its members, and no man can hold a more desirable and a more honorable
position. It is all the more to his credit because he does not aim at
mere originality and never makes it a part of his ambition to say
something astonishing and thus to excite and delight the mere curiosity
of his audience. There have been and still are many members of the House
who have made a reputation of this kind and are therefore always sure to
command a full attendance merely because everybody expects that when
they rise to their feet they are sure to make the House "sit up," if I
may use this somewhat colloquial, not to say vulgar, phrase. Take such a
man, for instance, as the late John Arthur Roebuck, a man of great
intellect, master of a peculiar style of eloquence, who made himself
only too often a splendid specimen of what might be called in American
phraseology "a crank." All that could be said with certainty beforehand
of Roebuck was that whenever he rose to speak he would say something
calculated to startle or to puzzle the House. There are men of the same
order, if not perhaps of quite the same debating qualifications, in the
House at present--men who always draw a rush of members when they rise
to speak because nobody can tell in advance what side they are likely to
advocate or what sort of bewildering paradox they may set up and make
interesting if not convincing by the force of their peculiar style of
eloquence. Bryce is emphatically not a man of this order. He is no lover
of paradox; he has no desire to create a sensation; he merely wants to
impress the House with what he believes to be the truth, and his great
quality is that of a beacon and not of a flashlight. His arguments
appeal to the intellect and the reasoning power; he speaks of what he
knows; he has large resources of thought, experience, and observation to
draw upon, and the listeners feel convinced beforehand that he will tell
them something they did not know already, or will put his case in some
new and striking light.
The House of Commons well knows that it would lose one of its most
valuable instructors if Bryce were no longer to occupy a place on its
benches or were to condemn himself to habitual inactivity and silence.
When the Conservative Government under Lord Salisbury came into power,
and more especially after the late general election which brought them
back with added strength, many of the Liberal leaders seemed to have
grown weary of the political struggle. Something worse than mere apathy
appeared to have set in, something more than mere despondency and
disheartenment. Men on whom the Liberals of England had long been wont
to rely suddenly showed an apparent loss of faith in all the proclaimed
principles of the party, and either relapsed into utter silence or spoke
in language which suggested an inclination to cross over to the enemy's
camp. The two principal impulses to this mood of mind were the South
African war and the Irish Home Rule question. The majority in the
constituencies had become inflamed with the spirit of Jingoism, and
could think of nothing but the war and the Imperial glory of annexing
new territory. Feeble-hearted and weak-kneed Liberals began to think
that the party could never hope for a return to power unless it too
could blow the Imperial trumpet. Other Liberals made it manifest that
they were becoming alarmed by the unpopularity of the Home Rule
question, and were repenting the enthusiasm which had carried them too
far along the path marked out by the genius and the patriotic resolve of
Gladstone. A species of dry-rot appeared to have broken out in
Liberalism. Before long a new section of Liberalism was formed, the
principle of which appeared to be that its members should call
themselves Imperial Liberals, and at the same time should support the
Tories on the only important questions then under discussion--the policy
of the South African campaign and the Irish National claim for Home
Rule. Some of the men who had held high office when Gladstone was in
power, who had made themselves conspicuous by the ardor and the
eloquence with which they supported his policy of peace abroad and
justice to Ireland, now openly avowed their renunciation of his great
principles. There were others among the foremost Liberals in the House
of Commons who, if they did not thus openly take the renegade part, kept
themselves quietly out of the active political field and allowed the
movement of reaction to go on without a word of protest. Three at least
among the Liberal leaders took a very different course. Three of them,
at least, not merely nailed their colors to the mast, but stood
resolutely in fighting attitude beneath the colors and proved themselves
determined to maintain the struggle. These three men were Sir Henry
Campbell-Bannerman, John Morley, and James Bryce. There were others,
too, it must be said, who stood up manfully with these three in defense
of that losing cause of Liberalism which they could never be brought to
regard as a lost cause. But the dauntless three whom I have just
mentioned were the most prominent and the most influential who went
forth against that great array of Toryism and Jingoism. Bryce was in his
place as regularly as ever during the whole of that depressing time, and
he never failed to raise his voice when the occasion demanded his
intervention on behalf of the true principles and practices of
Liberalism. During that long, dreary, and disheartening season when
despondent men were often disposed to ask whether there was any longer a
Liberal party, Bryce made some of the ablest speeches he has ever
delivered in arraignment of the Jingo policy, of the War Office
maladministration, and the rule of renewed coercion in Ireland. The
Liberal cause in England owes a debt that never can be forgotten to the
three men whom I have named, for their unflinching resolve and activity
in the House of Commons; and of the three none did better service than
that which was rendered by James Bryce.
