(VIEWED BY HENRY W. LUCY.)
[Sidenote: MR. G. AND MR. D.]
There is a general impression from observation of Mr. Gladstone's
manner in the House of Commons and its precincts that his head is kept
so high in the empyrean of State affairs that he takes no note of men
and things on a lower level. His ordinary habits in connection with
persons on and off the Treasury Bench are certainly diametrically
opposed to those of Lord Beaconsfield when he was still in the House of
Commons. On the Treasury Bench Mr. Disraeli was wont to sit impassive,
with arms folded and head bent forward, not without suspicion in the
minds of those at a distance that he slept. Nearer observation would
show that he was particularly wide awake. His eyes (with the exception
of his hands, the last feature in his personal appearance to grow old)
were ever alert and watchful, more particularly of right hon. gentlemen
on the bench opposite. He rarely spoke to colleagues on either side of
him, making an exception in favour of the late Lord Barrington. But
it was only in dull times, in the dinner-hour or after, that he thus
thawed. Even at such times he was rather a listener than a converser.
Lord Barrington lived much in society and at the clubs. It was probably
gossip from these quarters which he retailed for the edification of
his chief, whose wrinkled face was often softened by a smile as Lord
Barrington whispered in his ear.
[Illustration: "ASLEEP OR AWAKE?"]
Mr. Gladstone, on the Treasury Bench, is constantly in a state of
irrepressible energy. He converses eagerly with the colleague sitting
on his right or left, driving home with emphatic gestures his arguments
or assertions. In quieter mood he makes a running commentary on the
speech that is going forward, his observations, I have been told, being
refreshingly pungent and often droll. His deep, rich voice carries far.
Occasionally it crosses the table, and the right honourable gentleman
on his legs at the moment is embarrassed or encouraged by what he
cannot help overhearing.
[Sidenote: A WARY JUDGE.]
Occasionally the Premier seems to be asleep, but it is not safe to
assume as a matter of course that, because his eyes are closed and his
head resting on the back of the bench, he is lapped in slumber. There
is an eminent judge on the Bench whose lapses into somnolency are part
of the ordered proceedings of every case that comes before him. For
many terms he baffled the observation of the smartest junior, as of
the most keen sighted leader. He had his sleep, but instead of awaking
with a more or less guilty start, and ostentatiously perusing his notes
as others used, he, when he woke, scrupulously preserved exactly the
same position and attitude as when he truly slept. Closely following
for a few moments the argument of the learned gentleman who had lulled
him to sleep, he, softly opening his eyes, and not otherwise moving,
interposed a remark pertinent to the argument. For a long time this
device baffled the Bar. But it was discovered at last, and is to-day of
no avail.
Mr. Gladstone has no occasion for the exercise of this ingenuity.
He may, without reproach, snatch his forty winks when he will, none
daring to make him afraid. He admits that, "at my time of life," he
finds a long and prosy speech irresistible, often enriching him between
questions and the dinner-hour with the dower of a quiet nap.
[Illustration: "FORTY WINKS."]
[Sidenote: IN THE DIVISION LOBBY.]
This contrast of demeanour on the Treasury Bench as between Mr.
Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone was equally marked in the division lobby.
The passage through the division lobby, which sometimes occupies a
quarter of an hour, is for Mr. Gladstone an opportunity for continuing
his work.
It was one of the most dramatic incidents on the historic night in
June, 1885, when his Ministry fell that, engaged in writing a letter
when the House was cleared for the particular division, he carried his
letter-pad with him, sat down at a table in one of the recesses of
the lobby, and went on writing as, at another tragic time of waiting,
Madame Defarge went on knitting. It was his letter to the Queen
recording the incidents of the night. Returning to the Treasury Bench,
Mr. Gladstone, still Premier, placed the pad on his knee and quietly
continued the writing, looking up with a glance of interested inquiry
when the shout of exultation, led by Lord Randolph Churchill, following
on the announcement of the figures, told him that he might incidentally
mention to Her Majesty that the Government had been defeated by a
majority of twelve.
[Illustration: "SEEING NOBODY."]
[Sidenote: A LOST VOTE.]
On the very few occasions when Mr. Gladstone visits the inner lobby on
his way to and from the Whips' room, he strides through the groups of
members with stiffened back and head erect, apparently seeing nobody.
