Devon from 1866, and was the parliamentary leader of the Conservatives after Disraeli entered the House of Lords. He was President of the Board of Trade in 1866 and became Indian Secretary the following year. During the second ministry of Disraeli he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was born in 1818, was educated at Eton and graduated at Balliol College, Oxford, was called to the bar in 1847, and filled the offices of Legal Adviser to the Board of Trade and Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He succeeded to the title of baronet upon the death of his grandfather, the seventh baronet, in 1851. Sir Michael Edward Hicks-Beach was born in 1837, was educated at Eton and Christchurch, and succeeded his father in the baronetcy in 1854. He has represented East Gloucestershire in Parliament since 1864. He was Secretary of State for the Colonies from 1878 to 1880. Sir Hardinge Gifford, who took the title of Lord Halsbury upon succeeding to the Lord Chancellorship, is an eminent lawyer. Henry Howard Molyneux Herbert, Earl of Carnarvon, was born in London in 1831. He was educated at Eton and graduated at Christchurch as a first-class in classics in 1852. He succeeded his father, the third earl, in 1849. He was appointed Under-Secretary for the Colonies in 1857, and was Colonial Secretary in 1866 and 1867, and from 1874 to 1878. Gathorne Gathorne-Hardy, Viscount Cranbrook, was born in 1814, was educated at Shrewsbury and Oriel College, Oxford, and was called to the bar in 1840. He en tered the House of Commons in 1856, and was member for the University of Oxford from 1865 until he was made a peer in 1878. He held office under former Conservative ministries as Home Secretary and Secretary for India. Lord Randolph Henry Spencer Churchill, a younger son of the late Duke of Marlborough, was born in 1849. He was educated at Eton and graduated at Merton College, Oxford. He has sat in Parliament for Woodstock since 1874. He led the independent annex to the Conservative party known as the "fourth party," in which his parliamentary associates were Mr. Gorst, Sir Drummond Wolff, and Mr. Balfour. He was one of the most active members of the Duchess of Marlborough's committee for the relief of Irish distress. Lord George Francis Hamilton is a son of the Duke of Abercorn, and was born in 1815, and educated at Harrow School. In 1864 he entered the army as an ensign, retiring in 1868. From 1874 to 1878 he was Under-Secretary of VOL. XXV.-29 A State for India, and then Vice-President of the Council of Education until 1880. In 1878 he was appointed a Charity Commissioner. Col. Frederick Arthur Stanley is the brother and presumptive heir to the Earl of Derby. He was born in 1841, was educated at Eton, received a commission in the Guards, and entered Parliament in 1865, sitting as member SIR RICHARD ASSHETON CROSS, G. C. B., for North Lancashire since 1868. He was Secretary for War under Disraeli. Sir Richard Assheton Cross occupied the position of Home Secretary during the Beaconsfield administration. He was born in 1823, and received his education at Rugby and at Trinity College, Cambridge, became a barrister in 1819, entered Parliament in 1857, and has represented Southwestern Lancashire since 1888. Dudley Francis Stuart Ryder, Earl of Harrowby, was born in Brighton in 1831, was educated at Harrow and Christchurch, and succeeded his father, the second earl, in 1882. He was elected to Parliament from Lichfield in 1856, and re-entered the House of Commons in 1868, representing Liverpool as Viscount Sandon until he inherited a peerage. From 1878 to 1880 he was President of the Board of Trade. William Henry Smith was born in London in 1825. He is a partner in a London mercantile firm, and has sat in Parliament as one of the members for Westminster since 1868. He was Secretary of the Treasury from 1874 to 1877, and then First Lord of the Admiralty until the retirement of the Beaconsfield Cabinet in 1880. Edward Gibson was born in County Meath, Ireland, in 1837, graduated at Trinity College, Dublin, and was called to the Irish bar in 1860. He has been a member of Parliament for Dublin University since 1875, and was AttorneyGeneral for Ireland from 1877 to 1880. John James Robert Manners, usually called Lord John Manners, is the brother and heir presumptive to the Duke of Rutlaud. He was born in 1818, and was educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge. He entered Parliament in 1841 as member for Newark, and has sat for Northern Leicestershire since 1857. He was Chief Commissioner of Works and Public Buildings under Lord Derby in 1852, and again in 1858 and 1859, and from 1866 till 1868. He was Postmaster-General from 1874 till 1880. Charles Henry Gordon - Lennox, Duke of Richmond and Gordon, was born in 1818, and was educated at Westminster and at Christchurch, Oxford. As Earl of March he held a commission in the Horse Guards, and he sat in the House of Commons for West Sussex from 1841 until he succeeded to the dukedom in 1861. He was President of the Poor Law Board in 1859, President of the Board of Trade in 1867 and 1868, and Lord President of the Council from 1874 till 1880. Edward Stanhope, second son of Earl Stanhope, was born in 1840, and educated at Harrow and Christchurch, Oxford, becoming a fellow of All Souls' College, and in 1865 a barrister. He entered Parliament in 1874 as member for Mid-Lincolnshire, and held the post of Secretary of the Board of Trade from 1875 till 1878, and then that of Under-Secretary for India until the dissolution of Parliament in 1880. The Session of Parliament.-The second session of 1884 was the beginning of the sixth and last session of the Parliament elected in 1880. The reform question was practically settled by the compromise between the leaders of both parties. Before Parliament adjourned for the holidays the franchise bill had been passed by the two houses, and the redistribution bill read a second time in the Commons. Mr. Courtney resigned his post of Parliamentary Secretary of Finance, as a protest against the single-member system. He and the other friends of minority representation made efforts to enlist popular support for the scheme of proportional representation, yet only thirty-one votes were recorded for Sir John Lubbock's resolution in favor of this scheme, on March 2. Sir John Hay raised a protest against the disproportionate representation granted to Ireland, and, though many Tories and some of the Whigs sympathized with his sentiment, the compact between the parties was maintained, and his amendment rejected by an overwhelming majority. In committee there was a lively discussion of Mr. Bryce's proposal to abolish the representation