The result was unfortunate for a scheme which aimed at accomplishing so important a work of social reform. The Gov- ernment had its programme for 1912 full, subject to the wa y bein S cleared by the Parliament Act, by the political necessity of proceeding with Home Rule and Welsh Disestablishment; and Mr. Lloyd George, whose influence on the parliamentary tactics of the Coalition was now supreme, determined to force the Insurance bill through before 1911 ended. When the House of Commons resumed on Oct. 24 Mr. Asquith carried a time-table resolu- tion for closuring the remainder of its stages; and by this drastic method the bill passed through committee on Nov. 21 and was read a third time on Dec. 6. Under such con- ditions the opportunity for effective Opposition criticism and amendment was so limited that very little was possible, in spite of the activity of Mr. Worthington Evans and other Unionist members, and towards the end it became a question whether the Unionist leaders would actually divide against the third reading, a course to which they were openly challenged by Mr. Lloyd George. Instead of this, an Opposition front bench amendment was moved by Mr. H. W. Forster, proposing that the bill should be postponed for further discussion, and this was defeated by 320 to 223, the third reading then being carried in a division in which the Opposition as a whole took no part, 21 members recording their votes against it. On Dec. n the bill was read a second time in the House of Lords, and, after various Government amendments had been inserted in com- mittee on Dec. 14, it was passed and received the royal assent next day, when Parliament was prorogued.
During all this time, both inside and outside Parliament, opinion as to the scheme and its prospects had become more clearly crystallized. While Mr. Lloyd George and his supporters proclaimed it to be the most beneficial reform ever conceived in the interest of the working- classes, and taunted the Opposition with attempting to de- stroy it, the Unionists dwelt on the injury done by forcing through a measure which ought to have been more carefully considered before it became law, and threw the responsibility on the Liberal party for everything that was objectionable and unworkable in it. The by-elections showed that its un- popularity was continually growing; and under the arrange- ment made in the Act, that the insurance commissioners should during 1912 make regulations as to details, nobody knew yet what procedure would be adopted to overcome count- less points of difficulty which under the Act itself remained quite unsettled. The medical profession, without whose co- operation, so far as could be seen, the Act would not work at all, continued to refuse it unless they were given better terms, to which Mr. Lloyd George was still unable to agree; and " passive resistance " was organized on their behalf by the British Medical Association.
It was, however, not only the stimulus given by the antag- onism to the Insurance Act that was causing a revival of Union- ist confidence after the defeat over the Parliament Act. During the autumn session of 1911 the Unionist party had started afresh under a new leader in the House of Commons. The " die-hard " revolt had been a final illustration of the dissatis- Mr. Bal- faction within the party at the way it had been four's res- led by Mr. Balfour for some time past. Had the tenatioa. p ar ii amen t bill been defeated in the House of Lords by the " die-hards, " it was an open secret that both Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Balfour intended to, retire from their positions at the head of the party, and it was largely the dislike of acting disloyally by them that confined the open revolt to a comparatively small section. Exasperation at the result, however, was general. Mr. Balfour himself did his best to smooth matters over, declaring in a public speech (Haddington, Oct. 7) that the question of the peers' tactics was now a dead issue, of no more practical importance than the controversy as to the identity of Junius; and the " die- hards," though they started a Halsbury Club and kept their organization in being, protested at the same time that the
differences within the party were ended with the cause of them, and that they only meant to work for the common good. But after some weeks of reflection, when the hubbub was all over, Mr. Balfour made up his mind that the right moment had arrived, for him to retire from the leadership, though not from Parliament, in view of the arduous political struggles still impending, and the unlikelihood of his being strong enough in health, should the Unionists again return to power, to conduct a ministry. His announcement to this effect was made on Nov. 8, at a hastily convened meeting in the City of London. For a few days the question of who would succeed him was uncertain. Mr. Austen Chamberlain, not only as principal leader of the Tariff Reformers and one whose very name would, on his father's account, be most representative of the Imperialist movement, but as ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer and officially Mr. Balfour's deputy on the Opposition front bench, had apparently the strongest claim; but, as a Liberal Unionist, his selection was opposed by many Conservatives, who considered Mr. Walter Long a better choice; and Mr. Long's great pop- ularity among all sections was much in his favour. It became clear to the partisans of both that if either were proposed, and votes were taken, it would only emphasize the division of opin- ion and create friction between their supporters.
It was found that Mr. Austen Chamberlain and Mr. Long were both prepared to stand aside in favour of Mr. Bonar Law, nominally a Conservative and at the same time a Mr _ Booar strong Tariff Reformer; and on their joint proposal Law, the he was quickly adopted as leader in the House of new leader. Commons (Lord Lansdowne continuing to be leader in the House of Lords), at a party meeting on Nov. 13. Their sac- rifice of personal ambition set an example which did much to promote fresh confidence within the party; and Mr. Bonar Law had no sooner become leader than there were signs of improved Unionist prospects in the constituencies. In in- tellectual range, subtlety of exposition and criticism, and political experience, Mr. Balfour had, admittedly, no rival on either side, but he still remained in the fighting ranks, ready to devote himself to the Unionist cause as much as anybody. His retirement from the formal responsibilities of leadership gave freer play to the respect and admiration felt for him personally as a public man, while relieving the party of the accumulation of doubt as to his policy and tactics, which, rightly or wrongly, had led to undercurrents of dissension. To the plain man his detached and philosophical outlook on public affairs had been rather too lofty; to be " had " or tricked, as the party was openly taunted with being by its opponents, over the Budget of 1909 or the Parliament bill of 1911, simply meant that its leader had failed in astuteness; ardent Tariff Reformers, en- thusiastic for Mr. Chamberlain's policy and pining for Mr. Chamberlain's aggressive tactics, felt that Mr. Balfour's balanc- ing support of their proposals was unpractical and was confined to economic generalities. He was perhaps " too much of a gentleman " as well as " too little of a business man " for the situation. Mr. Bonar Law, on the other hand, was more of the Chamberlain type a successful man of business, the clearest and most convincing platform exponent of Tariff Reform, a speaker who was accustomed to calling a spade a spade.
It so happened that the result of the Canadian elections at the end of Sept., and the defeat of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's American Reciprocity proposals, had delighted the Unionists and given them fresh confidence for the future of Imperialism. Canada had shown that she meant to keep her place in the Empire, and that antago- nism to the prospect of becoming simply an annexe to the United States was more powerful than the temptation to secure immediate commercial advantages from reciprocity. Up to the last the result of the Canadian elections had been very uncertain, and the Tariff Reformers in England, who had been thoroughly depressed and disheartened by the idea that, if -reciprocity between Canada and the United States were established, their hopes for Imperial commercial union would be frustrated, had in Mr. Borden's success a legitimate
