Chapter XVI: Front Matter (16)

_History._--Of the origin of the early inhabitants of the Balearic Islands nothing is certainly known, though Greek and Roman writers refer to the Boeotian and Rhodian settlements. There are numerous sepulchral and other monuments, which are generally believed to be of prehistoric origin. According to general tradition the natives, from whatever quarter derived, were a strange and savage people till they received some tincture of civilization from the Carthaginians, who early took possession of the islands and built themselves cities on their coasts. Of these cities, Port Mahon, the most important, still retains the name which is derived from the family of Mago. About twenty-three years after the destruction of Carthage the Romans accused the islanders of piracy, and sent against them Q. Caecilius Metellus, who soon reduced them to obedience, settled amongst them 3000 Roman and Spanish colonists, founded the cities of Palma and Pollentia (Pollensa), and introduced the cultivation of the olive. Besides valuable contingents of the celebrated Balearic slingers, the Romans derived from their new conquest mules (from Minorca), edible snails, sinope and pitch. Of their occupation numerous traces still exist,--the most remarkable being the aqueduct at Pollensa. In A.D. 423 the islands were seized by the Vandals and in 798 by the Moors. They became a separate Moorish kingdom in 1009, which, becoming extremely obnoxious for piracy, was the object of a crusade directed against it by Pope Paschal II., in which the Catalans took the lead. This expedition was frustrated at the time, but was resumed by James I. of Aragon, and the Moors were expelled in 1232. During their occupation the island was populous and productive, and an active commerce was carried on with Spain and Africa. King James conferred the sovereignty of the isles on his third son, under whom and his successor they formed an independent kingdom up to 1349, from which time their history merges in that of Spain. In 1521 an insurrection of the peasantry against the nobility, whom they massacred, took place in Majorca, and was not suppressed without much bloodshed. In the War of the Spanish Succession all the islands declared for Charles; the duke of Anjou had no footing anywhere save in the citadel of Mahon. Minorca was reduced by Count Villars in 1707; but it was not till June 1715 that Majorca was subjugated, and meanwhile Port Mahon was captured by the English under General Stanhope in 1708. In 1713 the island was secured to them by the peace of Utrecht; but in 1756 it was invaded by a force of 12,000 French, who, after defeating the British under Admiral Byng, captured Port Mahon. Restored to England in [v.03 p.0250] 1763, the island remained in possession of the British till 1782, when it was retaken by the Spaniards. Again seized by the British in 1798, it was finally ceded to Spain by the peace of Amiens in 1803. When the French invaded Spain in 1808, the Mallorquins did not remain indifferent; the governor, D. Juan Miguel de Vives, announced, amid universal acclamation, his resolution to support Ferdinand VII. At first the Junta would take no active part in the war, retaining the corps of volunteers that was formed for the defence of the island; but finding it quite secure, they transferred a succession of them to the Peninsula to reinforce the allies. Such was the animosity excited against the French when their excesses were known to the Mallorquins, that some of the French prisoners, conducted thither in 1810, had to be transferred with all speed to the island of Cabrera, a transference which was not effected before some of them had been killed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--For a general account of the islands, the most valuable books are _Die Balearen geschildert in Wort und Bild_, by the archduke Ludwig Salvator of Austria (Leipzig, 1896); _Les Iles oubliees_, by G. Vuillier (Paris, 1904), the first edition of which has been translated under the title of _The Forgotten Isles_ (London, 1896)--and _Islas Baleares_, an illustrated volume of 1423 pages, by P. Pifferrer, in the series "Espana" (Barcelona, 1888). An article by George Sand in the _Revue des deux mondes_ (1841) also deserves notice. The following are monographs on special subjects:--_The Story of Majorca and Minorca_, by Sir C. R. Markham (London, 1908); _Illustrationes florae insularum Balearium_, by M. Willkomm (Stuttgart, 1881-1892); _Monuments primitifs des iles baleares_, by E. Cartailhac (_Mission scientifique du ministere de l'instruction publique_, Toulouse, 1892). The _British Foreign Office Reports for the Consular District of Barcelona_ give some account of the movement of commerce (London, annual). Much of the material available for a scientific history will be found in _La Historia general del regno balearico_, by J. Dameto and V. Mut (Majorca, 1632-1650). For the period of Moorish rule, see _Bosquejo historico de la dominacion islamita en las islas Baleares_, by A. Campaner y Fuertes (Palma, 1888). See also the elaborate treatise _Les Relations de la France avec le royaume de Majorque_, by A. Lecoy de la Marche (Paris, 1892).

BALES [BALESIUS], PETER (1547-1610?), English calligraphist, one of the inventors of shorthand writing, was born in London in 1547, and is described by Anthony Wood as a "most dexterous person in his profession, to the great wonder of scholars and others." We are also informed that "he spent several years in sciences among Oxonians, particularly, as it seems, in Gloucester Hall; but that study, which he used for a diversion only, proved at length an employment of profit." He is mentioned for his skill in micrography in Holinshed's _Chronicle_. "Hadrian Junius," says Evelyn, "speaking as a miracle of somebody who wrote the Apostles' Creed and the beginning of St John's Gospel within the compass of a farthing: what would he have said of our famous Peter Bales, who, in the year 1575, wrote the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, Decalogue, with two short prayers in Latin, his own name, motto, day of the month, year of the Lord, and reign of the queen, to whom he presented it at Hampton Court, all of it written within the circle of a single penny, inchased in a ring and borders of gold, and covered with a crystal, so accurately wrought as to be very plainly legible; to the great admiration of her majesty, the whole privy council, and several ambassadors then at court?" Bales was likewise very dexterous in imitating handwritings, and between 1576 and 1590 was employed by Secretary Walsingham in certain political manoeuvres. We find him at the head of a school near the Old Bailey, London, in 1590, in which year he published his _Writing Schoolemaster, in three Parts_. This book included an _Arte of Brachygraphie_, which is one of the earliest attempts to construct a system of shorthand. In 1595 he had a great trial of skill with one Daniel Johnson, for a golden pen of L20 value, and won it; and a contemporary author further relates that he had also the arms of calligraphy given him, which are azure, a pen or. Bales died about the year 1610.