Bryce has, in face and form, the characteristics of a stalwart fighter.
His forehead is high and broad, with strongly marked eyebrows,
straightly drawn over deep and penetrating eyes. The features are all
finely modeled, the nose is straight and statuesque, the hair is
becoming somewhat thinner and more gray than it was when I first knew
Mr. Bryce, but the mustache and beard, although they too show some
fading in color, are still thick and strong as in that past day. The
face does not look Irish; its expression is perhaps somewhat too sedate
and resolute; but on the other hand, it does not seem quite Scotch, for
there is at moments a suggestion of dreaminess about it which we do not
usually associate with the shrewd North Briton. Bryce is a man of the
most genial temperament, thoroughly companionable, and capable of
enjoying every influence that helps to brighten existence. Always a
student of books and of men, he is never a recluse, and I do not know of
any one who seems to get more out of life than does this philosophic
historian. Bryce's London home is noted for its hospitality, and his
dinner parties and evening parties give much delight to his large circle
of friends. Mr. and Mrs. Bryce are not lion-hunters, and do not rate
their friends according to the degree of celebrity each may have
obtained. But they have no need to engage in a hunt after lions, for the
celebrities seek them out as a matter of course, and I know of no London
house where one is more certain to meet distinguished men and women from
all parts of the civilized world. Bryce's travels have made him
acquainted with interesting and eminent persons everywhere, and an
admission to his circle is naturally sought by strangers who visit
London. Representatives of literature, science, and art, of scholarly
research, of political movement, and of traveled experience are sure to
be met with in the home of the Bryces. I had the good fortune to meet
there, for the first time, many distinguished men and women whose
acquaintance it was a high and memorable privilege to make. Among
Bryce's especial recreations is mountain-climbing, and he was at one
time President of the Alpine Club. He can converse upon all subjects,
can give to every topic some illustration from his own ideas and his own
experiences, and the intelligent listener always finds that he carries
away something new and worthy of remembrance from any talk with him.
Although his strong opinions and his earnest desire to maintain what he
believes to be the right side of every great controversy have naturally
brought him into frequent antagonism with the representatives of many an
important case, I do not know of any public man who has made fewer
enemies or who is more generally spoken of with respect and admiration.
A man must have very high conceit indeed of his own knowledge and his
own judgment who does not feel that he has a great deal to learn from
conversation with a master of so many subjects. Yet Bryce never
oppresses a listener, as some intellectual leaders are apt to do, with a
sense of the listener's inferiority, and the least gifted among us is
encouraged to express himself with frankness and freedom while
discoursing with Bryce on any question which happens to come up. I think
that among his many remarkable qualities is that sincere belief which
was characteristic of Mr. Gladstone, and for which Gladstone did not
always get due credit--the belief that every man, however moderate his
intellectual qualifications, has something to tell which the wisest
would be the better for knowing. We must all of us have met scholars and
thinkers and political leaders whose inborn sense of their own capacity
had an overbearing and even oppressive effect on the ordinary mortal,
and made him shy of expressing himself fully lest he should only be
displaying his ineptitude or his ignorance in such a presence. But there
is nothing of this to be observed in the genial ways of James Bryce, and
the listener finds himself unconsciously brought for the time to the
level of the master and emboldened to give free utterance to his own
ideas and opinions.
Bryce has been made a member of most of the great intellectual and
educational institutions of the world, has held degrees and honors of
various kinds from the universities of Europe and the United States, and
could hardly travel anywhere abroad or at home without finding himself
in recognized association with some school of learning in every place
where he makes a stay. The freemasonry of intellect and education all
over the world gives him rank among its members, and receives him with a
welcome recognition wherever he goes. I presume that in the political
sphere of action he is henceforward likely to find his congenial
career, but he must always have the knowledge that, if for any reason he
should give up his political occupation, he can at any moment return to
some pursuit in which he has already won an established fame. There are
not many political leaders of our time about whom the same could fairly
be said. For myself I may frankly say that I hope James Bryce will
henceforward devote himself especially to that political career in which
he has accomplished such great things. English public life cannot well
afford to lose his services just now or for some time to come. A man who
can bring to political work such resources of thought and of experience,
who can look beneath the surface and above the mere phrases and
catchwords of political parties, who can see that Liberalism in its true
sense must mean progress, and who can at the same time see clearly for
himself what progress really means, and in what direction and by what
methods it is to be made--such a man could ill be spared by the
Liberalism of our generation. The historical work he has already done
is, in its way, complete and imperishable. But the Liberal party has yet
to recover its place and to regain the leadership of England's
political life. Every effort the Conservatives in office have lately
been making to hold their full mastery over the country has shown more
and more clearly that they have not kept up with the movements of
thought and are not able to understand the true requirements of the
time. On the other hand, the limp and shattered condition of the
existing Liberal party only shows the absolute necessity for the
recognized leadership of men who understand the difference between the
work of guiding the country and the ignoble function of competing for
power by imitation and by compromise. In the new effort now so sorely
needed to create once more a true Liberal party, the country requires,
above all things else, the constant service of such men as James
Bryce.
