BALFOUR, ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR, 1ST EARL OF British statesman, eldest son of James Maitland Balfour of Whittingehame, Haddingtonshire, and of Lady Blanche Gascoyne Cecil, a sister of the 3rd marquess of Salisbury, was born on July 25, 1848. 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 ISth Lord Derby, Balfour became his private secretary, and accompanied him to the Berlin Congress. At this time also he became known in the world of letters, the intellectual subtlety and literary capacity of his Defence of Philosophic Doubt suggesting that he might make a reputation as a speculative thinker. Released from his duties as private secretary to Lord Salisbury, his uncle, by the general election of 188o, he began tt i take a rather more active part in parliamentary affairs. Ile 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, Balfour had no direct share. He was thought to be merely amusing himself with politics. It was regarded as doubtful whether he had the bodily strength or the energy of character requisite for a big political career. The House 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. As a member of the very select social coterie known as the "Souls" he was, so to speak, "caviare to the general." Indolence was supposed to be the key note of his character—a refined indolence, with cleverness of a somewhat sceptical and superior order.
These views were not shared by Lord Salisbury. In his first administration (June 1886) he made Balfour president of the Local Government Board, and in forming his second admin istration (July 1886) secretary for Scotland with a seat in the cabinet. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach resigned the chief secretary ship for Ireland in 1887, and in his stead Lord Salisbury appoint ed his nephew. By the Irish Nationalists the appointment was received with contemptuous ridicule, for none suspected Balfour's serene fearlessness, his tenacity with finesse, 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 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. 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 Home Rule party. Events, it is true, were in his favour. The dis closures before the Parnell Commission, the O'Shea divorce pro ceedings, the downfall of Parnell, and the disruption of the Irish party assisted him in his task; but the fact remains that by persist ent 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 1886-92, moreover, he developed gifts 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 Glad stone, his speeches were logical and convincing and their attrac tive literary form delighted a wider audience than that which listens to the mere politician.
On the death of 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 Balfour led the opposition in the House of Commons 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. But after the opening session matters proceeded more smoothly. His successful conduct of an Irish Local Govern ment bill, his championship of the voluntary schools, his adroit parliamentary handling of the problems opened up by the move ment against ritualistic practices in the Church of England, 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 Balfour's activity during the years 1895-190o. 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 conducted the very critical negotiations with Russia on the important question of railways in north China. At the general election of 1900 he was returned for East Man chester (which he had represented since 1885) by a majority of and continued in office as first lord of the Treasury.
On Lord Salisbury's resignation on July 11, 1902, his nephew succeeded him as prime minister, with the cordial approval of all sections of the Unionist party. Balfour 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. Ald wyn) as chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. Chamberlain remained colonial secretary, his son Austen being postmaster-general with a seat in the cabinet. The task of clearing up after the war, both in South Africa and at home, lay before the government; but the prime minister's cordial relations with Chamberlain and the enthusiastic support of a large parliamentary majority made the prospects fair. Chamberlain went to South Africa in the late autumn, with the hope that his personality would influence the settlement there ; and the Venezuela crisis was met by tactful handling and by an ultimate recourse to arbitration. The exten sion of the new Education Act to London and Wyndham's Irish Land Purchase Act were well received. But Ritchie's remission of the shilling import-duty on corn led to Chamberlain's crusade in favour of tariff reform and colonial preference, and as the session proceeded the rift widened in the Unionist ranks.
Balfour had always admitted the onesidedness of the English free-trade system, and had supported the desirability of retali ating 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 estab lished fiscal system, and such out-and-out Unionist free-traders in the cabinet as Ritchie and Lord George Hamilton, and outside it, like Lord Hugh Cecil and Arthur Elliot (secretary to the Treasury), were entirely opposed to this. Balfour was anxious to avoid a rupture, doubtful of the feeling of the country, uncertain of the details by which 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. From the middle of May, when Chamberlain began to press the matter, Balfour had a difficult hand to play, so long as it was uncertain how the party would follow the new lead. Another opportunity for mak ing 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 (Aug. 26) of political and military muddling and the want of any efficient system of organization.
On Sept. 16 Balfour published a pamphlet on "Insular Free Trade," and on the 18th it was announced that Lord George Hamilton and Ritchie had resigned, Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Arthur Elliot following a day or two later. These were the strait free-traders, but at the same time Chamberlain resigned also. The correspondence between Chamberlain and Balfour (Sept. 9 and 16) 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 Chamberlain to test the feeling of the public and to convert them by his missionary efforts outside the government. Chamberlain on his side emphasized his own parliamentary loyalty to 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 Hamil ton that Balfour had circulated among his colleagues a second and different document in fuller agreement with 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.