BALFE, MICHAEL WILLIAM (1808-1870), Irish musical composer, was born on the 15th of May 1808, at Dublin. His musical gifts became apparent at an early age. The only instruction he received was from his father, who was a dancing master, and from a musician, C. E. Horn (1786-1849). Between 1814 and 1815 he played the violin for his father's dancing-classes, and at the age of seven composed a polacca. In 1817 he appeared as a violinist in public, and in this year composed a ballad, first called "Young Fanny" and afterwards, when sung in _Paul Pry_ by Madame Vestris, "The Lovers' Mistake." On the death of his father in 1823 he was engaged in the orchestra of Drury Lane, and being in possession of a small but pleasant baritone voice, he chose the career of an operatic singer. An unsuccessful debut was made at Norwich in _Der Freischuetz_. In 1825 he was taken to Rome by Count Mazzara, being introduced to Cherubini on the way. In Italy he wrote his first dramatic work, a ballet, _La Perouse_. At the close of 1827 he appeared as Figaro in Rossini's _Barbiere_, at the Italian opera in Paris. Balfe soon returned to Italy, where, during the next nine years, he remained, singing at various theatres and composing a number of operas. During this time he married Mdlle Luisa Roser, a Hungarian singer whom he had met at Bergamo. Fetis says that the public indignation roused by an attempt at "improving" Meyerbeer's opera _Il Crociato_ by interpolated music of his own compelled Balfe to throw up his engagement at the theatre La Fenice in Venice. By this time he had produced his first complete opera, _I Rivali di se stessi_, at Palermo in the carnival season of 1829-1830; the opera _Un Avvertimento ai gelosi_ at Pavia; and _Enrico Quarto_ at Milan, where he had been engaged to sing with Malibran at the Scala. He returned to England in the spring of 1833, and on the 29th of October 1835 his _Siege of Rochelle_ was produced and rapturously received at Drury Lane. Encouraged by his success, he produced _The Maid of Artois_ on the 27th of May 1836--the success of the opera being confirmed by the exquisite singing of Malibran. Balfe was a prolific composer, as may be seen from the following imperfect list of his English operas alone:--_Siege of Rochelle_ (1835); _The Maid of Artois_ (1836); _Catherine Grey_ (1837); _Joan of Arc_ (1837); _Falstaff_ (1838, Lablache in title-role); _Amelia, or the Love Test_ (1838); _Keolanthe_ (1841); _The Bohemian Girl_, his best known work (1844); _The Daughter of St. Mark_ (1844); _The Enchantress_ (1845); _The Bondman_ (1846); _The Devil's in it_ (1847); _The Maid of Honour_ (1847); _The Sicilian Bride_ (1852); _The Rose of Castile_ (1857); _Satanella_ (1858); _Bianca_ (1860); _The Puritan's Daughter_ (1861); _The Armourer of Nantes_ (1863); _Blanche de Nevers_ (1863). Balfe also wrote several operas for the Opera Comique and Grand Opera in Paris, where MM. Scribe and St George provided him with the libretti for his _Le Puits d'amour_ (1843) and his _Les Quatre Fils Aymon_ (1844). His _L'Etoile de Seville_ was written in 1845 for the Academie Royale. The fact that Balfe was an Irishman, who produced operas in English, French and Italian with conspicuous success, is in itself interesting. When to this we add the record of his operatic impersonations on the stage, the European success of his _Bohemian Girl_, his picturesque retirement into Hertfordshire in 1864 as a gentleman farmer, and above all the undeniable gift for creating such pure melodies as his songs "When other Hearts" and "I dreamt that I dwelt in marble halls," it is idle to refuse him a prominent place in the history of music. He wrote much that was trivial, but also much that was enduring. He died on the 20th of October 1870, and was buried at Kensal Green. In 1882 a medallion portrait of him was unveiled in Westminster Abbey.

BALFOUR, ARTHUR JAMES (1848- ), British statesman, eldest son of James Maitland Balfour of Whittingehame, Haddingtonshire, and of Lady Blanche Gascoyne Cecil, a sister of the third marquess of Salisbury, was born on the 25th of July 1848. He was educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge. In 1874 he became M.P. in the Conservative interest for Hertford, and represented that constituency until 1885. When, in the spring of 1878, Lord Salisbury became foreign minister on the resignation of the fifteenth Lord Derby, Mr Balfour became his private secretary. In that capacity he accompanied his uncle to the Berlin congress, and gained his first experience of international politics in connexion with the settlement of the Russo-Turkish conflict. It was at this time also that he became known in the world of letters, the intellectual subtlety and literary capacity of his _Defence of Philosophic Doubt_ (1879) suggesting that he might make a reputation as a speculative thinker. Belonging, however, to a [v.03 p.0251] class in which the responsibilities of government are a traditional duty, Mr Balfour divided his time between the political arena and the study. Being released from his duties as private secretary by the general election of 1880, he began to take a rather more active part in parliamentary affairs. He was for a time politically associated with Lord Randolph Churchill, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff and Sir John (then Mr) Gorst, the quartette becoming known as the "Fourth Party," and gaining notoriety by the freedom of the criticisms directed by its leader, Lord Randolph Churchill, against Sir Stafford Northcote, Lord Cross and other prominent members of the "old gang." In these sallies, however, Mr Balfour had no direct share. He was thought to be merely amusing himself with politics. It was regarded as doubtful whether his health could withstand the severity of English winters, and the delicacy of his physique and the languor of his manner helped to create the impression that, however great his intellectual powers might be, he had neither the bodily strength nor the energy of character requisite for a political career. He was the "odd man" of the Fourth Party, apparently content to fetch and carry for his colleagues, and was believed to have no definite ambitions of his own. His reputation in the parliament of 1880-1886 was that of a dilettante, who allied himself with the three politicians already named from a feeling of irresponsibility rather than of earnest purpose; he was regarded as one who, on the rare occasions when he spoke, was more desirous to impart an academic quality to his speeches than to make any solid contribution to public questions. The House, indeed, did not take him quite seriously. Members did not suspect the reserve of strength and ability beneath what seemed to them to be the pose of a parliamentary _flaneur_; they looked upon him merely as a young member of the governing classes who remained in the House because it was the proper thing for a man of family to do. As a member of the coterie known as the "Souls" he was, so to speak, caviare to the general. Indolence was supposed to be the keynote of his character--a refined indolence, not, however, without cleverness of a somewhat cynical and superior order.