This is a habit, certainly not discourteously meant, which cost him a
valuable friend, and made for the Liberal party one of its bitterest
and most effective enemies. Twenty years ago there entered the House of
Commons in the prime of life a man who early proved the potentiality of
his becoming one of its brightest ornaments. A Radical by conviction,
instinct, and habits dating from boyhood, he had raised in an important
district the drooping flag of Liberalism, and amid the disaster that
attended it at the General Election of 1874, had carried nearly every
seat in his own county.
There were other reasons why he might have looked for warm welcome
from the Liberal chief on entering the House of Commons. Mr. Gladstone
had a few years earlier, at another crisis in the fortunes of the
party, been a guest at his father's house, and was indebted to him
for substantial assistance in carrying the General Election of 1868.
A singularly sensitive, retiring man, the new member felt disposed to
shrink from the effusive reception that would naturally await him when
he settled in London within the circuit of personal communication with
Mr. Gladstone. He was in his place below the gangway on the Opposition
side for weeks through the Session of 1874. Mr. Gladstone, it is true,
was not then in constant attendance, but he not infrequently looked in,
and was at least within morning-call distance of the new member. They
met for the first time in the quiet corridor skirting the Library, and
Mr. Gladstone, his head in the air, passed his young friend, son of an
old friend, without sign of recognition.
It was, of course, a mere accident, an undesigned oversight, certainly
not enough to shape a man's political career. I do not say that alone
it did it, but I have personal knowledge of the fact that it rankled
deeply, and was the beginning of the end that wrecked a great career
and has cost the Liberal party dearly.
[Sidenote: MR. DISRAELI AND DR. O'LEARY.]
There is a well-known story of close upon this date which illustrates
Mr. Disraeli's manner in analogous circumstances. In the Parliament of
1874 there was a gentleman named Dr. O'Leary--William Haggarty O'Leary,
member for Drogheda. The Doctor was a very small man, with gestures
many sizes too big for him, and a voice that on occasion could emulate
the volume of Major O'Gorman's. He was fierce withal, as one of his
colleagues will remember. One night in the Session of 1875, when the
Coercion Bill was under discussion, Dr. O'Leary was put up to move
the adjournment. In those halcyon days it was possible for a member
to recommend such a motion in a speech of any length to which he felt
equal. Dr. O'Leary was proceeding apace when, his eye alighting on the
immobile face of the noble lord who was then Mr. Dodson, he alluded
to him as "the right hon. gentleman the Financial Secretary to the
Treasury." A compatriot touched Dr. O'Leary's arm and reminded him that
Mr. Dodson was no longer in office. "The _late_ right hon. gentleman,
then," retorted Dr. O'Leary, turning a blazing countenance on his
interrupter.
[Illustration: "BEFORE THE FIRE."]
It was pending the division on the third reading of the Empress of
India Bill that Mr. Disraeli won over this irate Irishman. The Premier
was anxious to have the third reading carried by a rattling majority,
and spared no pains to gain doubtful votes. One night in a division on
another Bill he came upon Dr. O'Leary in the Ministerial lobby, a place
the then budding Parnellite party fitfully resorted to. Dizzy walked a
few paces behind the member for Drogheda. Quickening his pace, he laid
a hand on his shoulder and said: "My dear Doctor, you gave me quite a
start. When I saw you I thought for a moment it was my old friend Tom
Moore."
From that day the delighted Doctor's vote was unreservedly at the
disposal of his eminent and discriminating friend.
[Sidenote: A WORD IN SEASON.]
Mr. Disraeli, while Leader of the House of Commons, turned the
necessary idle moments of the division lobby to better account than
finishing up his correspondence. In the winter months he used to
station himself at a fire in one of the recesses, standing with
coat-tails uplifted, in an attitude which showed that, though of
Oriental lineage, he had a British substratum. As the throng of members
trooped towards the wicket, Dizzy, keenly watching them, would signal
one out and genially converse with him for a few moments. Those thus
favoured were generally members who had recently made a speech, and
were gratified for the rest of their lives by a timely compliment.
Others--those in the Conservative ranks much rarer--were men reported
by the Whips to be showing a tendency towards restiveness, whom a few
genial words brought back to the fold.
[Sidenote: MR. GLADSTONE'S HAT AND STICK.]
