MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL
_"He was not free from that careless life-contemning desperation,
which sometimes belongs to forcible natures.... He was too heedless
of his good name and too blind to the truth that though right and
wrong may be near neighbours, yet the line that separates them is
of an awful sacredness."_--JOHN MORLEY (of Danton).
Mr. Winston Churchill was one of its most interesting figures in the
Parliament which included Joseph Chamberlain, Charles Dilke, and George
Wyndham. With the fading exception of Mr. Lloyd George, he is easily the
most interesting figure in the present House of Commons.
There still clings to his career that element of great promise and
unlimited uncertainty which from his first entrance into politics has
interested both the public and the House of Commons. He has disappointed
his admirers on several occasions, but not yet has he exhausted their
patience or destroyed their hopes.
His intellectual gifts are considerable, his personal courage is of a
quality that makes itself felt even in the bosom of hate, and he
possesses in a unique degree the fighting qualities of the born
politician. No man is more difficult to shout down, and no man responds
more gratefully to opposition of the fiercer kind. If on several
occasions he has disappointed his friends, also on several occasions he
has confounded his enemies.
From his youth up Mr. Churchill has loved with all his heart, with all
his mind, with all his soul, and with all his strength, three
things--war, politics, and himself. He loved war for its dangers, he
loves politics for the same reason, and himself he has always loved for
the knowledge that his mind is dangerous--dangerous to his enemies,
dangerous to his friends, dangerous to himself. I can think of no man I
have ever met who would so quickly and so bitterly eat his heart out in
Paradise.
He was once asked if politics were more to him than any other pursuit of
mankind.
"Politics," he replied, "are almost as exciting as war, and quite as
dangerous."
"Even with the new rifle?"
"Well, in war," he answered, "you can only be killed once, but in
politics many times."
Unhappily for himself, and perhaps for the nation, since he has many of
the qualities of real greatness, Mr. Churchill lacks the unifying spirit
of _character_ which alone can master the discrepant or even
antagonistic elements in a single mind, giving them not merely force,
which is something, but direction, which is much more. He is a man of
truly brilliant gifts, but you cannot depend upon him. His love for
danger runs away with his discretion; his passion for adventure makes
him forget the importance of the goal. Politics may be as exciting and
as dangerous as war, but in politics there is no V.C.
I am not enamoured of the logic of consistency. It seems a rather
ludicrous proceeding for an impecunious young man to join a very
strictly political club with the idea in his mind that he will always be
in favour of that particular party's programmes. Most of us, I think,
will agree that a man who never changes his opinion is a stupid person,
and that one who boasts in grave and hoary age of his lifelong political
consistency is merely confessing that he has learnt nothing in the
school of experience. One sees the danger of this state of mind when he
thinks of the theologians who burned men of science at the stake rather
than be false to their Christian dogmas.
Nevertheless, illogical and ridiculous as consistency may appear,
amounting in truth to nothing more than either inability to see the
other side of an argument or a deliberate refusal to acknowledge an
intellectual mistake, who can doubt that this quality of the mind
creates confidence? On the other hand, who can doubt that one who
appears at this moment fighting on the left hand, and at the next moment
fighting just as convincingly on the right, creates distrust in both
armies?
A newspaper which says at one time, "France must be rolled in mud and
blood, her colonies must be taken from her and given to Germany, she has
no sense of honour"; and at another time describes every German as a
Hun and hails France as the glory of civilization, does not encourage
the judicious reader to look for guidance in its editorial
pronouncements. But the newspaper which felt itself obliged to offer
France a respectful admonition on one occasion and even to oppose French
policy with firmness and to express sympathy with the Germans might
afterwards acclaim the great virtues of France and oppose itself to the
German nation without any loss of our respect. In the one case the
inconsistency arises from hysterical and immoral passion, in the other
from a moral principle.
There is only one region in which consistency has the great sanction of
an indubitable virtue: it is the region of moral character. A good man,
a man who makes us feel that righteousness is the breath of his
nostrils, may change his intellectual opinions many times without losing
our confidence, deeply as we may deplore his change. Goodness has an
effect on men's minds which can hardly be exaggerated. Conduct is the
one sphere in which consistency has an absolute merit. A man whose whole
life is governed by moral principle has a constituency in the judgment
of all honest people and may be said to represent mankind rather than a
party. Even a cynical opportunist like Lord Beaconsfield had to confess,
"So much more than the world imagines is done by personal influence."
Mr. Churchill has not convinced the world of this possession. He carries
great guns, but his navigation is uncertain, and the flag he flies is
not a symbol which stirs the blood. His effect on men is one of
interest and curiosity, not of admiration and loyalty. His power is the
power of gifts, not character. Men watch him, but do not follow him. He
beguiles the reason, but never warms the emotions. You may see in him
the wonderful and lightning movements of the brain, but never the
beating of a steadfast heart. He has almost every gift of statesmanship,
and yet, lacking the central force of the mind which gives strength and
power to character, these gifts are for ever at the sport of
circumstance. His inconsistencies assume the appearance of shifts and
dodges.
There is one particular way in which I think his inconsistencies have
been dangerous to his career. They have brought him too often into
inferior company.
Lord Northcliffe, with all his faults, is a man to whom statesmen may
speak their minds without loss of influence, but there are other
newspaper proprietors, financiers of commercialized journalism, with
whom a man of Mr. Churchill's power and position should hold no personal
relations. His is a mind which stands in need of constant communion with
men of culture and refinement. He knows the world by this time well
enough, what he does not know are the heights. His character suffers, I
think, from association with second-rate people. He is too heedless of
his good name.