[Illustration: Photograph copyright by London Stereoscopic Co.
SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN]
HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman has but lately come to hold that position
in the House of Commons and in the political world which those who knew
him well always believed him destined to attain. He is now not merely
the nominal leader of the Liberal Opposition in the House of Commons,
but he is universally regarded as one of the very small number of men
who could possibly be chosen for the place. Sir William Harcourt and Mr.
John Morley are the only Liberal members of the House who could compare
with Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman for influence with the Liberal party,
the House of Commons, and the general public. Yet the time is not far
distant when he was commonly regarded in the House as a somewhat heavy,
not to say stolid, man, one of whom nothing better could be said than
that he would probably be capable of quiet, steady work in some
subordinate department. I remember well that when Campbell-Bannerman
was appointed Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in 1884,
a witty Irish member explained the appointment by the suggestion that
Gladstone had made use of Campbell-Bannerman on the principle
illustrated by the employment of a sand-bag as part of the defenses of a
military fort. Campbell-Bannerman has, in fact, none of the temperament
which makes a man anxious to display himself in debate, and whenever,
during his earlier years of Parliamentary life, he delivered a speech in
the House of Commons, his desire seemed to be to get through the task as
quickly as possible and be done with it. He appears to be a man of a
naturally reserved habit, with indeed something of shyness about him,
and a decided capacity for silence wherever there is no pressing
occasion for speech, whether in public or in private.
Many whom I knew were at one time inclined to regard Campbell-Bannerman
as a typical specimen of his Scottish compatriots, who are facetiously
said to joke with difficulty. As a matter of fact, Campbell-Bannerman
has a keen and delightful sense of humor, and can illustrate the
weakness of an opponent's case, better than some recognized wits could
do, by a few happy touches of sarcasm. He is in every sense of the word
a strong man, and, like some other strong men, only seems to know his
own strength and to be capable of putting it into action when hard
fortune has brought him into political difficulties through which it
appears well-nigh impossible that he can make his way. Schiller's hero
declares that it must be night before his star can shine, and although
Campbell-Bannerman is not quite so poetic and picturesque a figure as
Wallenstein, yet I think he might fairly comfort himself by some such
encouraging reflection. He had gone through a long and hard-working
career in the House of Commons before the world came to know anything of
his strength, his judgment, and his courage. He got his education at the
University of Glasgow and afterwards at Trinity College, Cambridge, and
he obtained a seat in the House of Commons for a Scottish constituency
as a Liberal when he was still but a young man. He has held various
offices in Liberal administrations. He was Secretary to the Admiralty in
1882, and was Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland for a
short time a little later. There is not much to be said about his Irish
administration. He governed the country about as well as any English
Minister could have done under such conditions, for this was before
Gladstone and the Liberal party had been converted to the principle of
Home Rule for Ireland; and, at all events, he made himself agreeable to
those Irishmen with whom he came into contact by his unaffected manners
and his quiet good humor. When Gladstone took office in 1886,
Campbell-Bannerman became Secretary for War, and he held the same
important position in Gladstone's Ministry of 1892.
The story of that administration tells of a most important epoch in the
career of Gladstone and the fortunes of the Liberal party. In 1893
Gladstone brought in his second Home Rule measure for Ireland. His first
measure of Home Rule was introduced in 1886, and was defeated in the
House of Commons by means of a coalition between the Liberal
secessionists and the Conservative Opposition. The Liberal secessionists
in the House of Commons, as most of my readers will remember, were led
by Joseph Chamberlain. Then there came an interval of Conservative
government, and when Gladstone returned to power in 1892 he introduced
before long his second measure of Home Rule. The second measure was in
many ways a distinct improvement on the first, and in the meantime some
of the Liberal secessionists, including Sir George Trevelyan, whose
opposition was directed only against certain parts of the first measure,
had returned to their allegiance and were ready to give Gladstone all
the support in their power for his second attempt. The Home Rule measure
was carried through the House of Commons by what we call a substantial
although not a great majority, and then it had to go to the House of
Lords. Everybody knew in advance what its fate must be in the hereditary
chamber. Every great measure of genuine political reform is certain to
be rejected in the first instance by the House of Lords. This is the old
story, and is repeated again and again with monotonous iteration. The
House of Lords always gives way in the end, when the pressure of public
opinion from without makes it perilous for the hereditary legislators to
maintain their opposition. Therefore the Liberals in general were not
much disconcerted by the defeat of the Home Rule measure in the House of
Lords. Home Rule for Ireland had been sanctioned by the decisive vote
of the House of Commons, and the general impression was that it would
only have to be brought in again and perhaps again, according to the
usual process with all reform measures, until the opposition of the
Lords had been completely borne down. But before the introduction of the
second Home Rule measure, some events had taken place which made a great
change in the condition of Irish political affairs and put fresh
difficulties in the way of Gladstone's new administration.