That these views were not shared by Lord Salisbury was sufficiently shown by the fact that in his first administration (June 1885-January 1886) he made Mr Balfour president of the Local Government Board, and in forming his second administration (July 1886) secretary for Scotland with a seat in the cabinet. These offices gave few opportunities for distinction, and may be regarded merely as Mr Balfour's apprenticeship to departmental responsibilities. The accidents of political life suddenly opened out to him a career which made him, next to Lord Salisbury, the most prominent, the most admired and the most attacked Conservative politician of the day. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, who was chief secretary for Ireland, suffered from an affection of the eyes and found it desirable to resign, and Lord Salisbury appointed his nephew in his stead. The selection took the political world by surprise, and was much criticized. By the Irish Nationalists it was received with contemptuous ridicule, for none suspected Mr Balfour's immense strength of will, his debating power, his ability in attack and his still greater capacity to disregard criticism. The debates on the Crimes Bill and the Irish Land Bill quickly undeceived them, and the steady and even remorseless vigour with which the government of Ireland was conducted speedily convinced the House of Commons and the country that Mr. Balfour was in his right place as chief secretary. His policy was that of "coercion"--the fearless administration of the Crimes Act,--coupled with remedial legislation; and he enforced the one while he proceeded with the other, regardless of the risk of outrage outside the House and of insult within. Mr Balfour's work in this office covered one of the most turbulent and most exciting periods in modern parliamentary history and Irish administration. With a courage that never faltered he broke down the Plan of Campaign in Ireland, and in parliament he not only withstood the assaults of the Irish Nationalists, but waged successful warfare with the entire Home Rule party. He combined an obstinacy of will with a mastery of facts unsurpassed by any of his predecessors in the secretaryship. Events, it is true, were in his favour. The disclosures before the Parnell Commission, the O'Shea divorce proceedings, the downfall of Mr Parnell and the disruption of the Irish party, assisted him in his task; but the fact remains that by persistent courage and undeviating thoroughness he reduced crime in Ireland to a vanishing point. His work was also constructive, for he broadened the basis of material prosperity and social progress by creating the Congested Districts Board in 1890. During this period, from 1886-1892, moreover, he developed gifts of oratory which made him one of the most effective of public speakers. Impressive in matter rather than in manner of delivery, and seldom rising to the level of eloquence in the sense in which that quality was understood in a House which had listened to Bright and Gladstone, his speeches were logical and convincing, and their attractive literary form delighted a wider audience than that which listens to the mere politician.

In 1888 Mr Balfour served on the Gold and Silver Commission, currency problems from the standpoint of bimetallism being among the more academic subjects which had engaged his attention. On the death of Mr W. H. Smith in 1891 he became first lord of the treasury and leader of the House of Commons, and in that capacity introduced in 1892 a Local Government Bill for Ireland. The Conservative government was then at the end of its tether, and the project fell through. For the next three years Mr Balfour led the opposition with great skill and address. On the return of the Unionists to power in 1895 he resumed the leadership of the House, but not at first with the success expected of him, his management of the abortive education proposals of '96 being thought, even by his own supporters, to show a disinclination for the continuous drudgery of parliamentary management under modern conditions. But after the opening session matters proceeded more smoothly, and Mr Balfour regained his old position in the estimation of the House and the country. He had the satisfaction of seeing a bill pass for providing Ireland with an improved system of local government, and took an active share in the debates on the various foreign and domestic questions that came before parliament during 1895-1900. His championship of the voluntary schools, his adroit parliamentary handling of the problems opened up by the so-called "crisis in the Church" caused by the Protestant movement against ritualistic practices, and his pronouncement in favour of a Roman Catholic university for Ireland--for which he outlined a scheme that met with much adverse criticism both from his colleagues and his party,--were the most important aspects of Mr Balfour's activity during these years. His speeches and work throughout this period took a wider range than before his accession to the leadership of the Commons. During the illness of Lord Salisbury in 1898, and again in Lord Salisbury's absence abroad, he was in charge of the foreign office, and it fell to his lot to conduct the very critical negotiations with Russia on the question of railways in North China. To his firmness, and at the same time to the conciliatory readiness with which he accepted and elaborated the principles of a _modus vivendi_, the two powers owed the avoidance of what threatened to be a dangerous quarrel. As a member of the cabinet responsible for the Transvaal negotiations in 1899 he bore his full share of controversy, and when the war opened so disastrously he was the first to realize the necessity for putting the full military strength of the country into the field. At the general election of 1900 he was returned for East Manchester (which he had represented since 1885) by a majority of 2453, and continued in office as first lord of the treasury. His leadership of the House of Commons in the first session of the new parliament was marked by considerable firmness in the suppression of obstruction, but there was a slight revival of the criticisms which had been current in 1896. Mr Balfour's inability to get the maximum amount of work out of the House was largely due to the situation in South Africa, which absorbed the intellectual energies of the House and of the country and impeded the progress of legislation.

