samuel henry jeyes: the earl of rosebery

8/12/2019 Samuel Henry Jeyes: The Earl of Rosebery

1/306

^^^^^M^H^|Ktf|I.


2/306

Digitized by the Internet Arcinivein 2008 witii funding from

IVIicrosoft Corporation

littp://www.archive.org/details/earlofroseberyOOjeyeuoft


3/306

THE PRIME MINISTERS OF ENGLANDEDITED BYSTUART

J.REID

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY


4/306

THEPRIiME MINISTERS of ENGLAND

A SERIES OF POLITICAL BIOGRAPHIESEDITED BYSTUART J. REID

Author of Thi; Life and Times of Sydney Smith, etc./F;/>4 Photogravure Frontispieces. Cloth, 2s. 6d. 7tet per vol.

VISCOUNT MELBOURNE.By Henry Duncklev ( Verax ).

Sn< ROBERT PEEL.By Justin McCarthy.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL.By Stuart J. Reid. Fourth Edition.

THE EARL OF DERBY.By George Saintsbury.THE EARL OF ABERDEEN.

By Lord StanmORE. Third Edition.VISCOUNT PALMERSTON.

By the Duke of Argyi.i,. I'hird Edition.THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD.

By James Anthony Froude. Ninth Edition.W. E. GLADSTONE.

By G. W. E. Russell. Fifth Edition.THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.

By H. D. Traill. Second Edition.LORD ROSEBERY.

By Samuel Henry Jeyes.Larpe Paper Library Edition, printed on hand-made paper, witli

extra illustrations, fac-sinxilc reproductions of letters and speeches insome cases. Only sold in complete sets. For price apply to thebooksellers.


5/306


6/306


7/306

THE EARL OF

ROSEBERYBYSAMUEL HENRY JEYES

LONDONJ. M. DENT & CO.ALDINE HOUSE, BEDFORD STREET

1906

s [


8/306

j4// rights restr-vcd

OP


9/306

PREFACEThe writer of the following account of Lord Rosebery'spublic career wishes to acknowledge his obligations to thesuccessive volumes of the Annual Register, to Mr. JohnMorley's Life of Gladstone, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice'srecent biography of Lord Granville, Mr. Herbert Paul's Histor)' of Modern England, and many other standardworks which he has consulted. He has also made free andprofitable use of Mr. T. F. G. Coates's Life and Speechesof Lord Roseber}', Miss Jane T. Stoddart's IllustratedBiography of Lord Rosebery, Mr. J. A. Hammerton's Lord Rosebery, Imperialist, and The Foreign Policyof Lord Rosebery (anonymous).He has to thank the Editor of this series, Mr. Stuart J.Reid, for many valuable suggestions.


10/306


11/306

TAGE

TABLEOFCONTENTS

CHAPTER IBirth and parentageEton and Christ ChurchEarly travels

First speech in ParliamentDefence of RacingScottishhistoryAddress to the Social Science Congress . . . i

CHAPTER IIGeneral Election of 1874Mr. Gladstone's retirementThe

Eastern QuestionReputation of EnglandLord Roseberyand Mr. Gladstone Representation of MidlothianLordRosebery's marriage ^3

CHAPTER IIILiberal foreign policyGeneral Election of 1880Mr. Glad-

stone's second AdministrationLord Rosebery's positionHis relations with Scottish LiberalsAt the Home OfliceHis resignationScottish administration .... 23CHAPTER IV

Colonial tourAgricultural labourer's enfranchisementReformagitationLords and CommonsLord Rosebery's pleaAppeal for ModerationThe crisis solvedLord Roseberyand reform of the House of Lords J9

CHAPTER VAn Imperialist addressOccupation of EgyptGeneral Gordon'smissionLord Rosebery at EpsomRejoins the Ministry

Defeat of Mr. GladstoneDissensions in the CabinetLordRosebery's supporters in ScotlandFirst Reference to HomeRuleRecent developments of the Irish QuestionMutual


12/306

VIU LORD ROSEBERYPAGB

suspicions and Farty competitionMr. Pamcll's attitudeGeneral Election of 1885Mr. Gladstone's adoption ofHome RuleLord Rosebery's positionThe first SalisburyAdministration defeatedMr. Gladstone's third Administra-tionLord Rosebery Foreign SecretaryLiberal ImperialismThe ' Umbrella ' speech 53

CHAPTER VIGreek claimsLord Rosebery's noteBatoum a free port

Russian defiance of the Berlin TreatyLord Rosebery'sprotestFrance and the New HebridesSpanish TreatyConvention with ChinaDuties of a Foreign Minister . . 79

CHAPTER VIIGeneral Election of 1886Lord Salisbury's second Administra-

tionLord Rosebery and Gladstonian LiberalismOverturesfor Liberal ReunionLord Rosebery on Reform of theHouse of LordsSpeech at Leeds on Imperial Federation in1888Commercial and Fiscal aspectSubsequent develop-ment of Lord Rosebery's views Speech at BurnleyEconomic orthodoxy suspectedExplanation at the LiberalLeagueArguments against the Birmingham policy . . 90

CHAPTER VIIIInstitution of the London County CouncilLord Rosebery

electedOpposition to his ChairmanshipSuccess with theProgressivesDeath of Lady RoseberySecond MunicipalcontestLord Rosebery member for Finsbury ' Revival ofLondon'Disavowal of Party aimsGrowing unpopularityof the Conservative GovernmentLiberal campaignLordRoseliery at EdinburghGeneral Election of 1892Mr.Gladstone's new AdministrationLord Rosebery's accept-ance of Office 116

CHAPTER IXLord Rosebery at the Foreign OfficeThe British Occupation of

EgyptQuestion of Evacuation Previous negotiationsThe young Khedive's bid for independencePrompt actionof Great BritainTelegrams between Lord Rosebery andLord CromerCrisis settledGreat Britain and France-Lord Rosebery and M. WaddingtonIndications of futureBritish policy . . 131


13/306

CONTENTS ixCHAPTER X

TACEBritish position in UgandaCabinet differencesSir Gerald

Portal's missionRailway to Victoria NyanzaLord Rose-bery and Sir William HarcourtAttempt to improve theAnglo-German ConventionReasons of the failureFrenchaggression on the Upper NileMarchand's expeditionAttitude of the British GovernmentSignificant warningTrouble in SiamHigh-handed action of FranceDangersof conflictLord Rosel>ery's diplomacyWar between Chinaand JapanBritish mediation suggestedAttitude of theGreat PowersLord Rosebery's reply to criticismsOnContinental suspicions Treaty of Shimonoseki Hostilecombination of Russia, Germany, and FranceCoercion ofJapanAttitude of Great BritainLord Rosebery justifiedDifiSculties with the South African RepublicMr. Kriiger'spolicyPersecution of ArmeniansAction of Lord Rosebery 147

