To the Rev. Ebenezer Biggs, Capetown.
The House of Commons,
April 10th, 1899.
My dear Sir.--You put me in a very difficult position, for,
on the one hand, I cannot, and would not, work against the
interests of my country, and, on the other hand, I am convinced
that Mr. Chamberlain is determined to plunge that country into
the war spoken of by John in Revelations ix. Anything I can
do for peace I will, but for some reason or other the _Times_
will not insert my letters, though I write to them twice and
sometimes thrice in one day. Sir Alfred Milner was once very rude
to me. He is a weak man morally, mainly intent upon “getting
on;” he has agreed since his youth with every single person of
influence (except myself) whom he happened to come across, and
is universally liked. I fear that no one’s private influence
can do much. The London Press has been bought in a lump by two
financiers. Perhaps a little waiting is the best thing. There is
sure to be a reaction, and after all, Mr. Chamberlain is a man of
a very low order. His mind, I take it, is not unlike his face.
He thinks very little and very clearly ... I have really nothing
more to say.
Always your sincere friend,
EDWARD BAYTON.
No one knew better than Dr. Caliban that a Revelation is but
weakened by comment. But the war was at its height, and he could
not read without disgust such words, written in such a place by
such a man.
He added the note:
“We understand that the law officers of the Crown are debating
whether or no the concluding sentences of this disgraceful letter
can be made to come within 26 Edward III., cap. 37, defining high
treason. It is certainly not a physical attack upon the Person,
Consort, or offspring of the Crown, nor is it (strictly speaking)
giving aid to the Queen’s enemies. On the other hand, it is
devoutly hoped that the attack on Mr. Chamberlain can be made to
fall under 32 Henry VIII., 1, whereby it is felony to strike or
‘provoke’ the King’s servants within the precincts of the Palace.
The infamous screed was certainly written in a palace, and Mr.
Chamberlain is as certainly a servant of the Queen. He certainly
was provoked--nay nettled. The latter clauses of the act,
condemning those who attack the doctrine of Transubstantiation
to be roasted alive, have, of course, fallen into desuetude. The
earlier, milder, and more general clauses stand, and _should be
enforced_.”
Let me not be misunderstood. I think it was an error to pen that
comment. Strong expressions, used in a time of high party feeling,
may look exaggerated when they survive into quieter times. But if
it was an error, it was the only error that can be laid to the
charge of a just and great man in the whole course of forty years,
during which period he occasionally edited as many as five journals
at a time.