The principal achievements of the long session of 1902 (which extended to the autumn) were the passing of the Education Act,--entirely reorganizing the system of primary education, abolishing the school boards and making the county councils the local authority; new rules of procedure; and the creation [v.03 p.0252] of the Metropolitan Water Board; and on all these questions, and particularly the two first, Mr Balfour's powers as a debater were brilliantly exhibited.

On Lord Salisbury's resignation on the 11th of July 1902, Mr Balfour succeeded him as prime minister, with the cordial approval of all sections of the Unionist party. For the next three and a half years his premiership involves the political history of England, at a peculiarly interesting period both for foreign and domestic affairs. Within a few weeks Mr Balfour had reconstituted the cabinet. He himself became first lord of the treasury and lord privy seal, with the duke of Devonshire (remaining lord president of the council) as leader of the House of Lords; Lord Lansdowne remained foreign secretary, Mr (afterwards Lord) Ritchie took the place of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach (afterwards Lord St Aldwyn) as chancellor of the exchequer, Mr J. Chamberlain remained colonial secretary, his son Austen being postmaster-general with a seat in the cabinet. Mr G. Wyndham as chief secretary for Ireland was included in the cabinet; Lord Selborne remained at the admiralty, Mr St John Brodrick (afterwards Lord Midleton) war minister, Lord George Hamilton secretary for India, and Mr Akers-Douglas, who had been first commissioner of works, became home secretary; Lord Balfour of Burleigh remained secretary for Scotland, Lord Dudley succeeded Lord Cadogan as lord lieutenant of Ireland, and Lord Londonderry became president of the Board of Education (with Sir William Anson as parliamentary secretary in the House of Commons). Mr Balfour's brother Gerald (b. 1853), who had entered public life as his private secretary when at the Local Government Board, and had been chief secretary for Ireland from 1895-1900, retained his position (since 1900) as president of the Board of Trade.

The new prime minister came into power practically at the same moment as the king's coronation (see EDWARD VII.) and the end of the South African War (see TRANSVAAL). The task of clearing up after the war, both in South Africa and at home, lay before him; but his cordial relations with Mr Chamberlain (_q.v._), and the enthusiastic support of a large parliamentary majority, made the prospects fair. For a while no cloud appeared on the horizon: and the Liberal party were still disorganized (see CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN and ROSEBERY) over their attitude towards the Boers. Mr Chamberlain went to South Africa in the late autumn, with the hope that his personality would influence the settlement there; and the session of 1903 opened in February with no hint of troubles to come. A difficulty with Venezuela, resulting in British and German co-operation to coerce that refractory republic, caused an explosion of anti-German feeling in England and some restlessness in the United States, but the government brought the crisis to an end by tactful handling and by an ultimate recourse to arbitration. The two chief items of the ministerial parliamentary programme were the extension of the new Education Act to London and Mr Wyndham's Irish Land Purchase Act, by which the British exchequer should advance the capital for enabling the tenants in Ireland to buy out the landlords. Moreover, the budget was certain to show a surplus and taxation could be remitted. As events proved, it was the budget which was to provide a cause of dissension, bringing a new political movement into being, and an issue overriding all the legislative interest of the session. Mr Ritchie's remission of the shilling import-duty on corn led to Mr Chamberlain's crusade in favour of tariff reform and colonial preference, and as the session proceeded the rift grew in the Unionist ranks.

In the separate article on Mr Chamberlain the progress of this movement is sufficiently narrated. From this moment it is only necessary here to realize Mr Balfour's position. He had always admitted the onesidedness of the English free-trade system, and had supported the desirability of retaliating against unfair competition and "dumping" by foreign countries. But Mr Chamberlain's new programme for a general tariff, with new taxes on food arranged so as to give a preference to colonial products, involved a radical alteration of the established fiscal system, and such out-and-out Unionist free-traders in the cabinet as Mr Ritchie and Lord George Hamilton, and outside it, like Lord Hugh Cecil and Mr Arthur Elliot (secretary to the treasury), were entirely opposed to this. Mr Balfour was anxious to avoid a rupture, doubtful of the feeling of the country, uncertain of the details by which Mr Chamberlain's scheme could be worked out. As leader of the party and responsible for the maintenance of so great a political engine, he was anxious not to be precipitate. He was neither for nor against the new movement, and professed to hold "no settled convictions" on the subject. Mr Chamberlain rested his case largely on the alleged diminution in British trade, and the statistics therefore required investigation before the government could adopt any such programme. From the middle of May, when Mr Chamberlain began to press the matter, Mr Balfour had a difficult hand to play, so long as it was uncertain how the party would follow the new lead. The Board of Trade was asked to supply full figures, and while its report was awaited the uncertainty of attitude on the part of the government afforded grateful opportunity for opposition mischief-making, since the Liberal party had now the chance of acting as the conservative champions of orthodox economics. Another opportunity for making political capital was provided by the publication of the report of the royal commission on the Boer War under Lord Elgin's chairmanship, which horrified the country by its disclosures (August 26th) as to the political and military muddling which had gone on, and the want of any efficient system of organization.