CHAPTER XILord Rosebery on the Home Rule Bill of 1893Sp)eech in the

House of Lords*A question of policy'The possiblealternativesNot a leap in the darkPhrases open tocriticismThe Coal StrikeLord Rosebery as mediatorThe Session of 1S93Mr. Gladstone and the PeersRadicaldiscontentMr. Gladstone's resignationLord Rosebery hissuccessorRumours of a Central partyMeeting of theLiberal partyLord Rosebery's statementPosition of a'Peer Premier'The new AdministrationThe Queen'sSpeechPeers' Debate on the AddressLord Rosebery on' the predominant partner 'Explanations in the CommonsSpeech at EdinburghAttitude of the Nationalist partiesUnionist criticismThe new Administration beaten on theAddressAn absurd positionThe Prime Minister disparagedAgitation against the PeersNational Liberal Federationat LeedsLord Rosebery's adviceProcedure by ResolutionA Constitutional dilemmaLord Rosebery and Sir WilliamHarcourtMansion House banquetMurder of PresidentCarnotDeath of the Emperor of Russia . . . .172


14/306

LORD ROSEBERYCHAPTER XII PAGE

Liberal meeting at CardilT Reception of the Prime MinisterWelsh DisestablishmentParnellites and RadicalsRetire-ment of the Duke of CambridgeThe Cordite VoteDefeatof the GovernmentLord Rosebery's resignationHis viewson the position of a Prime MinisterPlatform speechesDefeat of his AdministrationNeed for Liberal concentrationHouse of Lords the first questionLord Salisbury's thirdAdministrationLord Rosebery on Liberal failures PartyorganisationThe persecution of ArmeniansThe question ofBritish interventionLord Rosebery's retirementSpeech inexplanationDisagreement with Mr. GladstoneThis the' last straw *Lord Rosebery's other reasonsReferences tohis late colleaguesCompromise in politics .... 202

CHAPTER XIIIReappearance in public controversyImperial and Municipal

retrenchmentEulogies on Mr. GladstoneFashoda speechReconstitution of the Liberal partySouth African Warreference to MajubaMr. Chamberlain and FranceTheGeneral Election of 1900A policy for LiberalsDeath ofQueen VictoriaFeuds in the Liberal partyA letter fromLord RoseberyAt the City Liberal ClubThe Chesterfieldspeech 'Clean the slate' Rejoinders and retortsAnglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902The Lord Kitchener proposalFree Trade speechesAnglo-French conventionReferenceto Sir Henry Campbell-BannermanParty dissensions modi-fiedLord Rosebery and Mr. RedmondOn duality ofgovernmentAt Liberal LeagueThe League and the PartySpeech at StourbridgeOn continuity in foreign policyOn Government by PartyThe example of JapanPartyversus Efficiency Resignation of Mr. BalfourSir HenryCampbell - Bannerman's Administration Lord Rosebery'spositionRetrospect .229

Index 277

I


15/306

LORD ROSEBERYCHAPTER I

Birth and parentageEton and Christ ChurchEarly travelsFirstspeech in Parliament Defence of Racing Scottish historyAddress to the Social Science Congress.

Of the gifts from nature and fortune that smooth the roadto success in English pubUc hfe, none perhaps was lackingat the birth of Lord Rosebery. Equally in evidence, how-ever, were opportunities and temptations that point to morefacile paths. It is the object of this sketch to describe theuse which he has made of his advantages, especially duringthe period when he was the last of the Liberal PrimeMinisters of Queen Victoria. Born on 7 May, 1847, ^t20 Charles Street, Berkeley Square, he was the son of theLord Dalmeny who died in 1851, and grandson of thefourth Earl of Rosebery. His father, who did not liveto complete his forty-second year, had sat in the Houseof Commons as member for the Stirling Burghs from 1832to 1847, held office as a Lord of the Admiralty in LordMelbourne's Administration, and published 'An Addressto the Middle Classes on the subject of Gymnastic Exer-cises.' It was written in the fluent style of the period, andcontained much excellent advice, which may have beenrequired at the time when it was offered. But in the light

B


16/306

2 LORD ROSEBERYof subsequent developments in sports, games, and athletics,the observations it records and the lesson it enforces seemcuriously antiquated. ' In other countries,' wrote LordDalmeny, ' the tendency is to think too much of diversions,and too little of work. Here the tendency is the reverse;to devote our whole attention to business and none torecreation. . . . We are, indeed, rich in literary and scien-tific societies, mechanics' reading clubs ; rich in institutionsfor bewildering and oppressing the overwrought brains ofour middle and operative classes with crude speculationsand ill-digested knowledge. But where are the institutionsfor gymnastics ? Where are the arenas where the limbs,the sinews, the spirits of our merchants may be recreatedand refreshed by manly diversions ? Where are the noblesports of our ancestors ? Where are the rude but invigora-ting pastimes which hardened their muscles, steeled theirnerves, exhilarated their spirits, and gladdened their hearts ?. . . We are the wisest, the greatest, but the saddest nationin the world. . . . Perhaps it may be said, All is very wellas it is, and where is the necessity for change? Everylarge community, every closely-thronged city, must have itsproportion of mortality and sickness. This is the ordinationof Providence and the lot of humanity, and why engage ina vain attempt to combat an established and immutableorder of things ? All is not well. . . . This doctrine, thatall is well that exists, is a dangerous delusion, and is, afterall, the lazy excuse of those spurious philosophers who averttheir faces from abuses to escape the trouble of reformingthem.'

This last sentence, and some others, in the pamphletwritten by the father who did not live long enough to windistinction might have come from the pen of the accom-


17/306

BIRTH AND PARENTAGE 3plished son. It is, perhaps, worth note that the youngWhig patrician was independent enough to scoff at the'crude speculations and ill -digested knowledge,' which, sohe thought, were produced by the philosophy and inquiryof the Early Victorian period. The thought of that robustand fertile epoch was essentially Radical, yet Lord Rose-bery's father was able to treat it as having no relation tothe Liberal principles which he represented in Parliament,and quietly put it aside with an air of tolerant indifference.Nor will it escape remark that the heir to a Scotch earldomlooked on ' merchants ' and ' operatives ' as both beingmembers of ' the middle classes ' and equally in need ofadvice from a person who knew what was good for them.The phrase was used and, no doubt, accepted without asuggestion or suspicion of offence. And this was little morethan half a century ago.The mother of Lord Rosebery (who subsequently became

Duchess of Cleveland) was the only daughter of the fourthEarl Stanhope, and one of the most beautiful and giftedladies about the Court of Queen Victoria. The distinctionof her personal appearance, the gaiety and wit of her con-versation, her very considerable literary attainments, and herinterest in historical studies, rendered her one of the mostremarkable women of a reign which was conspicuous forthe development of feminine intellect and ambition. De-ductions in heredity are confidently drawn only by personsunacquainted with the problems which they undertaketo solve, but it may fairly be assumed that some of thepersonal qualities and aptitudes displayed by Lord Rose-bery were either inherited from his mother or inspired byher fascinating example.

Yet he owed as much, or almost as much, to training and


18/306

4 LORD ROSEBERYinstruction at school as to his descent and home surround-ings. After a period spent with Mr. W. R. Lee at Brighton,the boy, then Lord Dalmeny, and heir to the Earldomof Roscbery, was sent to Eton in September, 1861, wherehe fell under the influence of Mr. William Johnson, betterknown under the name, which he afterwards assumed,of Cory. Other scholars of the period were more learned,more exact, and wider in their range than the author of' lonica,' but few modem Englishmen have so completelyabsorbed and assimilated the spirit and meaning of classicalculture. It is possible, perhaps it is easy, to be idle at Eton,but at none of those foundations where a more strenuousHfe is inculcated and enforced, not even at Rugby or Win-chester, is there a similar atmosphere of intellectual accom-plishment. Lads who are not wedded to great thoughtsand high endeavour at least cohabit with them, and formintellectual associations which they do not altogether shakeoff when they mix in the rough-and-tumble of after life.The Old Etonian may be ignorant, or inefficient, or incur-ably lazy, but he is seldom a Philistine. Art, literature, andthe personal side of English history have been to the mostgraceless youngster a distinct part of the daily life of his' people at home ' or ' people his people know,' and healways preserves a certain respect, though he may have nopersonal liking, for the harmless hobbies of the noble oropulent amateur. In a school society like Eton the tone isset by the traditions of aristocracy, and even the ' youngbarbarians' keep up a bowing acquaintance with the HigherLife.