of the universities, which Sir Charles Dilke, who had charge of the bill, was in favor of personally, and Mr. Gladstone also, as was inferred from his reserve on the subject; yet only independent Radicals and Parnellites supported the motion. The schedules defining the names and boundaries were debated for more than a month, though no important alterations were made. Mr. Raikes succeeded in getting the perpetual penalties imposed on voters of corrupt constituencies reduced, while Prof. Thorold Rogers was unsuccessful in his effort to have persons convicted of corruption disqualified as parliamentary candidates. On the 11th of May the bill was read a third time, and sent to the House of Lords, where it passed through its stages rapidly, but had not reached a third reading when the ministerial crisis supervened. On the registration bills, which were framed separately for each of the three kingdoms, serious dissensions arose. An amendment admitting resident members of universities to the franchise was carried against the Government. The exclusion of undergraduates in England was subsequently agreed to; but the Lords reversed this decision. A more important subject of controversy came up, upon which strong feeling was aroused throughout the country. In the original bills, persons who had received charitable relief within the year were excluded from the registers. When the Irish bill was under consideration the disability of recipients of medical relief was removed by a considerable majority. Mr. Davey proposed an amendment to the English bill to the same effect; but the Government resisted the change, and it was negatived by a vote of 170 to 102. On the report Mr. Davey brought up the question again, and carried through his motion by 87 votes against 50. The House of Lords struck it out, though the ministers were now in favor of the alteration, and when the bill returned to the House of Commons Sir Henry James, the Attorney-General, abandoned the position last taken by the ministry, and again opposed the amendment, which was lost by a majority of 107 against 66. An amendment to the Irish bill requiring the expenses of the new registration to be defrayed by the Exchequer, and not made a charge upon local taxation, was carried by a small majority. Sir Massey Lopes proposed the same change in the English bill, and finally Mr. Gladstone compromised the matter by considerably augmenting the grant in aid from imperial funds origi nally proposed. The three registration bills were signed May 21. The energies of Parliament were exhausted, the parties demoralized, and politicians careless of all public business that could not be turned to electioneering account when the ministerial crisis and change of Government occurred. The new ministers took up the task of legislation with more vigor than their predecessors displayed. Following the guidance of Lord Randolph Churchill, the Conservatives formed a combination with the Irish party. In the negotiations with Mr. Gladstone no mention was made of the crimes act, but it was understood that it would be allowed to lapse. Lord Salisbury and Lord Randolph Churchill were called upon to explain previous declarations on both Irish and foreign affairs, but they made no attempt to harmonize their language in opposition with the policy they adopted as responsible ministers. In the statement made by Lord Salisbury, as soon as the composition of the Cabinet was arranged, he did not mention Irish affairs. The foreign policy of the Government was limited by the arrangements made by the retiring ministers. The Conservatives were in a position to claim credit for putting an end to disturbing complications without being held responsible for the course imposed upon them by the conditions under which they assumed office. Although the uncertainty of their tenure was unfavorable to the conduct of diplomatic affairs, yet the foreign relations of Great Britain proceeded more smoothly in Lord Salisbury's hands than under Lord Granville's direction. The Afghan dispute was already settled in principle by the concession of Penjdeh and the final acceptance of the Lessar boundary. By obtaining a trifling abatement of the Russian claims in respect to Zulfikar, the Cabinet could claim to have made better terms than the Gladstone ministry were able to obtain. The men of both parties were agreed that no reliance could be placed upon Afghanistan as a "buffer," and approved of strengthening the Indian defenses, and establishing a "scientific frontier," while the military authorities were inclined to consider the actual frontier settled upon by the Gladstone Government a good strategic boundary. In regard to Egypt, Lord Salisbury contended that, in view of the financial and military dangers, it was impossible to bring the British occupation to an end. The Egyptian convention, which was strongly criticised by the Tories, but was carried in March, on the plea of urgency, by a vote of 294 to 246, still remained unexecuted. The Tory Cabinet was now enabled, by the good-will of the powers and the favor of Prince Bismarck, to issue the Egyptian loan. Lord Carnarvon, who was left by the Prime Minister to unfold the Irish policy of the Government, stated his intention to govern in Ireland with the ordinary law only. It was announced that the laborers' bill would be proceeded with, and that Lord Ashbourne would bring in a land- purchase bill. The Irish party was determined to force the Conservatives to take an unquestionable position on the Irish question, and the Tory politicians were not unwilling to join in reflections on the Spencer administration that provoked Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Chamberlain to defend coercion. Mr. Parnell revived the Maantrasna controversy, and demanded an investigation. The Government opposed a parliamentary inquiry, but promised that Lord Carnarvon would investigate fairly any case brought before him. The cool desertion of their former allies in defense of a rigorous government in Ireland exasperated Lord Hartington and Sir William Harcourt. The former read a letter from Mr. Gladstone, commending the administration of Earl Spencer. Lord Randolph Churchill and Sir John Gorst, the SolicitorGeneral, went beyond the Chancellor of the THE EARL OF CARNARVON, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Exchequer in disparaging coercion and insinuating a belief in the charges against the Whig rule in Ireland. One or two Tories of the old school revolted against the "Maantrasna alliance." With the help of the Parnellites the Government was able to carry its financial measures before the close of July. The ministry could with justice shift the responsibility |