general in his place. Parliament was dissolved immediately afterwards, and James was re-elected for Taiuiton, but the defeat of his party deprived him of office. While in opposition, he was active in debate, and when Gladstone returned to office after the general election of 1880 James, who retained his seat for Taunton, again became attorney-general. He held the post until the liberal government went out in 1885, the solicitor-general being Farrer Herschell (afterwards Lord Herschell) [q. v. Suppl. I]. James performed both his political and professional work, which was exceptionally heavy, with unsparing energy. In parliament his chief exploit was the drafting and carrying through its various stages the corrupt practices bill of 1883. He had already championed the cause of electoral purity, and his skill and temper in the conduct of his bill evoked Gladstone's admiration. In all relations James won the prime minister's 'peculiarly warm regard,' which James fully reciprocated (Life of Gladstone, iii. 110). On 24 June 1885 he was made a privy councillor.
At the general election of 1885, after the new reform bill had become law, he was returned as member for Bury in Lancashire, and he represented that constituency for the rest of his time in the House of Commons. When Gladstone declared for home rule early in 1886, James declared unhesitatingly against the change of Irish policy. Gladstone offered him first the lord chancellorship and then the home secretaryship in his new ministry, but James, with rare self-denial, declined both. He was already a warm intimate friend of Lord Hartington (afterwards duke of Devonshire), and with him he thenceforward acted in close personal sympathy, becoming a leader of the newly formed liberal-unionist party. Returned for Bury at the elections of 1886 and 1892, James, now a private member of parliament, continued his private practice at the bar. He appeared for 'The Times' with Sir Richard Webster, the attorney-general, before the Pamell commission of 1888-9, and summed up his clients' case, in reply to Sir Charles Russell's final speech for Pamell, in a twelve days' speech, 'perhaps the most notable of all his forensic achievements' (31 Oct. to 22 Nov. 1889) (Law Journal). From 1 892 to 1 895 he acted as attorney-general of the Duchy of Cornwall to King Edward VII, then Prince of Wales, with whom he had formed a close intimacy. In 1892 he was made hon. LL.D. of Cambridge. On 22 April 1893 James spoke at great length against Gladstone's home rule bill, and in Feb. 1895 he, on behalf of the Lancashire cotton spinners, led the opposition to the liberal government's proposal to reimpose duties on cotton imported into India. On the return of the unionists to power in August 1895 James was raised to the peerage as Lord James of Hereford, and for the first time became a cabinet minister (5 Aug.), holding the office of chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the unionist administration. In 1896 he joined the judicial committee of the privy council, and took part in the judicial work of that body as well as of the House of Lords. He made no great mark as a lord of appeal, possibly owing to his advanced age and distraction by other work. He resigned his position on the judicial committee before his death. He had, however, eminently a judicial mind. As arbitrator in industrial disputes, and notably as chairman of the coal conciliation board from 1898 to 1909, he gave a series of important decisions, which were accepted by all parties without demur. Between 1895 and 1902 he sat, too, on a committee of the privy council appointed to deal with university education in the north of England.
James resigned office in July 1902, when Mr. Balfour succeeded Lord Salisbury as prime minister. Trained in old whig principles, he was not in sympathy with the education policy of the unionist government. In the same year he was made G.C. V.O. Next year, when Mr. Chamberlain formulated his policy of tariff reform, James declared his resolute adherence to the principle of free trade. As in the home rule crisis, he acted with the duke of Devonshire, and stiffened the latter in his opposition to the new policy. In Nov. 1909 he opposed, as unconstitutional, the rejection of the budget by the House of Lords. During his later years he took much interest in the Imperial Institute, and was for a long time chairman of the advisory committee.
Although no eloquent speaker nor profound lawyer, James was an admirable advocate, especially in the conduct of criminal cases. He had in a high degree the good judgment of a strong, clear, and business-like mind. He was not too legal for the House of Commons, where his tact and clearness of exposition rendered him one of the most successful of all law officers of the crown. His political views were of the whig type, cautious and moderate, but unhesitating.
A good sportsman, especially with the gun, he maintained through life a large circle of friends. King Edward VII was