Acute, susceptible, and precociously clever, it would havebeen in any circumstances impossible for Lady Dalmeny'sson not to inhale some of the intellectual aroma of a place


19/306

EARLY TRAVELS 5so rich in romantic and historical associations. His in-timate friendship with William Cory for such his relation-ship towards his tutor rapidly becameenabled him toreap some of the benefits of Eton without, perhaps, takinga proportionate share in the labours. He was, indeed,'one of those who like the palm without the dust.' Inthe ' Letters and Journals of William Cory ' many referencesoccur to the brilliant but not industrious pupil. ' I am doingall I can,' wrote the tutor, 'to make him a scholar; any-how, he will be an orator, and, if not a poet, such a man aspoets delight in.' Already the lad's interest and curiosityhad been stirred by the public and private life of Pitt, and y^they were further stimulated by Cory's letters and conver-sation.

In 1864 they visited Rome, and had many eager talkstogether. It was the influence and kindly supervision ofCory that compensated, in some degree, for the imperfectuse which he made at Eton of the opportunities forsound and systematic instruction, and for the abrupt cur-tailment of his career at Oxford. As an undergraduate hewas fired with the ambition to win the Derby, and it washis persistence in keeping racehorses that led to his finalquarrel with the authorities at Christ Church. All thistime, however, and for many years afterwards, he maintainedan affectionate correspondence with his old tutor, and theletters are sufficient proof that, if he lacked the applicationrequired for academical success, his enthusiasm for pickingup knowledge by independent methods was quite unabated.It may sound paradoxical, yet it is substantially correct, thatthe alumnus of, perhaps, the two most famous foundationsin England is largely a self-educated man. But he hasalways been, even in the years which show little record of


20/306

6 LORD ROSEBERYpublic activity, a diligent reader of books, and, as he hasquite a remarkable memory, he has accumulated a veryconsiderable store of solid knowledge. When he has beenmost vigorously amusing himself he has not ceased to bea student and thinker.

In 1868, two years after his matriculation at Oxford, hesucceeded his grandfather as Earl of Rosebery, and, onshortly afterwards attaining his majority, took his seat inthe House of Lords. It is one of the drawbacks which helaments in a singularly smooth career that he never had the

\J chance of sitting in the House of Commons, and he showedno special eagerness to assume the duties of an hereditarylegislator. The first years of his manhood were spent insport and travelling, but in 1871 he was selected by Mr.Gladstone to second the motion for the Address in reply tothe Queen's Speech. It was a memorable year, and a largepart of Lord Rosebery's set oration was naturally devotedto the results of the great war between France and Germany.He received, and no doubt deserved, the kindly compli-ments which it is the custom to bestow upon the dulyaccredited novice ; but it may be interesting to mentionthat he was evidently nervous at this formal appearance inParliament, since it is recorded that he 'spoke with a gracefulemotion which became his years.'

Not for some time did he seriously try to make for him-self a position at Westminster, though on two or threeoccasions he intervened in debate on distinctively Scottishmatters. He was occupied largely with social pleasuresand on the Turf, not having been discouraged by the some-what ignominious failure of his first Ladas to win theDerby. But he exercised, now and again, his alreadyrecognised capacity for ornamental oratory. The fashion-


21/306

DEFENCE OF RACING 7able diversions and sporting tastes with which he wasassociated did not prevent him from earning a more seriousreputation. It was not at that time considered unbecomingin a young Liberal peer to take his pleasures amongst hisfellows, although even in 1S73 he seems to have thought itnecessary to offer a humorous defence of racing. He wasasking in the House of Lords for the appointment of aRoyal Commission to inquire into the capacity of thecountry to meet the present and future demand for horses.He jeered at the moralists who attributed every crime tothe Turf, and declared that in his opinion racing was asinnocent an amusement as large numbers of people couldenjoy. Hunting and shooting were reserved for the wealthy,but there was no one so poor that he could not visit a race-course. In a sanguine passage which has not been verifiedby the event, he expressed his belief that gambling was onthe decline, and asserted that there were few owners whohad as much on their horses as would form the stake on anordinary rubber of whist. As for trying to put down gam-bling by abolishing races, they might as well attempt toabolish rain by suppressing the gutters.

Neither Mr. Gladstone, who was the undisputed dictatorof the Liberal party, nor his fellow-countrymen in Scotland,thought the worse of Lord Rosebery because he was, moreor less, a racing man. The idea of banning a capable poli-tician because he diverted himself in his own fashion eitherhad not yet occurred to the zealots, or they had notattained such influence as to make their views countin public opinion. Mr. Gladstone had already markedLord Rosebery in his mind as one of the coming men,and in Edinburgh he was invited to lecture before thePhilosophical Institution. The subject which he chose was


22/306

S LORD KOSEBERYthe Union of England and Scotland, and the paper whichhe read showed how fruitful had been his studies in his-tory. He appealed to Scotch patriotism by dwelling sym-pathetically on the sacrifice imposed on the smaller partner.Except her Church, she lost all that she held most dear.For the sake of commercial advantages which few under-stood, and most despised, she was reduced from a king-giving kingdom to a province without a legislature. Herhaughty aristocracy was despised and ignored ; her capital,famous and brilliant, was shorn of its Court, its society,and its Parliament, and descended to the level of a countrytown. Nor were these sacrifices trivial at the time whenthey were made. After these admissions Lord Roseberycalled attention to the other side of the picture. Hespoke of the many great men who had come from Scotlandand won fame in England. Their ancestors had put theirhand to a mighty work, and it prospered. Two greatnations had been welded into one Empire, and localjealousies moulded into a common patriotism. On suchan achievement their descendants must gaze with awe andastonishmentthe means had been so adverse and theresult so astonishing.

In the Sessions of 1 8 7 2 and 1 8 7 3 he attested his Radicalismfor he was then regarded as belonging to the advanced wingof the Liberal Partyby arguing in the House of Lordsagainst applying, in the Scottish Education Bill, any part ofthe rates to instruction in denominational religion, andprotested against the statement that the 'religious difficulty'had no existence in Scotland. He proposed, therefore,that the Cowper-Temple Clause which had been establishedin England should be extended to Scotland. This, hebelieved, would result in the peaceful settlement of a long-


23/306

ADDRESS TO THE SOCIAL SCIENCE CONGRESS 9vexed question. This suggestion, however, did not findfavour with the official Liberals, and was rejected. In otherScottish matters, such as Church Patronage and the positionof the representative Peers, Lord Rosebery showed an activeinterest both in 1873 and 1874. But his Parliamentaryappearances were somewhat fitful at this period, and itwas by means of a non-political utterance that he firstattracted that public attention which he has ever afterwardsbeen able to command at pleasure. His address to the SocialScience Congress at Glasgow, in September, 1874, raised himat once to the first place among the younger generation ofpublic men. It was, indeed, a very remarkable performancefor a man of twenty-seven, who had never before given anystriking indications either of thought or industry. It didnot cut very deep, but it showed sympathetic study ofsocial conditions, it formulated a distinct yet not extrava-gant programme, and it abounded with glittering phrases.