The session ended in August without any definite action on the fiscal question, but in the cabinet the discussions continued. On the 16th of September Mr Balfour published a pamphlet on "Insular Free Trade," and on the 18th it was announced that Lord George Hamilton and Mr Ritchie had resigned, Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr Arthur Elliot following a day or two later. These were the strait free-traders, but at the same time Mr Chamberlain resigned also. The correspondence between Mr Chamberlain and Mr Balfour (September 9th and 16th) was published, and presented the latter in the light of a sympathizer with some form of fiscal union with the colonies, if practicable, and in favour of retaliatory duties, but unable to believe that the country was yet ready to agree to the taxation of food required for a preferential tariff, and therefore unwilling to support that scheme; at the same time he encouraged Mr Chamberlain to test the feeling of the public and to convert them by his missionary efforts outside the government. Mr Chamberlain on his side emphasized his own parliamentary loyalty to Mr Balfour. In his pamphlet on "Insular Free Trade" the prime minister reviewed the economic history since Cobden's time, pointed to the falsification of the promises of the early free-traders, and to the fact that England was still the only free-importing country, and insisted that he was "in harmony with the true spirit of free-trade" when he pleaded for "freedom to negotiate that freedom of exchange may be increased." This manifesto was at first taken, not only as the platform of the government, but also as that from which its resigning free-trade members had dissented; and the country was puzzled by a statement from Lord George Hamilton that Mr Balfour had circulated among his colleagues a second and different document, in fuller agreement with Mr Chamberlain. The situation was confused by personal suspicion and distrust as well as by economic difficulties. But the public noted that the duke of Devonshire, whose orthodoxy was considered typical, remained in the cabinet.

The crisis, however, soon developed further, owing to explanations between the free-trade Unionists. On October 1st Mr Balfour spoke at Sheffield, reiterating his views as to free-trade and retaliation, insisting that he "intended to lead," and declaring that he was prepared at all events to reverse the traditional fiscal policy by doing away with the axiom that import duties should only be levied for revenue purposes. The speech was enthusiastically received by the National Union of Conservative Associations, who had year by year flirted with protectionist resolutions, and who were known to be predominantly in sympathy with Mr Chamberlain. But the free-traders did not like Mr Balfour's formula as to reversing the traditional [v.03 p.0253] fiscal policy of import taxes for revenue only. Next day the duke of Devonshire resigned, a step somewhat bitterly resented by Mr Balfour, who clearly thought that his sacrifices in order to conciliate the duke had now been made in vain. During this critical fortnight the duke had apparently acquiesced in Mr Balfour's compromise, and had co-operated in reconstituting the ministry; his nephew and heir had been made financial secretary to the treasury, while Mr Alfred Lyttelton was appointed colonial secretary, Mr Austen Chamberlain chancellor of the exchequer, Mr Brodrick secretary for India, Mr H. O. Arnold-Forster war minister, Lord Stanley postmaster-general and Mr Graham Murray secretary for Scotland. Lord Londonderry now became president of the council, Lord Lansdowne leader of the House of Lords, and Lord Salisbury, son of the late premier, who as Lord Cranborne had for three years been under-secretary for foreign affairs, was included in the cabinet as lord privy seal.

During the remainder of 1903 the struggle within the Unionist party continued. Mr Chamberlain spoke all over the country, advocating a definite scheme for reorganizing the budget, so as to have more taxes on imports, including food, but proposing to adjust the taxation so as to improve the position of the working-classes and to stimulate employment. The free-trade Unionists, with the duke of Devonshire, Lord Goschen, Lord James and Lord Hugh Cecil, as their chief representatives, started a Free Food league in opposition to Mr Chamberlain's Tariff Reform league; and at a great meeting at Queen's Hall, London, on the 24th of November their attitude was made plain. They rejected Mr Chamberlain's food-taxes, discredited his statistics, and, while admitting the theoretical orthodoxy of retaliation, criticized Mr Balfour's attitude and repudiated his assumption that retaliation would be desirable. Finally in December came the appointment of Mr Chamberlain's Tariff Commission. There was no doubt about the obstinacy and persistency of both sections, and both were fighting, not only to persuade the public, but for the capture of the party and of its prime minister. Both sides were inclined to claim him; neither could do so without qualification. His dialectical dexterity in evading the necessity of expressing his fiscal opinions further than he had already done became a daily subject for contemptuous criticism in the Liberal press; but he insisted that in any case no definite action could be taken till the next parliament; and while he declined to go the "whole hog"--as the phrase went--with Mr Chamberlain, he did nothing to discourage Mr Chamberlain's campaign. Whether he would eventually follow in the same direction, or would come back to the straiter free-trade side, continued to be the political conundrum for month after month. Minor changes were made in the ministry in 1903, Mr Brodrick going to the India office and Mr Arnold-Forster becoming minister for war, but Mr Balfour's personal influence remained potent, the government held together, and in 1904 the Licensing Bill was successfully carried. Though a few Unionists transferred their allegiance, notably Mr. Winston Churchill, and by-elections went badly, Mr Balfour still commanded a considerable though a dwindling majority, and the various contrivances of the opposition for combining all free-traders against the government were obstructed by the fact that anything tantamount to a vote of censure would not be supported by the "wobblers" in the ministerial party, while the government could always manage to draft some "safe" amendment acceptable to most of them. This was notably shown in the debate on Mr Black's motion on the 18th of May. On the 3rd of October Mr Balfour spoke at Edinburgh on the fiscal question. The more aggressive protectionists among Mr Chamberlain's supporters had lately become very confident, and Mr Balfour plainly repudiated "protection" in so far as it meant a policy aiming at supporting or creating home industries by raising home prices; but he introduced a new point by declaring that an Imperial Conference would be called to discuss with the colonies the question of preferential tariffs if the Unionist government obtained a majority at the next general election. The Edinburgh speech was again received with conflicting interpretations, and much discussion prevailed as to the conditions of the proposed conference, and as to whether it was or was not an advance, as the Chamberlainites claimed, towards Mr Chamberlain. Meanwhile the party was getting more and more disorganized, and the public were getting tired of the apparent mystification. The opposition used the situation to make capital in the country, and loudly called for a dissolution.