Is it too late for him to acquire strength of character? His faults are
chiefly the effects of a forcible and impetuous temperament: they may be
expected to diminish as age increases and experience moulds. But
character does not emerge out of the ashes of temperament. It is not to
be thought that Mr. Churchill is growing a character which will
presently emerge and create devotion in his countrymen. Character for
him must lie in those very qualities which are now chiefly responsible
for his defects--his ardour, his affectibility, his vehemence, his
impetuous rashness, his unquestioned courage. One thing only can convert
those qualities into terms of character, it is a new direction.
There is perhaps only one other man in the present House of Commons who
could do more than Mr. Churchill for his country and the world. All Mr.
Churchill needs is the direction in his life of a great idea. He is a
Saul on the way to Damascus. Let him swing clean away from that road of
destruction and he might well become Paul on his way to immortality.
This is to say, that to be saved from himself Mr. Churchill must be
carried away by enthusiasm for some great ideal, an ideal so much
greater than his own place in politics that he is willing to face death
for its triumph, even the many deaths of political life.
At present he is but playing with politics. Even in his most earnest
moments he is only "in politics" as a man is "in business." But politics
for Mr. Churchill, if they are to make him, if they are to fulfil his
promise, must be a religion. They must have nothing to do with Mr.
Churchill. They must have everything to do with the salvation of
mankind.
It is time, high time, he hitched his waggon to a star.
Ever since I first met him, when he was still in the twenties, Mr.
Churchill has seemed to me one of the most pathetic and misunderstood
figures in public life. People have got it into their heads that he is a
noisy, shameless, truculent, and pushing person, a sort of intellectual
Horatio Bottomley of the upper classes. Nothing could be further from
the truth.
Mr. Churchill is one of the most sensitive of prominent politicians, and
it is only by the exercise of his remarkable courage that he has
mastered this element of nervousness. Ambition has driven him onward,
and courage has carried him through, but more often than the public
thinks he has suffered sharply in his progress. The impediment of
speech, which in his very nervous moments would almost make one think
his mouth was roofless, would have prevented many men from even
attempting to enter public life; it has always been a handicap to Mr.
Churchill, but he has never allowed it to stop his way, and I think it
is significant both of his courage and the nervousness of his
temperament that while at the beginning of a speech this thickness of
utterance is most noticeable, the speaker's pale face showing two
patches of fiery pink in his cheeks, the utterance becomes almost clear,
the face shows no sign of self-consciousness, directly he has
established sympathy with his audience. It is interesting to notice an
accent of brutality in his speaking, so different from the suave and
charming tones of Mr. Balfour; this accent of brutality, however, is
not the note of a brutal character, but of a highly strung temperament
fighting its own sensibilities for mastery of its own mind. Mr.
Churchill is more often fighting himself than his enemies.
His health has been against him: his heart and his lungs have not given
him the support he needs for his adventurous and stormy career. At
times, when every man's hand has seemed to be against him, he has had to
fight desperately with both body and mind to keep his place in the
firing line. Some of his friends have seen him in a state of real
weakness, particularly of physical weakness, and for myself I have never
once found him in a truculent or self-satisfied frame of mind. I believe
he is at heart a modest man, and I am quite certain he is a delicate and
a suffering man. But for the devotion of his wife I think he could not
have held his place so long.
Fate, too, has opposed him. His enemies are never tired of shouting the
two names of Antwerp and Gallipoli. They are convenient terms of abuse:
I suppose they would have destroyed most politicians; certainly they are
more deadly than such a phrase as "spiritual home," for although the
world may be ignorant of the fact, every honest, educated man must
acknowledge a debt of gratitude to the thinkers of ancient Germany,
while to be associated with operations which involve the suffering, the
death, and the defeat of British troops is in every way more fatal to
reputation.
But, in truth, both these strokes of military strategy were sound in
conception. I doubt indeed if the military historian of the future, with
all the documents before him, will not chiefly condemn the Allies for
their initial failure to make Antwerp a sea-fed menace to the back of
the German Armies; while even in our own day no one doubts that if Lord
Kitchener, in one of his obstinate moods, had not refused to send more
divisions to Gallipoli we should have taken Constantinople. The fault of
those operations lay not in attempting them but in not adequately
supporting them.
Mr. Churchill has had bad luck in these matters, but even here it is the
lack of character which has served him most ill. He never impressed Lord
Kitchener as a man of power, although that sullen temperament grew in
the end to feel an amused affection for him. He did excellent work at
the Admiralty, work of the highest kind both before and at the outbreak
of war, but his colleagues in the Cabinet never realized the importance
of this work, judging it merely as "one of Winston's new crazes,"
Ministers speak of him in their confidences with a certain amount of
affection, but never with real respect. Many of them, of course, fear
him, for he is a merciless critic, and has an element of something very
like cruelty in his nature; but even those who do not fear him, or on
the whole rather like him, will never tell you that he is a man to whom
they turn in their difficulties, or a man to whom the whole Cabinet
looks for inspiration.
General William Booth of the Salvation Army once told Mr. Churchill
that he stood in need of "conversion," That old man was a notable judge
of character.
LORD HALDANE
LORD HALDANE
The Rt. Hon. Richard Burdon Haldane was born in 1856. Graduate of
Edinburgh University; Professor of Philosophy, St. Andrew's
University; Barrister, 1879; Q.C., 1890; created 1st Viscount,
1911; M.P. from Haddingtonshire, 1885-1911; Sec'y for War, 1905-12;
Rector of Edinburgh Univ.; Chancellor, Univ. of Bristol; Author of
various philosophical works.
[Illustration: RT. HON. RICHARD BURDON HALDANE]