It was, he said, the duty of a Social Science Congress toraise the condition of the nation by means which Parliamentwas unable or disdained to employan illimitable field ofoperations. The ' children of toil,' he said, were not meremachines of production, but vehicles of intelligence. Theywere a dark and mighty power like the Cyclopean inmatesof ^tna. Yet they had not succeeded in making theirwants, their creeds, and their interests sufficiently intelli-gible. Why, otherwise, had so little been done to advancetheir condition ? Why had both parties failed to win theirconfidence? How else was it that, when the working manhad made his voice heard on any question, it came likethunder in a clear sky? It was possible that some greatcatastrophe, such as a European war, might find us unableto deal with a teeming population ' confined within so small


24/306

lO LORD ROSEBERYan ark.' Suppose, again, that the United States should failto provide employment for the quarter of a million emigrantsthat we were accustomed to send out every year. Ourcivilisation was but little removed from barbarismwitnessthe daily reports of outrage in the press, the horrors re-vealed in Lord Ashley's Commission in 1842, and similarhorrors of quite recent date. ' And yet, after all, we canonly come to the hackneyed conclusion that the soleremedy for this state of things is education, a humanizingeducation. It is not a particularly brilliant or original thingto say, but severe truth is seldom brilliant or original.'The need of compulsory universal education having

been enforced by a variety of illustrations, Lord Roseberydeclared that we were living riotously and recklesslycon-suming more coal than we need and spending selfishly therightful heritage of posterity. We ought to be husbandingour powers and educating our people. There were no newdominions to explore ; our island was * no more capable ofexpansion than a quarter-deck.' Look at the industrialprogress of Switzerland. It was due to technical education.Consider the deficiency in this country of rational trainingfor commercial pursuits. In agriculture, again, there wasneed of special teaching both for farmers at home and forintending emigrants. Was there any instruction in thebusiness of legislation ? Macaulay told us that it was con-sidered wonderful that the Elder Pitt had never read' Vathek.' But could we feel any certainty that everymember of Parliament had read ' The Wealth of Nations ' ?Consider the strikes of working men against their em-ployers. Co-operation was the natural remedy, but itrequired a more general intelligence and a greater accu-mulalioii of capital among the working classes than existed


25/306


26/306

12 LORD ROSEBERYdone our duty well, even though our history should passaway, and our country become

An island salt and bare,The haunt of seals, and owls, and seamews' clang,

she may be remembered not ungratefully as the affluentmother of giant Commonwealths and peaceful Empires Uiatshall perpetuate the best qualities of the race.'The Social Science Congress was the birth of a disturbed

yet formative epoch. ' Everywhere,' said Lord Rosebery,' there was breaking out some strange manifestation. Thegrotesque congregation of the Shakers, the agriculturalSocialism of Harris, the polygamous Socialism of Mormon,the lewd quackery of Free Love, the mad blank misery ofNihilism, the tragic frenzy of the Parisian Commune, areportents no observer can neglect.' Most of these move-ments are either dead or languishing, and the Social ScienceCongress itself has disappeared. Perhaps the most per-manent fruit of its labours was the spirit of intelligentinquiry which it set itself to organize, and which LordRosebery so happily embodied in the Address that mademen look to him as one of the future statesmen of theBritish Empire.


27/306

CHAPTER IIGeneral Election of 1874Mr. Gladstone's retirementThe Eastern

QuestionReputation of EnglandLord Rosebery and Mr. Glad-stoneRepresentation of MidlothianLord Rosebery's marriage.

The General Election of 1874 resulted in a signal dis-comfiture of the Liberal party and a personal rebuff toMr. Gladstone. His proposal to abolish the Income Taxhad not struck the imagination of the electors, nor didsome of his colleagues disguise the resentment which theyfelt at his having made the appeal to the country at amoment v hich they considered inopportune. It is theundoubted privilege of a Prime Minister to act in thisrespect on his personal judgment, but the members of aCabinet are apt to feel themselves aggrieved when theiradvice has not been taken in a matter which so closelyaffects the fortunes of the whole party. Perhaps theself-reliance of Mr. Gladstone would have been less sharplycriticized if his bid for a renewal of power had beensuccessful. But this was impossible. The party was tornin sunder by the feud between the official Liberals whohad consented to the well-known compromise on thequestion of religious education in the elementary schoolsand the Nonconformist Radicals, led by Mr. Miall, whohad vainly held out for the institution of a purely secularsystem. There was disagreement also on the movementfor extending the franchise to the agricultural labourer,while the country as a whole was too prosperous to care

13


28/306


29/306

THE EASTERN QUESTION 1was revived in an acute form. Though the proposal madein the Andrassy Note of 1875, that the Powers should acttogether in laying pressure on the Porte to institute reformsin the Turkish provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, wasconsidered by the British Government, the Berlin Memor-andum of 1876 did not commend itself to Mr. Disraeli, whostill adhered to the traditional British policy of supportingTurkey against Russia.

During the anxious period that immediately precededand directly followed the war between those Powers,Lord Rosebery in Parliament maintained the attitudeof a vigilant critic of the Government. He scouted thesuggestion of England taking up arms in defence of theSultan, and declared that the time had come for releasingourselves from the engagements of the Treaty of 1856.The fall of Plevna and the advance of Russian troopson Constantinople was followed by the entrance of theDardanelles by the British fleet on 28 January (it withdrewthe next day to Besika Bay), and by an order calling outthe Reserve. These events, which led to the resignationof Lord Carnarvon and Lord Derby, became the subjectof keen criticism, and Lord Rosebery protested warmlyagainst the mystery that was being practised as to thenegotiations in which we were involved. He complainedespecially of the Secret Treaty signed by Lord Salisburyand Count Schuvaloff, and declared that no precedentcould be found for British statesmen going to a Congresswith the view of discussing great treaties and defendingpublic law after they had secretly bound themselves toconcede the stipulations which they had denounced andcontinued to denounce. The return of the British envoysfrom the Congress of Berlin in August, bringing ' Peace


30/306

l6 LORD ROSEBERYwith Honour,' gave Lord Rosebery an opening for a generalattack on the Eastern poUcy of the Conservative Govern-ment.

Speaking at Aberdeen (18 October) he observed a care-ful moderation of tone which was in marked contrast withthe impassioned oratory of Mr. Gladstone. Lord Roseberydeclined to charge Ministers with having been ' deliberatelyreckless and wanton,' yet their policy had landed thecountry very much where recklessness and wantonnesswould have landed it. Their policy was a drifting policy.They talked about maintaining the integrity and inde-pendence of the Ottoman Empire. What had becomeof it ? They declared that the basis of their operationswas the Treaty of 1856. Where was that treaty? TheCongress of Berlin had effected no settlement at all. TheGovernment had partitioned Turkey, had secured a doubtfulportion of the soil for themselves, had abandoned Greece,and had incurred vast and indefinite responsibilities in AsiaMinor. As to the acquisition of Cyprus, Lord Roseberyasserted that no defeat in battle could have been so pre-judicial to our prestige as the manner in which it waseffected. Hitherto, thanks to our elevated integrity ofpurpose and disinterestedness, we had been ' regarded asthe police of Europe.' We could no longer keep up ourmoral reputation on the Continent. We had flaunted theTreaty of 1856 as our banner and motto, yet when it cameto affect ourselves we treated it as so much waste paper.We had gained an unhealthy island, of which we had hadenough, but we had lost in exchange that of which we couldnot have too muchthe sympathy and respect of surround-ing nations.