It was plain indeed that the fiscal question itself was ripe for the polls; Board of Trade statistics had been issued in profusion, and the whole case was before the country. But, though Mr Chamberlain declared his desire for an early appeal to the electors, he maintained his parliamentary loyalty to Mr Balfour. There were, moreover, public reasons why a change of government was undesirable. From 1903 onwards the question of army reform had been under discussion, and the government was anxious to get this settled, though in fact Mr Brodrick's and Mr Arnold-Forster's schemes for reorganization failed to obtain any general support. And while foreign affairs were being admirably conducted by Lord Lansdowne, they were critical enough to make it dangerous to contemplate a "swopping of horses." The Russo-Japanese War might at any moment lead to complications. The exercise by Russian warships of the right of search over British ships was causing great irritation in English commercial circles during 1904; after several incidents had occurred, the stopping of the P. & O. steamer "Malacca" on July 13th in the Red Sea by the Russian volunteer cruiser "Peterburg" led to a storm of indignation, and the sinking of the "Knight Commander" (July 24th) by the Vladivostok squadron intensified the feeling. On the 23rd of October the outrageous firing by the Russian Baltic fleet on the English fishing-fleet off the Dogger Bank in the North Sea was within an ace of causing war. It was not till the 28th that Mr Balfour, speaking at Southampton, was able to announce that the Russian government had expressed regret, and that an international commission would inquire into the facts with a view to the responsible persons being punished. Apart from the importance of seeing the Russo-Japanese War through, there were important negotiations on foot for a renewal or revision of the treaty with Japan; and it was felt that on these grounds it would be a mistake for the government to allow itself to be driven into a premature dissolution, unless it found itself unable to maintain a majority in parliament. At the same time the government's tenure of office was obviously drawing to its close; the usual interpretation of the Septennial Act involved a dissolution either in 1905 or 1906, and the government whips found increased difficulty in keeping a majority at Westminster, since neither the pronounced Chamberlainites nor the convinced free-trade Unionists showed any zeal, and a large number of the uncertain Unionists did not intend to stand again for parliament.

The events of the session of 1905 soon foreshadowed the end. The opposition were determined to raise debates in the House of Commons on the fiscal question, and Mr Balfour was no less determined not to be caught in their trap. These tactics of avoidance reached their culminating point when on one occasion Mr Balfour and his supporters left the House and allowed a motion hostile to tariff reform to be passed _nem. con_. Though the Scottish Churches Bill, the Unemployed Bill and the Aliens Bill were passed, a complete fiasco occurred over the redistribution proposals, which pleased nobody and had to be withdrawn owing to a blunder as to procedure; and though on the 17th of July a meeting of the party at the foreign office resulted in verbal assurances of loyalty, only two days later the government was caught in a minority of four on the estimates for the Irish Land Commission. For a few days it was uncertain whether they would resign or dissolve, but it was decided to hold on.

The real causes, however, which kept the government in office, were gradually losing their validity. The Russo-Japanese War came to an end; the new offensive and defensive alliance with Japan was signed on the 12th of August; the successful Anglo-French agreement, concluded in April 1904, had brought out a vigorous expression of cordiality between England and France, shown in an enthusiastic exchange of naval visits; and the danger, which threatened in the early summer, of complications [v.03 p.0254] with France and Germany over Morocco, was in a fair way of being dispelled by the support given to France by Great Britain. The Liberal leaders had given public pledges of their adhesion to Lord Lansdowne's foreign policy, and the fear of their being unable to carry it on was no longer a factor in the public mind. The end came in November 1905, precipitated by a speech made by Mr Balfour at Newcastle on the 14th, appealing for unity in the party and the sinking of differences, an appeal plainly addressed to Mr Chamberlain, whose supporters--the vast majority of the Unionists--were clamouring for a fighting policy. But Mr Chamberlain was no longer prepared to wait. On the 21st of November at Bristol he insisted on his programme being adopted, and Mr Balfour was compelled to abandon the position he had held with so much tactical dexterity for two years past. Amid Liberal protests in favour of immediate dissolution, he resigned on the 4th of December; and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, being entrusted by the king with the formation of a government, filled his cabinet with a view to a general election in January. The Unionists went to the polls with divided counsels, and sustained a crushing defeat, remarkable nevertheless for the comparative success of the tariff reformers. While Mr Chamberlain had a signal personal triumph in all the divisions of Birmingham, Mr Balfour himself was defeated by a large majority in Manchester.

Being in a miserable minority in parliament (157 Unionists against 379 Liberals, 51 Labour members, and 83 Nationalists), some form of consolidation among the Unionists was immediately necessary, and negotiations took place between Mr Balfour and Mr Chamberlain which resulted in the patching up of an agreement (expressed in a correspondence dated February 14th), and its confirmation at a meeting of the party at Lansdowne House a few days later. The new compact was indicated in Mr Balfour's letter, in which he declared that "fiscal reform is, and must remain, the first constructive work of the Unionist party; its objects are to secure more equal terms of competition for British trade and closer commercial union with the colonies; and while it is at present unnecessary to prescribe the exact methods by which these objects are to be attained, and inexpedient to permit differences of opinion as to these methods to divide the party, though other means are possible, the establishment of a moderate general tariff on manufactured goods, not imposed for the purpose of raising prices, or giving artificial protection against legitimate competition, and the imposition of a small duty on foreign corn, are not in principle objectionable, and should be adopted if shown to be necessary for the attainment of the ends in view or for purposes of revenue." Mr Balfour's leadership of the whole party was now confirmed; and a seat was found for him in the City of London by the retirement of Mr Gibbs.