In a recent number, talking of hat customs in the House of Commons, I
observed that there are not many members of the present Parliament who
have seen Mr. Gladstone seated on either Front Bench with his hat on.
An exception was mentioned with respect to the Session of 1875, when,
having retired from the leadership and looking in occasionally to see
how things were getting on under Lord Hartington, he was accustomed
to sit at the remote end of the Treasury Bench wearing his hat and
carrying stick and gloves.
An esteemed correspondent, whose knowledge of Parliament is extensive
and peculiar, writes: "There was a time when Mr. Gladstone most
ostentatiously and designedly wore his hat after the year you mention.
It was when, during the Bradlaugh scenes, he left the leadership, with
the responsibility of persecuting Bradlaugh, to Stafford Northcote.
He brought stick and hat into the House, and put the latter on during
Northcote's proceedings, as much as to say, 'Well, as you have the
House with you, carry your tyrannical procedure through yourself. I am
not in it.' I think all this must be in your Parliament books."
I do not think it is; but I remember the episode very well, and the
embarrassment into which the unexpected attitude plunged good Sir
Stafford Northcote. The situation was remarkable, and, I believe,
unparalleled. Mr. Gladstone had just been returned to power by a
majority that exceeded a hundred. The Conservative forces were
shattered. Even with a Liberal majority, which at its birth always
contains within itself the seeds of disintegration, it appeared
probable that at least the first Session of the new Parliament
would run its course before revolt manifested itself. It turned out
otherwise. A resolution, moved by Mr. Labouchere, and supported from
the Treasury Bench, giving Mr. Bradlaugh permission to make affirmation
and so take his seat, was thrown out by a majority of 275 against 230.
[Illustration: "WITH HAT AND STICK."]
It was after this Mr. Gladstone temporarily abrogated his position as
Leader of the House, bringing in hat and stick in token thereof. When,
on the next day, Mr. Bradlaugh presented himself, made straight for
the table, and was subsequently heard at the bar, the Premier came in,
not only with hat and stick in hand, but wearing his gloves. All eyes
were turned upon him, when Mr. Bradlaugh, having finished his speech,
withdrew at the Speaker's bidding. But he did not move, and then and
thereafter, during the Session, Sir Stafford Northcote took the lead in
whatever proceedings ensued on the lively action of Mr. Bradlaugh.
[Sidenote: SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE AND MR. BRADLAUGH.]
What Sir Stafford thought of the duty thrust upon him by the action
of keener spirits below the gangway was suspected at the time. Years
afterwards, disclosure was made in a letter written by his second
son, Sir Stafford Northcote, and published by the _Daily News_ in
December last. When in 1886 the Conservatives returned to power, Mr.
Bradlaugh, who had been furiously fought all through the life of the
former Parliament, was permitted quietly to take his seat. Later, a
motion was made by Dr. Hunter to expunge from the journals of the House
the resolution declaring him incompetent to sit. This was an awkward
position for a Government which included within its ranks men who had
been most active in resistance to Mr. Bradlaugh's attempts to take
his seat. After the debate had gone forward for an hour or two, the
present Sir Stafford Northcote rose from the bench immediately behind
Ministers, and urged that with slight amendment the resolution should
be accepted.
I remember well the scene, above all the startled manner in which Mr.
W. H. Smith, then Leader of the House, turned round to regard this
interposition from so unexpected a quarter. The House instinctively
felt that it settled the matter. If a member habitually so unobtrusive
as Sir Stafford Northcote felt compelled to interpose and support
an amendment, which, however regarded, was a vote of censure on the
conduct of the Conservative party through the Parliament of 1880,
feeling in the Conservative ranks must be strong indeed. A Government
who showed a disinclination to accept the resolution would find
themselves in a tight place if they persisted. What course would Mr. W.
H. Smith take?
Looking at his honest, ingenuous face, it was easy to read his
thoughts. Startled at first by the appearance on the scene of the
member for Exeter, he sat with head half turned watching and listening
intently. Gradually conviction dawned upon him. It was Sir Stafford
Northcote's revered father who had officially led the opposition to Mr.