It would be unfair, perhaps, to take seriously all the


31/306

THE EASTERN QUESTION 1propositions laid down in a platform speech at an excitedperiod, but Lord Rosebery is so well versed in the historyof modern times that one would be glad to learn, on hisauthority, which was the time at which we were credited byEuropean commentators with integrity of purpose and dis-interested conduct, and at what precise date we were believedto possess the qualities that entitled us to be the ' police ofEurope.' It is mere matter of fact that our ' moral reputa-tion on the Continent ' has always been of the worst, andnever worse than when Mr. Gladstone was at the head ofaffairs. We have not deserved either the imputations castupon us or the implied compliments to our political subtlety,but that is altogether a different question.

Lord Rosebery stood on firmer ground when he de-nounced our undertaking to defend the Sultan's Asiaticdomains in return for certain reforms that he promised toinstitute. This news, he said, fell upon the nation like athunderbolt. That, of course, was a rhetorical flourish.Nor was he quite justified in the interpretation which heplaced on the arrangement. 'Turkish reforms,' he said,' have been promised, with every sanctity of pledge, a scoreof times before. English ambassadors have called on theSultan countless times, but no reforms have ever takenplace. We arrive at this dilemma : either the Turkishreforms are to be undertaken by the Turks, in which casewe know from experience that there will be no reforms atall, or they will be undertaken by Great Britain, by Britishofficers, in which case it will mean the practical annexationof Asia Minor to this country.' As a matter of fact, theobject of Lord Beaconsfield's policy, good or bad, was notto institute reforms in Asia Minor, either by British orTurkish officers, but to prevent the annexation of that

c


32/306

I 8 LORD ROSEBERYregion by Russia under the pretext of carrying out reformsfor which he beUeved that she cared nothing.

' It was a mistake,' exclaimed Lord Rosebery, ' to treatTurkey as a Great Power. Turkey,' he said, ' was an im-potence. But we treated it as a Great Power or as animpotence according to our own convenience.' ThatTurkey is 'an impotence' is one of those declarations,made on the spur of the moment, which it is somewhatunpleasant for a statesman to recall when they happen tohave been falsified by subsequent events. Yet the speakerwas, perhaps, justified in calling attention to an aspect ofthe Eastern Question overlooked or obscured by poHticianswho, from ignorance or recklessness, were playing to theJingo gallery of the period. Bereft of moral authority, andhaving proved itself incapable of self-reform, the Govern-ment of the Sultan seemed to contain none of the elementsof vitality. In that sense it was, perhaps, admissible tospeak of Turkey as an impotence, nor would many Englishpoliticians, at the end of the 'Seventies or 'Eighties, haveventured to predict that, by sheer military strength, itwould survive, practically unimpaired, for another quarterof a century.

In order to show how far Lord Rosebery was prepared to goin support of Mr. Gladstone's Eastern policy, it may be wellto quote one somewhat startling sentence. Having pointedout that we had already sufficient responsibilities on ourshouldersin Canada, in Australia, in Africa, and in Indiahe asked whether his countrymen were prepared to undertakethe government of another entire dominion. As taxpayers,would they provide the money ? As men, would they shedtheir blood for the protection of Turkish rule in Asia ? ' Weare told that it is not a matter of choice,' he said ; ' that it


33/306

LORD ROSEBERY AND MR. GLADSTONE I9is necessary for the preservation of India. Sir, I believe itis no more necessary for the preservation of India than it isnecessary that we should damage Spain in order that weshould keep Gibraltar. But I do say this, that we may payeven too great a price for the preservation of India.' Inthought, though not in style, this utterance may reasonablybe compared with the famous ' Perish India ' that broughtthe late Professor Freeman into such deep opprobrium. Itis, indeed, astonishing to find this line of argument adoptedby the statesman who was to become the founder ofLiberal Imperialism.

At this time, however. Lord Rosebery enjoyed thepersonal confidence and lived under the influence of Mr.Gladstone. It was natural to fight against that masterfulspirit from the other side of the House of Commons, andthere was always a handful of his followers who cherisheda sense of detachment from their leader. But it was almostimpossible to stand within daily range of his compellinggenius and retain an independent judgment. Men of equalintellect, greater attainments, and character not inferior,fell under his sway. They might criticise, object, and evenlaugh, but he always had his way with them. It was nowonder that a young politician, as Lord Rosebery was,whose political education had lacked the robust traininggiven in the House of Commons, should for a time havesurrendered himself to Mr. Gladstone. It says somethingfor the practical discernment of one who was still an appren-tice, and not a specially industrious apprentice, to publiclife, that he promptly made up his mind that Mr. Gladstonewas the one predestined leader of the Liberal party. Hisretirement could not be permanent. It was all very well tosay that he had withdrawn of his own free will (which, by


34/306


35/306

REPRESENTATION OF MIDLOTHIAN 21but it may be laid down as generally true that a countryhas the sort of agitation which it deserves. And in theEngland of 1875 to 1885 the strength of popular convictionon foreign questions was nicely proportioned to ignoranceof the facts and problems involved.

Whether it be thought that Mr. Gladstone did well or illin the vehement crusade which he raised against theOttoman rule in Europe, a large share of the credit or dis-credit must be given to Lord Rosebery. It was at theinvitation of the young Peer that Mr. Gladstone came for-ward as Liberal candidate for Midlothian, and it was fromDalmeny that the momentous campaign was directed. Theappeal that Mr. Gladstone made to the Scottish electorswas, in effect, an appeal to the whole kingdom, and it wasuniversally recognised that much more would be at stakeon polling-day than the decision of a single constituency.From the local point of view, the political conflict was astruggle between the Buccleuch and the Rosebery interests,and in certain respects, though not in the expenditure ofmoney, it recalled some of the historic elections in thepre-Reform period. Distinguished and popular as was thePrimrose family in Midlothian, it could scarcely haveclaimed to contend on equal terms with the ancient andwealthy House that championed the cause of ScottishConservatism ; but the happy union which Lord Roseberyhad formed on 20 March, 1878, with Miss Hannah deRothschild made a material alteration in his position.By his close alliance with the richest and most powerfulfamily in the world, Lord Rosebery passed from being aclever and rising politician to an established rank amongthe magnates of the United Kingdom.The direct power of money in politics may have been


36/306


37/306

CHAPTER IIILiberal foreign policy- General Election of i8So Mr. Gladstone's

second Administration Lord Rosebery's position His relationswith Scottish LiberalsAt the Home OfficeHis resignationScottish administration.

