THE

HE British constitution, which is not a constitution at all, is full of anomalies, paradoxes, and contradictions, but of all its curious and unexpected eccentricities there is none so amazing as the race-horse rapidity with which it provides for a complete change of the gov ernment of the empire. In almost every department, the constitution is slow in its movements and cumbrous in its action. But in the achievement of that constitutional revolution which is involved in the ejection of the entire personnel of the central government and the transfer of all authority from one party to its political opponent the British constitution surpasses all others in the speed and facility of its operation. John Bull, who provides checks and counter.checks against any rapid alteration in his political arrangements, and who often seems to think it more important to provide a brake than to create a motor, in this one supremely important crisis sacrifices every

The Parliament elected in 1900 had still another year of life. His working majority in the House of Lords was ten to one. The by-elections, it was true, had been going steadily against him for the last three years, but a working majority

thing in order to render it possible for him to change his ministers in an irreducible minimum of time.

When the month of November closed, Mr. Balfour, supported by a majority of 76 members in a House of 670, was prime minister of the King. Every office in the state was held by Unionist ministers of his own appointment, all of whom were loyal in their support of the administration, which under himself and his uncle, Lord Salisbury, had governed the empire since 1885, with three years' intermission from 189295. His authority there was none to dispute.

of 76 bears a good deal of nibbling, and so long as it remained faithful no one could force a dissolution. The majority of the British newspapers, every morning and evening, proclaimed the excellence of his rule and vied with one another in describing the sad catastrophe which would overwhelm the country if the opposi tion, by any sad mischance, were to return to power.

A RAPID GOVERNMENTAL

REVOLUTION.

In the first days of December, however, Mr. Balfour decided that he had had enough of it. He had spent the last two years in balancing. himself upon the tightrope of ambiguity between the protectionist and the free-trade sections of his own party. Mr. Chamberlain had become impatient, and, in response to an urgent appeal from Mr. Balfour to prolong the period of indecision, had emphatically hoisted the banner of a tax on American and foreign wheat in order to give half-a-dollar a quarter preference to the wheat of Canada. Mr. Balfour thereupon incontinently resolved to resign. He did not consult his party. He intimated his intention to his cabinet, and then, on Monday, December 4, he placed his resignation in the hands of the King. On the same day, the King sent for Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and appointed him prime minister in Mr. Bal

four's place. By the following Monday the new prime minister had got together his cabinet, and had submitted their names to the King for his approval. Approved they were, and forthwith the retiring ministers surrendered the seals of office, vacated their respective departments, which were promptly taken possession of by their successors, and, hey, presto! the great transformation act was done.

It had all the suddenness and the unexpectedness of a scene in a Christmas pantomime. In less than a fortnight the whole personnel of the central administration was changed. Every office was handed over from politicians of the Conservative party to their Liberal opponents. From bottom to top, no vestige of the old ministry was left in existence. No revolution could have made a cleaner sweep, and in every gov ernment office power was transferred to the men who for the last ten years have been constantly in opposition more or less violent to the men whom they replaced. Yet so perfectly is the machinery of the British constitution braced up to secure this rapid transfer of power from party to party that in no part of the empire, at home or overseà, was there even a momentary arrest of the normal functioning of the administration, no jar in the subtle workings of the mechanism of finance. The empire had changed its rulers without strain or friction. Some months ago, Mr. Balfour declared that, whenever the dissolution came, it would come like a thief in the night. It would be more accurate to say that when he found he could no longer postpone a dissolution his whole administration disappeared with the silence and celerity of a thief in the night. Britishers, who are painfully conscious of the bungling delay with which their political machinery often works, may be pardoned for a little complacency when they contemplate the one occasion in which the rapidity of its movements beats even revolutionary records.

WHY MR. BALFOUR RESIGNED.

Mr. Balfour's action in resigning instead of himself dissolving Parliament was a smart political maneuver, unhappily too characteristic of his decadence. The Liberals naturally desired that the country should have an opportunity of going to the polls on the clear issue raised by the record of ten years of Tory administration. They regarded Mr. Balfour and his party as being in the dock, and before they took office they wished to have the verdict of the country returned by the votes of the electors. But this, for equally obvious reasons, Mr. Balfour wished to avoid. By resigning now, he compelled his opponents to undertake the task, first of form

ing a new administration, with all the risks which it involves of personal slight and sectional differences, and, secondly, of facing the risk of any untoward incident arising in the next few weeks which might be used against the new-born gov. ernment. It also would enable them to obscure to a certain extent the real issue before the country. Instead of simply voting for or against Mr. Balfour and his administration, they would be asked to express their opinion upon a new ministry, which had not had any opportunity of giving the country a taste of its quality. But as Mr. Balfour could not be compelled to stay in when he had made up his mind to go out, and as it was such a relief to get rid of him on any terms, the Liberals consented to face the disadvantages of taking office before the dissolution. Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman accepted the King's commission and at once set about forming a government.