On Oct. I 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 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 not enthusiastically received by the National Union of Conservative Associations, known to be predominantly in sympathy with Cham berlain. The free-traders also did not like Balfour's formula as to reversing the traditional fiscal policy of import taxes for rev enue only. Next day the duke of Devonshire resigned, a step somewhat bitterly resented by 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 Balfour's compromise and had co-operated in reconstituting the ministry.
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 Chamber lain declared his desire for an early appeal to the electors, he maintained his parliamentary loyalty to Balfour. There were, moreover, public reasons why a change of government was unde sirable. 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; on Oct. 23 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. There were also 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. The end came in Nov. 1905, precipitated by a speech made by Balfour at Newcastle on the 14th, appealing for unity in the party and the sinking of differences, an appeal plainly addressed to Chamberlain, whose supporters were clamouring for a fighting policy. But Chamberlain was no longer prepared to wait. On Nov. 21 at Bristol he insisted on his programme being adopted, and 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 Dec. 4; and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was entrusted by the King with the formation of a government. The Unionists went to the polls with divided counsels and sustained a crushing defeat, Balfour himself being defeated by a large majority in Manchester.
Negotiations took place between Balfour and Chamberlain which resulted in the patching up of an agreement (expressed in a correspondence dated Feb. 14), and its confirmation at a meet ing 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 con structive 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 manu factured 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 retire ment 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. 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 sup porters, 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 institu tion 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 Nov. 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 gov ernment in the constituencies. The result was the electoral defeat which indicated, no doubt, a pronounced weakening of Mr. Bal four's position in public confidence. This verdict, however, was one based mainly on temporary reasons, which were soon to be over-shadowed by the new issues involved in the change of min istry. 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 bril liantly, 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 (Nov. 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 Union ist candidates. The rejection of this budget in Dec. 1909 by the House of Lords led to a desperate struggle at the polls in Jan. The Unionists won back over too seats, returning 273 strong, but were still in a minority, the Liberals numbering Labour members 4o, and Irish Nationalists 82. Mr. Balfour him self was elected for the City of London by an enormous majority. 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 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 Ancient Golf Club at St. Andrews in (H. C.) As Conservative leader, after the general election of Jan. 191o, Balfour was confronted with an embarrassing situation. While endeavouring to save the effective authority of a second chamber and to avert Irish Home Rule, with his supporters still sore over the Tariff Reform controversy, he was faced by a Liberal ministry dominated once more by a body of 8o Irish Nationalists, who held the balance of power in the House of Commons and insisted on a forward policy. He advocated the reform of the House of Lords as an alternative to the Ministerial Veto resolutions, which he denounced as irrational.
In the lull in the party fight which followed the death of King Edward he welcomed the suggestion of a conference between the parties to endeavour to arrange a compromise, and was one of the eight leaders who met on 21 occasions between June and November without coming to an agreement. When the confer ences failed and ministers announced another dissolution he did his best to rouse the country to the dangers which, in his opinion, threatened it. When the second general election of 1910 con firmed the verdict of the first, dissatisfaction with his leadership, which had been long entertained by a considerable section of the Unionists, began to spread. It was pointed out that he had now led the party to three electoral defeats in succession : in 1906, Jan. 191o, and Dec. 191o.
The course of the session of 1911 intensified this dissatisfaction. Balfour did indeed fight the Parliament bill, in its passage through the House of Commons, with courage, persistency, acuteness, and passion. In committee he strove hard, but in vain, to get funda mental laws exempted from its operation. But he shrank from encouraging the House of Lords to persist in opposition when ministers announced that they had obtained the King's consent to the creation of sufficient peers to make its passage certain. He did indeed move a vote of censure imputing to ministers a gross abuse of the constitution in the advice they had given to the Crown ; but he declared that he would stand or fall with Lord Lansdowne in that statesman's recommendation to the Unionist peers to abstain from further resistance as being no longer free agents.
This attitude was passionately resented by a large group of "Diehards," who organized themselves under Lord Haisbury. Mr. Balfour's counsel prevailed, and the bill was allowed to pass; but his authority as leader had been seriously shaken, and in November he decided that the time had come for him to resign. In announcing his decision to a meeting of the Conservative Association of the City of London on Nov. 8 he said that he desired to abandon his heavy responsibility before he could be suspected of suffering from a sort of petrifaction in old courses and inability to deal with new problems ; and that he felt he had not the vigour, at his time of life, again to conduct a ministry. The announcement, in spite of the signs of discontent, came as a great shock to the party and the country.