It is one of the paradoxes of contemporary politics thatthe statesman who has most earnestly pleaded for continuityin foreign policy, and whose most distinctive achievementis to have founded a school of Imperialist Liberals, wasclosely associated with Mr. Gladstone throughout the periodwhen his conduct of our external affairs was equally vacilla-ting and unsuccessful. It is not necessary here to passjudgment on such incidents as the retrocession of theTransvaal, the evacuation of Kandahar, the imbroglio inEgypt, the series of disasters in the Soudan, and the mis-management that nearly involved us in war with Russia.In each case it is possible for an impartial historian to dis-cover reasons for modifying the popular verdict of the hour,nor can it be denied that Conservative critics made insuffi-cient allowance for the special difficulties under which theLiberal Administration was labouring. Now, however,when we are able to look back upon the events of thosefive years with some approach to a spirit of detachment,it is admitted, even by party apologists, that the generalresult was injurious both to the interests and the reputationof Great Britain. It is, no doubt, unfair to charge Mr.Gladstone with indifference to the welfare and advancement

23


38/306

24 LORD ROSEBERYof the Empire, but even his expansive intellect and widesympathies had their limitations. Apart from the fortunesof the Greek Christians in South-Eastern Europe, histhoughts were preoccupied with the dramatic and alwaysanxious changes in the Irish Question, with the enfranchise-ment of the agricultural labourer, and with an embitteredagitation against the House of Lords. Never until thecrisis had assumed a dangerous phase does he seem to haveconcentrated his prodigious powers on any of the greatforeign problems with which his Government was con-fronted.However this may have been, it is certainly wrong to

charge Mr. Gladstone with anything resembling publiccowardice, or even with shrinking from what he regarded asa just ware.g. against Turkey. It would not, perhaps,be easy to give a more precise definition of his attitude inforeign policy than his own explanation contained in oneof the speeches delivered in his second Midlothian cam-paign. In reply to the statement that if the Liberals shouldcome into power the destinies of the country would be ruledby the Manchester School, he declared that it had never ruledthe foreign policy of the country ' Never during a Conserva-tive Government, and never especially during a LiberalGovernment.' Disclaiming any intention of speakingslightingly of the Manchester School or the Peace Party,he ventured to point out their ' great and serious error.' Itwas a respectable, even a noble error. ' Abhorring allselfishness of policy, friendly to freedom in every countryof the earth, attached to the modes of reason, and detestingthe ways of force, this Manchester Schoolthe Peace Partyhas sprung prematurely to the conclusion that wars maybe considered as having closed their melancholy and miser-


39/306


40/306

26 LORD ROSEBERYfor the reconquest of the Soudan. Nor is it mere matterof conjecture that the timidity which, rightly or wrongly,was believed to account for the evacuation of Kandaharwas followed by an overbearing attitude on the part of theCzar's Government, and thus led to the nearly fatal dis-pute over Penjdeh, by which we were brought to the vergeof war in a case where our right was something worse thandoubtful. Such have been some of the demonstrableresults of the Gladstone Government's policy in 1880- 1885.Nor is it, perhaps, out of place to remark that, by one ofthe many ironies of history, the Cabinet which in recent timeshas been most distinctively non-Imperialist unconsciouslypaved the way for some of the most important acquisitionsof the British Empire. It was under Mr. Gladstone thatwe first made good our footing in the valley of the Nile.From the indecisive action that led to the breaking-up ofthe Anglo-French Condominium followed the series ofdiplomatic negotiations and administrative measures whichhave won for us, almost against our will, a dominating, ifsomewhat anomalous, position in Egypt. Similarly, theabandonment of the Soudan at a time when we held norecognised status in that region has been rectified bythe establishment of a no longer challenged ascendancy.Again, it was under Mr. Gladstone that the events tookplace which led to the annexation of Burmah. Finally,it was by his policy that the seed was sownsown amidtares which eventually bore fruit in a consolidatedSouth Africa. It was, indeed, the fate of an essentiallypacific and home-keeping Administration to leave a legacyof troubles which made it the duty, as well as the right,of subsequent Cabinets to increase our responsibilities,and extend our frontiers, both in Asia and Africa. It is.


41/306

GENERAL ELECTION OF 1880 27therefore, a pious duty of the Imperiahst to deal gentlywith the mistakes and oversights of a period which pre-sented itself to contemporary judgment in a somewhatinglorious light ; and Unionists in particular are bound toremember that, for any blunders which may have beencommitted by the Cabinet, a far greater share of censurebelongs to the Duke of Devonshire and Mr. Chamberlainthan to Lord Rosebery.

It was mainly on foreign policy that Lord Rosebery, in1 880, challenged the opinion of the country while the GeneralElection was still in progress. At Glasgow, on 29 March,he repudiated the idea that Lord Beaconsfield would bemore highly esteemed than Mr. Gladstone by the EuropeanPowers, and defined the foreign policy of the Liberal party.Its watchword would be ' the cause of England, peaceand freedom throughout the world.' By peace he did notmean peace at any price. By freedom he did not meanlicence. By England he did not mean 'these two islands.'He meant 'the great Empire throughout the world, whichwe are as proud of as any Tory can bewhich we willmaintain even with our blood, if necessary, but which wewill not recklessly increase at the cost of the people ofEngland.' At Edinburgh, again, on 31 March, he arguedin the same vein, and combated the idea that LordBeaconsfield's Eastern policy had restored England to herproper place in the councils of Europe. On this pointhe made a characteristic sally. It was said by Napoleon,he remarked, that we were a nation of shopkeepers. Thatreproach had vanished, because under the Tory Govern-ment our trade had vanished too. But perhaps it mightbe said some day that we were a nation of pettifoggersgoing into the councils of Europe with secret agreements


42/306

28 LORD ROSEBERYwith foreign Powers and with little terminable leases offoreign islands that did not belong to us, and which wehad managed to filch from the general scramble.

Within a week Mr. Gladstone was returned as memberfor Midlothian by a majority of 21 1 votes, and Lord Rose-bery had won his first victory over the local influence of theHouse of Buccleuch. It was as much a triumph for theyoung Peer as for the veteran statesman, nor did LordRosebery seek to disguise his exultation. With pardonableexaggeration he declared that that constituency had beenchosen as the central battlefield of the great contest that wasbeing waged. The battle had not been fought between Whigand Tory, Liberal and Conservative. It was the battle ofConstitutional Government and of oppressed nationalitiesthroughout the world. The boast had this much truth init, that Mr. Gladstone's speeches in Scotland had beenalmost universally taken by the Liberal party throughoutthe country as the statement of its policy, and that muchmore turned on the result of the Midlothian polling thanthe maintenance or loss of that seat by the Conservativeparty. But it should, perhaps, be mentioned that Mr.Gladstone had not been so confident of success that hecould afford to neglect insuring himself against defeat. Hewas also candidate for Leeds, a safe constituency, whichreturned him by a large majority. The precaution wasnecessary, since, if he had failed to obtain a seat before themeeting of the new Parliament, his claim to succeed LordBeaconsfield might have been successfully called into ques-tion. His victory in Midlothian was the more importantbecause it had not been counted upon as certain, and hewas proportionately indebted to the supporter who hadworked so indefatigably for their common purpose.


43/306

GENERAL ELECTION OF 1880 29Nor was Mr. Gladstone chary in his acknowledgment.