The downfall of Mr Balfour's administration, and the necessity of reorganizing the Unionist forces on the basis of the common platform now adopted, naturally represented a fresh departure under his leadership, the conditions of which to some extent depended on the opportunities given to the new opposition by the proceedings of the Radical government (see CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, SIR H.; and ASQUITH, H. H.). His own administration had been wrecked, through no initiative of his, by the dissensions over the fiscal question. But his wide range of knowledge and interests, his intellectual _finesse_, his personal hold over his supporters, his statesmanlike grasp upon imperial problems and his oratorical ability, had been proved to a remarkable degree; and in foreign affairs his tenure of power had been conspicuously successful. He left his country indeed in a position of strength abroad, which it had not held since the Crimean War. His institution of the permanent Committee of Imperial Defence, and of the new Army Council (1904), were reforms of the highest importance, resulting from the report of a "triumvirate" consisting of Lord Esher, Sir John Fisher and Sir George Clarke, appointed in November 1903. The Unionist regime as a whole, however, had collapsed. Its ministers had become "stale." The heavy taxation of the war years was still retained, to the disgust especially of the income-tax payers; and new issues arose over the Education Act, labour questions, and the introduction of Chinese labour into South Africa (in 1904), which were successfully used against the government in the constituencies. The result was an electoral defeat which indicated, no doubt, a pronounced weakening of Mr Balfour's position in public confidence. This verdict, however, was one based mainly on temporary reasons, which were soon to be overshadowed by the new issues involved in the change of ministry. As a matter of fact, a year of opposition had not passed before his power in the House of Commons, even with so small a party behind him, was once more realized. The immense Radical majority started with a feeling of contempt for the leader who had been rejected at Manchester, but by 1907 he had completely reasserted his individual pre-eminence among parliamentarians. Mr Balfour had never spoken more brilliantly, nor shone more as a debater, than in these years when he had to confront a House of Commons three-fourths of which was hostile. His speech at Birmingham (November 14, 1907), fully accepting the principles of Mr Chamberlain's fiscal policy, proved epoch-making in consolidating the Unionist party--except for a small number of free-traders, like Lord Robert Cecil, who continued to hold out--in favour of tariff reform; and during 1908 the process of recuperation went on, the by-elections showing to a marked degree the increased popular support given to the Unionist candidates. This recovery was due also to the forcible-feeble character of the Radical campaign against the House of Lords, the unpopularity of the Licensing Bill, the failure of the government to arrive at an education settlement, the incapacity of its Irish administration, its apparent domination by the "little navy" section, and its dallying with Socialism in the budget of 1909. The rejection of this budget in December by the House of Lords led to a desperate struggle at the polls in January 1910, but the confident hopes of the Unionists were doomed to disappointment. They won back over a hundred seats, returning 273 strong, but were still in a minority, the Liberals numbering 275, Labour members 40, and Irish Nationalists 82. Mr Balfour himself was elected for the City of London by an enormous majority.

Mr Balfour's other publications, not yet mentioned, include _Essays and Addresses_ (1893) and _The Foundations of Belief, being Notes introductory to the Study of Theology_ (1895). He was made LL.D. of Edinburgh University in 1881; of St Andrews University in 1885; of Cambridge University in 1888; of Dublin and Glasgow Universities in 1891; lord rector of St Andrews University in 1886; of Glasgow University in 1890; chancellor of Edinburgh University in 1891; member of the senate London University in 1888; and D.C.L. of Oxford University in 1891. He was president of the British Association in 1904, and became a fellow of the Royal Society in 1888. He was known from early life as a cultured musician, and became an enthusiastic golf player, having been captain of the Royal and Antient Golf Club of St Andrews in 1894-1895.

(H. CH.)

BALFOUR, FRANCIS MAITLAND (1851-1882), British biologist, younger brother of Arthur James Balfour, was born at Edinburgh on the 10th of November 1851. At Harrow school he showed but little interest in the ordinary routine, but in one of the masters, Mr George Griffith, he fortunately found a man who encouraged and aided him in the pursuit of natural science, a taste for which, and especially for geology, had been cultivated in him by his mother from an early age. Going into residence at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1870, he was elected a natural science scholar of his college in the following year, and although his reading was not ordered on the lines usual for the Schools, he obtained the second place in the Natural Science Tripos of December 1873. A course of lectures on embryology, delivered by Sir Michael Foster in 1871, definitely turned his attention to animal morphology, and, after his tripos, he was selected to occupy one of the two seats allocated to the university of Cambridge at the Naples zoological station. The research work which he began there contributed in an important degree to his election as a fellow of Trinity in 1874, and also afforded him material for a series of papers (published as a monograph in 1878) on the Elasmobranch fishes, which threw new light on [v.03 p.0255] the development of several organs in the Vertebrates, in particular of the uro-genital and nervous systems. His next work was to write a large treatise, _Comparative Embryology_, in two volumes; the first, published in 1880, dealing with the Invertebrates, and the second (1881) with the Vertebrates. This book displayed a vigorous scientific imagination, always controlled by a logical sense that rigidly distinguished between proved fact and mere hypothesis, and it at once won wide recognition, not only as an admirable digest of the numberless observations made with regard to the development of animals during the quarter of a century preceding its publication, but also on account of the large amount of original research incorporated in its pages. Balfour's reputation was now such that other universities became anxious to secure his services, and he was invited to succeed Professor George Rolleston at Oxford and Sir Wyville Thomson at Edinburgh. But although he was only a college lecturer, holding no official post in his university, he declined to leave Cambridge, and in the spring of 1882 the university recognized his merits by instituting a special professorship of animal morphology for his benefit. Unhappily he did not deliver a single professorial lecture. During the first term after his appointment he was incapacitated from work by an attack of typhoid fever. Going to the Alps to recruit his health, he perished, probably on the 19th of July 1882, in attempting the ascent of the Aiguille Blanche, Mont Blanc, at that time unscaled. Besides being a brilliant morphologist, Balfour was an accomplished naturalist, and had he lived would probably have taken a high place among British taxonomists.