Bradlaugh. Now, whilst the son spoke, there seemed to come a voice from
the grave pleading that enough had been done to vindicate Christianity
and Constitutionalism, urging that the House of Commons would do well
to perform a gracious and generous act and sooth Mr. Bradlaugh's last
moments (he was that very night lying on his death-bed) with news
that the obnoxious resolution had been erased. All this was glowingly
written on Mr. Smith's face as Sir Stafford Northcote spoke, and when
he followed everyone was prepared for the statement of acquiescence
made on these lines. There was nothing more to be said, and without a
division it was agreed to strike out the resolution from the journals
of the House.
[Sidenote: THE ARTFULNESS OF OLD MORALITY.]
Sir Stafford Northcote's letter, dated from the House of Commons,
13th November, 1893, throws a flood of light on this historic episode
and, incidentally, upon the methods of management of the homely,
innocent-looking gentleman who led the House of Commons from 1886 to
his lamented death in the autumn of 1891. "Shortly after the debate on
Dr. Hunter's motion began," Sir Stafford writes, "Mr. Smith asked me to
come into his private room, and asked me what I thought of the motion.
I replied that I did not see how the Government could accept it as it
stood, as it conveyed a censure on the Conservative party for their
action in the past; but that if this part of the motion were dropped,
I thought that the rest of the resolution might be agreed to. I added
that I would willingly make such an appeal to Mr. Smith publicly in the
House. Mr. Smith quite approved my suggestion. I made the appeal from
my place in the House, and Dr. Hunter consented to amend his motion."
Whence it will appear that the whole scene which entirely took in a
trusting House of Commons was what in another walk of industry is
called a put-up job.
[Illustration: LORD IDDESLEIGH.]
On the late Lord Iddesleigh's feelings during the Bradlaugh campaign,
his son's letter sheds a gentle light. "My suggestion to Mr. Smith."
Sir Stafford writes, "was partly based on the recollection that my
father had often said to me that, while he had had no hesitation in
discharging what he believed to be his duty in the various painful
scenes with which Mr. Bradlaugh's name is associated, he had always
felt much pain at having to take a course personally painful to a
fellow-member of the House."
[Sidenote: THE BIRTH OF THE FOURTH PARTY.]
It is a mistake deeply rooted in the public mind that it was Lord
Randolph Churchill who gave the first impulse to the creation of the
Fourth Party. This is an error due to his fascinating personality,
and the prominent part he later took in directing what for its size
and voting power is the most remarkable engine known in Parliamentary
warfare. The real creator of the Fourth Party was Sir Henry Wolff, now
Her Majesty's Minister at the Court of Madrid. It was he who first
saw the opportunity presented by the return of Mr. Bradlaugh for
Northampton of harassing the apparently impregnable Government. It so
happened that Lord Randolph Churchill was not present in the House at
the time the first movement commenced.
[ILLUSTRATION: SIR HENRY WOLFF.]
In later stages of the struggle Mr. Bradlaugh, so far from showing
indisposition to take the oath, insisted upon his right to do so,
and even administered it to himself. There was nothing in the world
to prevent his falling in with the throng that took the oath on the
opening of the new Parliament on the 30th of April, 1880. Had he done
so and quietly taken his seat, the course of events in that Parliament
would have been greatly altered. But Mr. Bradlaugh was not disposed to
miss his opportunity, and having allowed two or three days to elapse,
during which prominence was given to his position and curiosity aroused
as to his intention, he presented himself at the table and claimed the
right to make affirmation.
Even then, had Mr. Gladstone been in his place on the Treasury Bench,
the danger might have been averted. But the Premier and his principal
colleagues were at the time, pending re-election on acceptance of
office, not members of the House. Lord Frederick Cavendish, then
Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and all unconscious of the tragedy
that would close his blameless life, moved for a Select Committee
to inquire into the circumstances. The attitude of the Conservative
party at this moment was shown by the fact that Sir Stafford Northcote
seconded the motion. It was agreed to as a matter of course.
It was on the nomination of this Committee eight days later that
there were indications of trouble ahead. Sir Henry Wolff moved the
previous question, and took a division on it. Here again the feeling
of official Conservatives was shown by gentlemen on the Front Bench,
led by Sir Stafford Northcote, leaving the House without voting. On the
21st of May, Mr. Bradlaugh brought matters to a crisis by advancing
to the table claiming to take the oath. It was now that Sir Henry
Wolff brought things to a crisis. Having strategically placed himself
at the corner seat below the gangway, he threw himself bodily across
Mr. Bradlaugh's passage towards the table, crying "I object!" This
objection he sustained in an animated speech, concluding by moving a
resolution that Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to take the oath. It was
in support of this resolution that Lord Randolph Churchill appeared
upon the scene, interposing in the adjourned debate.