Five days after his return from Midlothian he wrote toLord Rosebery that the moral effect had surpassed alltheir hopes. The feeling until it was over was so fastenedon it that it was almost like one of those occasions of oldwhen the issue of battle was referred to single combat.' The great merit of it, I apprehend, lay in the originalconception, which I take to have been yours, and to over-shadow even your operations towards the direct productionof the result. But one thing it cannot overshadow in my mind;the sense of the inexpressible aid and comfort derived dayby day from your considerate ever-watchful care and tact.A similar tribute having been paid to Lady Rosebery, thewriter went on to say that he should feel profoundlyashamed of the burdens laid on his hosts unless he hadseen how truly they were borne in the spirit which alonemakes all burdens light. ' It is a very pleasant subject ofreflection to me that the riveting effect of companionshipin a struggle like this does not pass away with the struggleitself, but abides.'The activity which Lord Rosebery threw into this memor-

able contestperhaps the most strenuous period, though in-terrupted by a serious illness, in his public careerhad notpassed without hostile comment. Undoubtedly he hadstrained the rule of Parliamentary etiquetteit rests on nobasis of binding lawwhich forbids Peers to take part in elec-tions for the House of Commons. But he made light of suchcriticisms, and quoted, with humorous gusto, the remark ofa Conservative Minister that when the subject of Peers' in-terference in Parliamentary elections was mentioned thename of Lord Rosebery always occurred to his mind. Itwas, perhaps, not inconsistent that a member of the Upper


44/306

30 LORD ROSEBERYHouse who had so strenuously advocated some modificationof its hereditary privileges in regard to legislation should,by way of compensation, rebel against what he consideredan antiquated restriction.

It is not necessary to tell over again the storywhichhas been related with half a dozen variants according tothe narrator's point of viewof the negotiations thatresulted in Mr. Gladstone being sent for by the Queen.The final meeting of Lord Beaconsfield's Cabinet was heldon April 2rst, and on the evening of the 23rd Mr.Gladstone had kissed hands as Prime Minister. Thosewere the happy days of small Cabinets, but the task ofselection among qualified aspirants to the places of higherdignity was proportionately more difficult. Mr. Gladstonehad to contend with a special embarrassment, since therelations between the Moderate Liberal and Radical wingsof the party were far from cordial. The admission of Mr.Chamberlain (Board of Trade) and the temporary exclusionof Sir Charles Uilke were the result of an arrangementbetween those two gentlemen and Mr. Gladstone. This,with the appointment of Mr. Bright as Chancellor ofthe Duchy, was accepted as partial compensation tothe Nonconformist Radicals for the appointment oftheir particular bite noir, Mr. W. \i. Forster, as ChiefSecretary. All the other Cabinet officesunless SirWilliam Harcourt, the Home Secretary, was to becounted among the Radicalswent to Moderate Liberals :Lord Granville (Foreign Office), Lord Selborne (LordChancellor), Lord Spencer (President of the Council),Lord Hartington (India), Lord Kimberley (Colonies), LordNorthbrook (Admiralty), Mr. Childers (War Office), Dukeof Argyll (Privy Seal), and Mr. J. G. Dodson (Local


45/306

MR. GLADSTONE'S SECOND ADMINISTRATION 3Government). Mr. Gladstone himself became First Lordof the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer.

It will be observed that most of the chief Departmentsof State had been placed under the control of Peers, sincethe Board of Trade and Local Government Board wereconsidered offices of secondary importance and dignity.There would have been even more discontent in the partythan was actually aroused by the distribution of places inthe Cabinet if another member of the Upper House hadbeen added to Mr. Gladstone's list, and this, no doubt, wasone of the reasons why Lord Rosebery refused the honourwhich, it is understood, was placed within his reach. In aprivate letter printed in Mr. Morley's ' Life of Gladstone

'

there is a sufficient indication of the incident. ' One admir-able man, with intrepid naivete,' wrote the Prime Minister,' proposed himself for the Cabinet, but was not admitted ;another no less admirable was pressed to enter, but feltthat he could be more useful as an independent member,and declinedan honourable transaction repeated by thesame person on another occasion later.'The omission of Lord Rosebery was a surprise to some

of the best-informed commentators. The immense serviceshe had rendered to Scottish Liberalism, and in particularto the Prime Minister, would, no doubt, have entitled himto a high place if he had cared to press his claim if,indeed, he had not voluntarily stood aside. The reasonwhich he assigned for refusal was his want of experience inadministration, and it was this ground which the PrimeMinister had himself taken in order to explain his hesitationas to admitting Mr. Chamberlain within the Cabinet.Exempt from the cares of Office, Lord Rosebery did not

trouble himself in the first year of Mr. Gladstone's Adminis-


46/306

32 LORD ROSEBERYtration to take any active part in Parliamentary debates, butas President of the Greek Committee took the chair inDecember at a meeting called to advocate the claims of theHellenic race in Epirus and Thessaly. He lent no counten-ance, however, to the firebrand advice of the enthusiasts whowished to promote another war of Liberation. In June,i88r, Lord Fife, in the House of Lords, brought for-ward, in an emphatic fashion, the Scottish demand for aseparate Ministry, and this was supported by Lord Rosebery.The proposal was put aside for the time, but, in recognitionof his unwavering advocacy of the interests of the NorthernKingdom, he was pressedand consentedto becomeUnder-Secretary at the Home Office, in order that he mightgive the Government the benefit of his special knowledgeof Scottish affairs. The appointment was not representedas a fitting reward for his political services, or as worthy ofhis abilities. Nevertheless it appears to have given satis-faction to his friends, who looked on it merely as a first stepto high advancement. It may here be pointed out that, evenat those periods in his career when he was least in favourwith the great body of the Liberal party, he has never lostthe confidence and regard of his countrymen. This is afactor which his rivals and adversaries must never forget totake into account. In this respect he presents an interest-ing parallel to a statesman with whom, perhaps, he hasnothing else in common. Behind the general reputationwhich Mr. Chamberlain enjoys in Great Britain there isthe keen and always unabated enthusiasm of the solid andpopulous wedge of central England which is known as theBirmingham district, and the ex-Secretary of State for theColonies, amid the cares of Office or the distractions ofcontroversy, has never omitted to keep himself in close and


47/306


48/306

34 LORD ROSEBERYa ' backstairs Minister for Scotland.' The political positionof the Under-Secretary was, of course, already very differentfrom that of the ordinary young Peer on his promotion.Having established himself with Lady Rosebery at Lans-downe House, he made it one of the chief meeting-placesfor Liberals of every denomination, and the frequentpresence of Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone, as intimate friends ofthe host and hostess, rendered the gatherings in BerkeleySquare one of the inner forces of the party.

Having assumed the responsibilities of Ofifice, LordRosebery did not neglect the duty of frequent appearanceon public platforms. With the Irish policy of the Govern-mentthe Land Act, the Coercion Act, the imprisonmentof Mr. Parnell and the other ' suspects,' and their subse-quent release under the Treaty of Kilmainhamhethoroughly identified himself, and was rewarded, whereverhe went, by a sympathetic and cordial reception. In theHouse of Lords also he was a fairly constant attendant, andhis personal popularity, combined with ready speech, helpedthe Government, so far as possible, in reconciling anadverse majority of Peers to the policy of a Governmentwhich had already been weakened in the Upper House bythe revolt of the Moderate Liberalism represented by thelate Duke of Argyll. Neither at this nor any subsequentperiod of his career is it easy to say whether, in domesticpolicy, Lord Rosebery can more properly be claimed as anadherent of the advanced or the more timid wing of theparty. Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues were so firmlyconcentrated on the Reform side of their programme thatthey left themselves little time or energy for social legisla-tion, but with such projects as they were enabled to bringforward Lord Rosebery manifested a vivid and active


49/306


50/306

36 LORD ROSEBERYful genius, and partly through the unexampled anarchyamong the Conservatives, they were enabled to carry onthe government of the country till 18S5. But even thereticent pages of Mr. Gladstone's biographer show that thegossip of the period scarcely exaggerated the dissensionsthat prevailed within the Cabinet. The extremists whocould not have their way in directing the councils of theparty were at least able to make life uncomfortable for thosewho were identified with the established authority.