BALFOUR, SIR JAMES, BART. (of Denmylne and Kinnaird) (_c._ 1600-1657), Scottish annalist and antiquary. He was well acquainted with Sir William Segar and with Dugdale, to whose _Monasticon_ he contributed. He was knighted by Charles I. in 1630, was made Lyon king-at-arms in the same year, and in 1633 baronet of Kinnaird. He was removed from his office of king-at-arms by Cromwell and died in 1657. Some of his numerous works are preserved in the Advocates' library at Edinburgh, together with his correspondence--from which rich collection Haig published _Balfour's Annales of Scotland_ in 4 vols. 8vo (1824-1825).

See Sibbald, _Memoria Balfouriana_ (1699).

BALFOUR, SIR JAMES (of Pittendreich) (d. 1583 or 1584), Scottish judge and politician, son of Sir Michael Balfour of Montquhanny, was educated for the legal branch of the church of Scotland. In June 1547, together with Knox and others taken at St Andrews, he was condemned to the French galleys, but was released in 1549, abjured the reformers, entered the service of Mary of Guise, and was rewarded with some considerable legal appointments. Subsequently he went over to the lords of the congregation and then betrayed their plans. After Mary's arrival in Scotland he became one of her secretaries, in 1565 being reported as her greatest favourite after Rizzio.[1] He obtained the parsonage of Flisk in Fife in 1561, was nominated a lord of session, and in 1563 one of the commissaries of the court which now took the place of the former ecclesiastical tribunal; in 1565 he was made a privy-councillor, and in 1566 lord-clerk-register, and was knighted. According to Mary his murder was intended together with Rizzio's in 1566. An adherent of Bothwell, he was deeply implicated in Darnley's murder, though not present at the commission of the crime. By his means Darnley was lodged at Kirk o' Field, his brothers' house. He was supposed to have drawn up the bond at Craigmillar for the murder; he signed it, was made under Bothwell deputy-governor of Edinburgh Castle, and is said to have drawn up the marriage-contract between Bothwell and Mary. When, however, the fall of Bothwell was seen to be impending he rapidly changed sides and surrendered the castle to Murray, stipulating for his pardon for Darnley's murder, the retention of the priory of Pittenweem, and pecuniary rewards. He was appointed president of the court of session on resigning the office of lord-clerk-register. He was present at the battle of Langside with the regent in 1568, and was accused of having advised Mary to leave Dunbar to her ruin, and of having betrayed to her enemies the casket letters. The same year, however, in consequence of renewed intrigues with Mary's faction, he was dismissed, and next year was imprisoned on the charge of complicity in Darnley's murder. He succeeded in effecting his escape by means of bribery, the expenses of which he is said to have paid by intercepting the money sent from France to Mary's aid. In August 1571, during the regency of Lennox, an act of forfeiture was passed against him, but next year he was again playing traitor and discovering the secrets of his party to Morton, and he obtained a pardon from the latter in 1573 and negotiated the pacification of Perth the same year. Distrusted by all parties, he fled to France, where he seems to have remained till 1580. In 1579 his forfeiture was renewed by act of parliament. In January 1580 he wrote to Mary offering her his services, and in June protested his desire to be useful to Elizabeth, lamented the influence of the Jesuits, and intended a journey to Dieppe to hear some good Protestant preaching.[2] On the 27th of December of the same year he returned to Scotland and effected the downfall and execution of Morton by producing a bond, probably that in defence of Bothwell and to promote his marriage with Mary, and giving evidence of the latter's knowledge of Bothwell's intention to murder Darnley. In July 1581 his cause was reheard; he was acquitted of murder by assize, and shortly afterwards in 1581 or 1582 he was restored to his estates and received at court. His career, one of the blackest in the annals of political perfidy and crime, closed shortly before the 24th of January 1584. He was the greatest lawyer of his day, and part-author at least of Balfour's _Practicks_, the earliest text-book of Scottish law, not published, however, till 1754. He married Margaret, daughter and heir of Michael Balfour of Burleigh, by whom, besides three daughters, he had six sons, the eldest of whom was created Baron Balfour of Burleigh in 1607.[3]

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--See article in the _Dict. of Nat. Biog._ and authorities there quoted; Balfour's _Practicks_ (1754) and introductory preface; A. Lang's _Hist. of Scotland_, vol. ii. and authorities (1902); Sir J. Melville's _Memoirs_ (Bannatyne Club, 1827); _Cal. of State Papers--Register of Privy Council of Scotland_, i.-iii.; _Scottish Series_ (Thorpe), i. and ii. (Bain), ii.-iv.; _The Border Papers_, i.; _Hamilton Papers_, ii. (_Foreign_).

(P. C. Y.)

[1] _Cal. of State Pap. (Scottish)_, ii. 218, 250.

[2] _Cal. of State Pap. (Foreign)_, 1579-1580, p. 294.

[3] The title was attainted in 1716, through the 5th baron's complicity in the Jacobite rising of 1715. In 1869 it was restored to Alexander Hugh Bruce (b. 1849), as 6th baron; he became one of the most influential of contemporary Scottish noblemen, on the Conservative side in politics, and was secretary for Scotland from 1895 to 1903.