late Government had not seen its way to introduce a measure for Scottish Disestablishment. The discussion of the subject in the General Assembly of the Free Church followed much the same lines, Principal Rainy giving the debate a political turn by vigorously supporting the statement in the report of his committee that the time had come for translating the convictions of the people into action at the polls, and his motion was carried by the overwhelming majority of 365 to 42. Principal Rainy's appeal to Free Church Unionists not to sacrifice their Church for the sake of political party was promptly responded to by Dr. Ross Taylor, of Glasgow, who declared that, though he had always voted as a Unionist hitherto, Scotland was more to him than Ireland, and that he would never again give his vote to a candidate for Parliament who was not pledged to Disestablishment. In the debate on the same subject in the Established Church Assembly, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who was the chief speaker, characterised as "a deliberate and senseless fabrication" the