[Illustration: MR. GORST.]
He was not present during any earlier movement on the part of Sir Henry
Wolff. But his keen eye saw the opening to which Sir Stafford Northcote
was yet persistently blind. He joined hands with Sir Henry Wolff. To
them entered a gentleman then known as Mr. Gorst, and much later Mr.
Arthur Balfour. Thus was formed and welded a personal and political
association which has given an Ambassador to Madrid, has bestowed upon
the astonished Conservative party two leaders in succession, and has
endowed Mr. Gorst, in some respect not exceeded in ability by any of
his colleagues, with a modest knighthood and soothing recollections of
a too brief colleagueship with Lord Cross at the India Office.
[Sidenote: NEW MEN AND OLD PLACES.]
Mr. Gladstone has been singularly fortunate in the selection of new
blood for his Ministry. Mr. Disraeli, by some happy hits--not the
least effective the bringing of Mr. W. H. Smith within the ring fence
of office--justly earned a high reputation for insight to character.
Till this Parliament, one never heard of "Mr. Gladstone's young men,"
the innate conservatism of his mind and character leading him to
repose on level heights represented by personages like Lord Ripon and
Lord Kimberley. Growing more audacious with the advance of years,
Mr. Gladstone introduced new men to his last Ministry with success
distinctly marked in each particular instance. Mr. Asquith, as Home
Secretary; Mr. Acland, as Vice-President of the Council; Mr. Herbert
Gardner, as Minister for Agriculture; Sir Edward Grey, as Parliamentary
Secretary to the Foreign Office; Mr. Sydney Buxton, in a corresponding
position at the Colonial Office; Mr. Burt, at the Board of Trade; Sir
Walter Foster, at the Local Government Board, were all new to office
when they received their appointments, and each has satisfied the
expectation of the most critical Assembly in the world.
[Illustration: SIR EDWARD GREY.]
The Junior Lords of the Treasury who act as Whips were also new
to office, whilst Mr. Marjoribanks, though he had gone through a
Parliament as Junior Whip, for the first time found in his hands the
direction of one of the most important posts in a Ministry based upon
a Parliamentary majority. The remarkable and unvaried success of the
Liberal Whips--the team comprising Mr. Thomas Ellis, Mr. Causton, and
Mr. McArthur--was recognised in these pages very early in the Session,
and has since become a truism of political comment.
[Illustration: MR. SEALE-HAYNE.]
Mr. Seale-Hayne is another Minister new to the work who realizes for
his chief the comfort of a department that has no annals. The office of
Paymaster-General is not quite what it was in the days of Charles James
Fox. A certain mystery broods over its functions and its ramifications.
Mr. Seale-Hayne is, personally, of so retiring a disposition that he
is apt to efface both his office and himself. But the fact remains
that affairs in the office of the Paymaster-General have not cost Mr.
Seale-Hayne's illustrious chief a single hour's rest. No Irish member,
shut off by the Home Rule compact from foraging in familiar fields,
has been tempted to put to the Paymaster-General an embarrassing
question relating to the affairs of his office. Mr. Hanbury has left
him undisturbed, and Cap'en Tommy Bowles has given him a clear berth.
Whom Mr. Seale-Hayne pays, or where he gets the money from to meet
his engagements, are mysteries locked in the bosom of the Master. It
suffices for the country to know that Mr. Seale-Hayne is an ideal
Paymaster-General.
[Illustration: MR. ASQUITH.]
[Sidenote: MR. ASQUITH.]
Whilst all the new Ministers have been successes, the Home Secretary,
by reason of the importance of his office and force of character,
has done supremely well. This must be peculiarly grateful to Mr.
Gladstone, since the member for Fife was his own especial find. That
when a Liberal Ministry was formed some office would be allotted to Mr.