The Parnell divorce case came on, and led to a serious division in the
ranks of the Irish National party and in Irish public opinion. The great
majority of Parnell's followers refused to regard him as their leader
any longer, and those who determined to support him and to follow him
through thick and thin were but a very small minority. Gladstone was
firmly convinced, as were the majority of the Irish Nationalist members,
that Parnell ought to retire, for a time at least, from the leadership
of his party, if not indeed from public life, and keep aloof from active
politics until the scandal of the divorce court should have been atoned
for by him and should have passed to some extent from public memory.
Gladstone was convinced that if Parnell remained the leader of the
Irish party it would be almost impossible to arouse in the British
constituencies any enthusiasm in the cause of Home Rule strong enough to
bring back the Liberals to power and to carry a Home Rule measure. This
was a reasonable and practical view of the question, but Parnell and his
followers resented it as a positive insult, and Parnell issued a
manifesto denouncing Gladstone, the immediate result of which was that
break-up of the Home Rule party I have already mentioned. Not very long
after came Parnell's early death. It may well be supposed that such
events as these must have made a deep and discouraging impression on
Gladstone's hopes for the success of the second Home Rule measure. The
Irish National party had been broken up for the time, and some even of
Gladstone's colleagues in office had allowed themselves to be mastered
by the old familiar idea that as Irishmen could not be brought to agree
for long on any plan of action, it was futile for English Liberals to
put themselves to any inconvenience for the sake of an Irish National
cause. Such men might have found it difficult to point out any great
measure of political reform in England concerning which the English
people had always been in absolute agreement and about which there was
no conflict of angry emotion in any section of English representatives.
But the fact remained all the same that the dispute in the Irish party
had brought a chill to the zeal of many influential English Liberals for
the Home Rule cause, and we have had in much more recent days abundant
evidence that the chilling influence is with them still.
Among Gladstone's official colleagues there were some who held that the
time had come when an appeal ought to be made to the country by means of
a dissolution and a general election against the domination of the House
of Lords. This appears to have been the opinion of Gladstone himself.
Others of his colleagues, however, held back from such an issue, and
contended that the moment did not seem favorable for an appeal to the
country on the distinct question of Irish Home Rule. The general
impression on the public mind was that the decision of the Cabinet was
certain to be in favor of an appeal to the country on the one issue or
the other, and much surprise was felt when it began to be more and more
evident that the Government intended to go on with the ordinary
business of the State, as if nothing had happened. The outer world has
as yet had no means of knowing what the reasons or the influences were
which induced Gladstone and his colleagues to come to this
determination. The whole truth will probably never be known until John
Morley's "Life of Gladstone" shall make its appearance. We may safely
assume in the meantime that Gladstone had the best of reasons for taking
the course which he adopted, and that he would have made an appeal to
the country against the decision of the House of Lords if he had
believed the conditions were favorable for such a challenge just then.
Probably Gladstone knew only too well that even among his own colleagues
there were some who were turning cold upon the question of Home Rule,
who had never accepted his views on that subject with whole-hearted
willingness, and could not have been relied upon as steadfast adherents
in the struggle. I think I shall be fully justified by any revelations
which history or biography has yet to make, when I say that
Campbell-Bannerman was among those who would have faithfully followed
the great leader to the very last in whatever struggle he had made up
his mind to engage. There were, of course, many others of Gladstone's
colleagues--men like Sir William Harcourt and John Morley and James
Bryce--on whom their leader could have safely reckoned for the same
unswerving fidelity and courage. But, whatever were the reasons, there
was no appeal made to the country, and the administration went on with
its ordinary work in a dull, mechanical fashion. The effect upon the
Liberal party was most depressing. Men could not understand why nothing
decisive had been done, and at the same time were haunted by a
foreboding that some great change was impending over the Liberal party.