o remember a few points in
his career when tracing the development of his work. The first important
point to remember is that Mr. Belloc, for a man who has achieved so
much, is still comparatively young. He was born at La Celle, St. Cloud,
near Paris, in 1870, the son of Louis Swanton Belloc, a French
barrister. His mother was English, the daughter of Joseph Parkes, a man
of some considerable importance in his own time, a politician of the
Reform Bill period, and the historian of the Chancery Bar. His book on
this subject is still considered the best authority.

Mr. Belloc was educated at the Oratory School, Edgbaston. On leaving
school he served as a driver in the 8th Regiment of French Artillery. He
left the service for Balliol in 1892, and in the following year became a
Brackenbury History Scholar of that college and took First Class honours
in his final history schools in 1895. In the same year he published
_Verses and Sonnets_, which was followed in 1896 by _The Bad Child's
Book of Beasts_. This was followed the next year by _More Beasts for
Worse Children_. In 1898 _The Modern Traveller_ appeared, and in 1899 he
published his first work of outstanding importance--the study of
_Danton_. _Robespierre_ was published in 1901, and _The Path to Rome_ in
1902; _Emmanuel Burden_ was published in 1904, and _Esto Perpetua_ in
1906. By this time Mr. Belloc's literary reputation was so firmly
established that he was offered, and accepted, the post of chief
reviewer on the staff of the _Morning Post_. During the time he was
connected with this paper he not only attracted attention to it by his
own essays, but undoubtedly rendered it solid service by introducing to
its somewhat conservative columns a new group of writing men. It was in
1906, too, that Mr. Belloc was elected "Liberal member" for South
Salford. His independent mind was at variance with the "tone of the
House," and he distinguished himself by demanding an audit of the Secret
Party Funds, which he considered to be the chief source of political
corruption. At the next election in 1910 the Party Funds were not
forthcoming in his support, but he stood as an independent candidate and
was returned in the face of the caucus. On the occasion of the second
election of 1910, he refused to repeat his candidature, having declared,
in his last speech in the House, his opinion that a seat there under the
existing machine was valueless. In 1910 he resigned his appointment on
the