Asquith was a conclusion commonly come to by those familiar with his
career in the last Parliament. But I will undertake to say that his
appointment at a single bound to the Home Secretaryship, with a seat in
the Cabinet, was a surprise to everyone, not excepting Mr. Asquith, who
is accustomed to form a very just estimation of his own capacity. The
Solicitor-Generalship appeared to most people who gave thought to the
subject the natural start on his official career of a young lawyer who
had shown the aptitude for Parliamentary life displayed by Mr. Asquith.
Mr. Gladstone knew better, and his prescience has been abundantly
confirmed.
Next to the post of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that of
Home Secretary is by far the most difficult successfully to fill. Proof
of this will appear upon review of the measure of success obtained by
incumbents of the office since the time of Mr. Walpole. The reason
for the pre-eminence and predicament is not far to seek. The Colonial
Secretary has distant communities to deal with, and so has the
Secretary of State for India. The Minister for War and the First Lord
of the Admiralty each has his labour and responsibility confined within
clearly marked limits. So it is with the Postmaster-General, the First
Commissioner of Works, and, in less degree, with the President of the
Board of Trade and the President of the Local Government Board. The
Home Secretary has all England for his domain, with occasional erratic
excursions into Scotland.
There is hardly any point of the daily life of an Englishman which
is not linked with the Home Office, and does not open some conduit
of complaint. Before he had been twelve months in office Mr. Asquith
was hung in effigy in Trafalgar Square. That, it is true, was a
momentary exuberance on the part of the Anarchists. The incident
leaves unchallenged the assertion that there has been no serious or
well-sustained protest against Mr. Asquith's administration at the Home
Office since he succeeded Mr. Matthews. Comparisons are undesirable.
But the mere mention of the name of Mr. Asquith's predecessor reminds
us that the case was not always thus.
In his Parliamentary career Mr. Asquith's success has been equally
un-chequered. It was a common saying among people indisposed to hamper
novices by unwieldy weight of encouragement, that when Mr. Asquith was
placed in a position where he would have to bear the brunt of debate,
he would certainly break down. This cheerful prognostication was based
upon the assertion that the speeches that had established his fame in
the House of Commons were carefully prepared, written out, and, if not
learned off by rote, the speaker was sustained in their delivery by the
assistance of copious notes. This assertion was so confidently made,
and appeared to be so far supported by a certain precision of epigram
in the young member's Parliamentary style, that the theory obtained
wide acceptance.
Everyone now admits that the Home Secretary, occasionally drawn into
debate for which he has had no opportunity for preparation at his desk,
has spoken much more effectively than Mr. Asquith was wont to do. He
has the great gifts of simplicity of style, lucidity of arrangement,
and a fearless way of selecting a word that conveys his meaning, even
though it may sound a little harsh. To this is added a determined,
not to say belligerent, manner, which implies that he is not in any
circumstances to be drawn a hair's-breadth beyond the line which
duty, conscience, and conviction have laid down for him and that if
anyone tries to force him aside he will probably get hurt. This is an
excellent foundation on which a Home Secretary may stand to combat
all the influences of passion and prejudice that are daily and hourly
brought to bear upon him.
Of its general effect a striking and amusing illustration was
forthcoming in the closing days of the winter Session. During Mr.
Morley's temporary withdrawal on account of illness, Mr. Asquith
undertook to take his place at question time in the House of Commons.
For a night or two he read the answers to questions put by Irish
members, and then Mr. Morley's absence promising to be more protracted
than was at first thought probable, the Chancellor of the Duchy, a
Minister with fuller leisure, relieved the Home Secretary of the task.
Thereupon a story was put abroad that Mr. Asquith had been superseded
upon the demand of the Irish members, who had privily conveyed to Mr.
Gladstone a peremptory intimation that they could not stand the kind
of answers Mr. Asquith chucked at them across the floor of the House.
It was added that the appearance on the scene of Mr. Bryce averted an
awkward crisis, the Irish members making haste to declare their perfect
satisfaction with his replies, and their rejoicing at deliverance from
Mr. Asquith's hectoring.
[Illustration: PROFESSOR BRYCE.]
Then it turned out that the answers given through the course of the
week in question had been neither Mr. Asquith's nor Mr. Bryce's. Each
one had been written out by Mr. John Morley. Only, on two nights Mr.
Asquith had read the manuscript, and on two others the task had been
discharged by Mr. Bryce. Thus do manners make the man.
_Singing Bob._