For a moment Mr. Balfour's maneuver seemed as if it were about to achieve a small measure

of success. The Unionists, being themselves hopelessly divided on the question of the tariff, pinned all their hopes upon dividing the Liberals by raising the old war cry of the union versus Home Rule. It was known that Lord Rosebery, despite the fact that he had held office at one time as Home Rule premier by vir tue of the Irish vote, had become an apostate from the faith. He had carried with him in his desertion the few but influential members of the Liberal League, which he had formed just as the Boer war was ending, to enable him to stand out before the nation as the one indispensable leader of the Liberal party. A certain section of the Nonconformists, irritated at the way in which the Irish members had supported the denominational educational policy of the government, had weakened in their devotion to Home Rule. Many electors who had left the Liberal party when Mr. Gladstone became a Home Ruler had been forced back into its ranks by their disgust at the jingoism of the Unionist government, but they had not in any way abated their dislike of Home Rule. It was believed that when the Liberals set about the business of constructing their cabinet and framing their policy divergence of opinion on the Irish question could not fail to manifest itself, and then a Liberal party, split by Home Rule, might be defeated by a Unionist party split by protection.

The Liberal leaders, however, were well aware of the calculations of their opponents. They knew that they themselves were of one mind on the issue of free trade versus protection, and on that issue they were determined the election must be fought. On the subject of Irish policy

(Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.)

they were equally agreed in recognizing the impossibility of carrying a Home Rule bill through the House of Lords unless after an appeal to the constituencies on the direct issue, for or against Home Rule. That had been the issue in 1895, and the response of the country had been unmistakable. Until an equally clear and emphatic expression of opinion in favor of Home Rule were given by the country, the House of Lords would undoubtedly reject the bill. Home Rule in the coming Parliament was therefore an impossibility. But as the Liberal party was pledged to Home Rule, when they can carry it through, they were bound to do all that they could in the new Parliament to bring the Irish administration into harmony with Irish ideas, and so to pave the way for the ultimate triumph of Home Rule when the conditions of the constitutional game rendered this a possibility.

The whole matter was carefully discussed between Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and Mr. Asquith. A thorough agreement was established. The terms in which the Liberal policy in relation to Ireland were to be announced were communicated by Mr. Asquith to his fellow-Liberal Leaguers, Mr. Haldane and Sir Edward Grey, and were by them entirely approved. Then Sir Henry Campbell- Bannerman, addressing his

constituents in Stirling, made public the accepted declaration of Liberal policy in Ireland, -Mr. Haldane following suit almost immediately after. Their joint declaration made no stir. It was expected, and was indeed inevitable under the circumstances.

THE MAKING OF THE CABINET.

As Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman-whom it is customary to describe briefly as "C.-B."proceeded with the formation of his cabinet he was agreeably surprised to find that he was confronted by none of the difficulties which Mr. Balfour had hoped would prove so embarrassing to the Liberal leader. His colleagues rallied around him with perfect loyalty, and, in a fashion rare in the formation of cabinets, showed no disposition to insist upon being appointed to the posts which they fancied. There was not a single instance in which any of the incoming ministers made the appointment to any particu lar post the condition of his adhesion to the ministry. Neither was there any hitch as to the programme.

Owing to the fact that the Liberals had been out of office since 1895, there were very few survivors of the old previous Liberal cabinet still in Parliament. Lord Rosebery, by his disagreement with the other Liberal leaders on the question of Irish Home Rule, had rendered himself impossible. Lord Spencer, who at one time seemed likely to be the Liberal premier, was hors de combat. Lord Ripon was too old for any active work; Sir Henry Fowler, although seventy-five years old, has vigorous health, but as he had practically done nothing for his party for ten years, he ought to have been shelved, but had to be placated by a sinecure. Sir Charles Dilke, another ex-Liberal minister, had done nothing for that rehabilitation of his character which he himself had publicly promised should take place. Mr. Acland and Mr. Arnold Morley were no longer in Parliament. Of his former colleagues, the prime minister could only muster Lord Tweedmouth, who will be the Liberal leader in the House of Lords; Lord Burghclerc (formerly minister of agriculture and Lord Carnarvon's brother-in-law). Mr. John Morley, Mr. James Bryce, Mr. Herbert Gladstone, and Mr. H. H. Asquith. As cabinets contain from sixteen to nineteen members, there was plenty of room for new blood.

In arranging his cabinet, Sir Henry had only one serious difficulty to overcome. This was the conviction entertained by Sir Edward Grey that Sir Henry Campbell- Bannerman, who is now sixty-nine years old, ought to retire to the upper house. To be prime minister and leader