Mr. Balfour was then only 63, and his powers as a parliamen tarian were really at their height. Although he proceeded to devote more time to his manifold other interests in life—philos ophy, science, literature, and the fine arts—he still took at inter vals a prominent part in debate, giving throughout a loyal support to his successor in the House of Commons, Mr. Bonar Law. The renewed controversy on Home Rule afforded him a great oppor tunity; and the powerful series of speeches which he delivered, at Westminster and elsewhere, in the course of the next three years, did much to awaken Great Britain to the imminent danger of civil war in Ireland, and to force ministers into the policy of excluding Ulster, in some form or other, from the operation of their bill.
When the World War broke out he cordially accepted the policy of the Unionist leaders to sink all political differences in support of the national Government. Speaking at the Guildhall, London, on Nov. 11, 1914, he said that the Allies were fighting for civiliza tion and the cause of small States, and, whether the War was short or long, they would triumph. In this spirit he joined the first Coalition ministry in May 1915, becoming First Lord of the Admiralty under Mr. Asquith. He speedily restored the harmony of the Board of Admiralty which had been distracted by a quarrel between Churchill and Lord Fisher. He also reversed Churchill's policy of differentiating between prisoners from submarines as compared with other German prisoners. Perhaps the best work which he did at the Admiralty was the issue, at intervals, of some cogent papers, mainly for the benefit of the Americans, indi cating the great work of the British Navy in the War.
The chief naval battle of the conflict, the battle of Jutland, was fought during his term of office, and he incurred widespread criticism by the manner in which the news was officially communi cated to the public, the great losses in ships being dwelt on to such an extent as to suggest that, instead of being a victory, if an imperfect one, the action was a defeat. In Nov. 1916 Balfour brought Sir John Jellicoe into the Admiralty as First Sea Lord, Sir David Beatty becoming naval commander-in-chief. On the King's birthday, June 3, 1916, Mr. Balfour's eminence and his patriotic readiness to resume in wartime, in spite of advancing years, official labours in a secondary position were suitably recog nised by the grant of the Order of Merit. When Mr. Lloyd George formed his Coalition ministry in Dec. 1916 the Foreign Office, on the retirement of Lord Grey of Fallodon, was pressed upon Mr. Balfour, as it was essential to have there a man of experience and weight. He took up his new duties only a few weeks before Ger many instituted the unrestricted submarine warfare which brought the United States into the War ; and in April 1917 he headed a British mission which visited America in order to arrange for regular co-operation between the two countries.
His attractive personality greatly impressed his hosts and he received the compliment of being invited to address the House of Representatives on May 5. He proceeded subsequently to Canada and there addressed the two houses of parliament. The concentration of power in the hands of the War cabinet and the great personal ascendancy which Lloyd George, as Prime minister, rapidly acquired tended to reduce the importance of the foreign secretary during Balfour's tenure of the post. It was, however, he, as foreign secretary, who in Nov. 1917 gave a promise on behalf of the British Government to provide a "national home" for the Jews in Palestine after the War. He went to the Paris Conference in 1919 as the second British plenipotentiary and appended his signature to the Treaty of Versailles and to the abortive treaty of guarantee to France against German aggression When the conference was over, Balfour relinquished the secre tary of state's seals to Lord Curzon, but remained in Lloyd George's cabinet as lord president of the council. He was appoint ed chief representative of the British Government at the first Assembly of the League of Nations in 1920 and also at the International Conference at Washington, D.C., in the winter of 1921-22. At Washington he was, after Secretary of State Hughes, the leading figure of the conference; and his prompt and cordial acceptance of Hughes's proposals for the scrapping of capital ships and their future strict limitation greatly impressed the American public. The conference not only secured the limitation of navies, but also merged the Anglo-Japanese Alliance into the Four-Power Pacific Treaty, the other two Powers being the United States and France. On his return in 1922 from this mis sion Balfour was created, in March, a Knight of the Garter, though still a commoner, and in May, an earl.
During this year the question of Inter-Allied debts was press ingly raised by America, a purely creditor state; and Lord Bal four addressed the so-called Balfour note, on behalf of the British Government, to the French Ambassador and the representatives of other European Powers. He pointed out that, while Great Britain, though more a lender than a borrower, was in favour of a general cancellation of Inter-Allied debts, she could not agree to the cancellation of European debts due to her independently of the question of the British debt to the United States.
Lord Balfour had no sympathy with the feeling of hostility which was growing in the Conservative party throughout 1921-22 toward the continuance of a Coalition ministry, and spoke in that sense at the Carlton club meeting on Oct. 19, 1922, which broke up the Coalition. He resigned office along with the other Unionist Coalition ministers and did not join either Bonar Law's or Bald win's Conservative ministry in 1922-23. But he maintained a friendly attitude, and, after the fall of the Government, he moved, in a party meeting on Feb. 11, 1924, a vote of confidence in the ex-premier which was carried by acclamation.