Lord Rosebery was among their first victims. It is oneof the failings that impair his usefulness in the rudeconflicts of English politics that he is unduly sensitive topin-pricks. Perhaps because he never went through thedaily discipline of the House of Commons, which induratesthe cuticle against minor flagellation, or even renders it astimulating experience, he is impatient of vicious criticism.Because he was Mr. Gladstone's intimate friend, and sus-pected of exercising influence over the autocratic mind ofhis Leader, it was resolved to give him a fall. Complaintwas made that the Under-Secretary of the Home Office wasnot a member of the House of Commons and amenable topublic criticism. The absurd cry was kept up with suffi-cient pertinacity to induce Lord Rosebery to resign a postthat was not worth his keeping, and which he thought it un-dignified to fight for. Indeed, his original acceptance ofthe duties had been something of a personal sacrifice.Probably he made a mistake in giving way, and he after-wards stated that he had made up his mind never again toretire from a position merely on the ground of his being aPeer.

There appears to be no justification, in spite of thedissensions that afterwards broke out between Lord Rose-


51/306

HIS RESIGNATION 37bery and Sir William Harcourt, for the suggestion that theUnder-Secretary had taken offence at anything said or doneby his Chief at the Home Office. The statement was ex-pressly contradicted, both by Sir William Harcourt and byLord Rosebery, in language that passed beyond the con-ventions of the perfunctory official dementi. ' It is anentirely untrue statement, which has not a colour offoundation of any kind or sort,' said Sir William. ' I knowwhat you must be feeling under so undeserved an innuendo,'wrote Lord Rosebery to him, ' but I am quite as indignantas you are.'

It was explained that the arrangement under which LordRosebery had taken office was never intended to be per-manent. That, no doubt, was correct. Lord Rosebery hadonly gone to the Home Office to bridge over the perioduntil the Government should establish a separate Depart-ment under a Secretary for Scotland. Nevertheless, thesudden termination of this stop-gap scheme had not beencontemplated. It was brought about by a little intriguethat might have been defeated if Lord Rosebery had pos-sessed the requisite Parliamentary temperament or thoughtthe prize worth the struggle. But he had not yet shakenoff the proud indolence discerned in his boyhood by theEton tutor who remarked that Dalmeny was one of thosewho desired palmam sine pulverein this case the dustraised by partisan animus.

His severance from the Government was not taken toindicate any modification of his political attitude, and thePrime Minister, in reply to a formal and significant expres-sion of regret on the part of the General Committee ofthe Scottish Liberal Club, intimated his hope that beforelong Lord Rosebery's abilities might ' again be turned to


52/306

38 LORD ROSEBERYaccount in active public service.' As a further demonstra-tion of the undiminished confidence reposed in him by hiscountrymen, he was presented (July, 1883) with the free-dom of the City of Edinburgh, and, by way of making asuitable return, stated a strong case for the establishmentof a Scottish Local Government Board under a ScottishMinister ; this was the object of a measure, already intro-duced by the Government, in the framing of which LordRosebery had taken an active part. It was crowded out,however, by the presence of more urgent and contentiousbusiness, and, though further efforts were made to carry it,it was not to be numbered among the legislative achieve-ments of Mr. Gladstone's Administration. On the firstoccasion it was introduced too late in the Session to standany chance of success. On the second it was abandonedat the annual ' slaughter of the innocents,' and on the thirdit was put down for Second Reading on the very day onwhich the Government announced their intention of resign-ing, having been defeated in the House of Commons bya majority of twelve on the Finance Bill.


53/306

CHAPTER IVColonial tour Agricultural labourer's enfranchisementReform agita-

tion Lxjrds and Commons Lord Rosebery's pleaAppeal forModerationThe crisis solvedLord Rosebery and reform of theHouse of Lords.

Being released from administrative duties, and a little dis-gusted, perhaps, at the treatment he had received, LordRosebery spent some of his leisure on an extended foreigntour in the company of Lady Rosebery. After a few weeksin the United States they sailed for Australia, where he metwith a hearty welcome. His aspirations after social reformappealed to the advanced democratic sentiments of theColonists, while his taste for sport made him popular witha class that cares little for politics.

It is interesting to notice that, before Home Rule hadbeen adopted by any considerable group in the Liberalparty, he used language as to local self-government which,rightly or wrongly, was interpreted in Victoria as signifyingwillingness to ' ease the work of the Imperial Parliament.'Nor should it be forgotten, amid rival claims for ' the dis-covery of the British Empire,' that, in 1884, at a publicbanquet in Melbourne, he expressed hopes and adumbrateda policy almost as advanced as those of Tory Imperialists.He contemptuously dismissed the suggestion that the thencontemplated Federation of Australia, on Canadian lines,might lead to separation from the Mother Country. Hecould give no logical explanation, he admitted, of the bondthat kept the Empire together. The arrangement between

39


54/306

40 LORD ROSEBERYGreat Britain and the Colonies was not a compact or acivil contract. It was a marriage of the affections, or itwas nothing at all. The prophecy had been made that theconnexion would not survive a war. Lord Rosebery wasmore sanguine. He believed it would survive, otherthings being equal, so long as the home country and thedaughter country were allowed to preserve their positionsof mutual independence and self-respect. He had faith inthe union of racesby which he meant the community ofmemories, of work, of object, and of aim. He had alwayshoped that this communion of races would e.xist so long ashis life lasted, but since his visit to Australia it wouldbecome a passion with him to preserve that union and toserve that country of Australia, of which he could neverhave any but the most happy and pleasant memories.

After all allowance is made for the natural exuberance ofrhetoric at a public welcome of this kind, the utterance issufficiently remarkable as coming from the intimate friendand private counsellor of the Statesman who was charged,above all his predecessors, with neglect and indifferencetowards the duties and privileges of Empire.

During Lord Rosebery's absence abroad the Radicalparty had been getting up steam for the long-promised andoften-deferred agitation for the enfranchisement of the agri-cultural labourer. It was known that no effectual resist-ance would be offered in the House of Commons to theCounty Franchise Bill which Mr. Gladstone introduced onthe last day of February, 1884, and the Third Reading wascarried before the end of June. The only question was howit would be treated in the House of Lords. Lord Salisbury,who had now come forward as Leader of the Conservativeparty, but whose authority was by no means unquestioned,


55/306

LORDS AND COMMONS 4Iannounced, before the Bill had been presented to Parlia-ment, that he should oppose it in the Upper House. Butit was far from certain that he would be supported by thewhole party. The attitude of the Tory Democrats, a forceof unknown dimensions, was not to be calculated by theordinary laws of political reason, and besides them therewere among the Conservatives a good many politicianswho, from timidity or fataUsm, were ready to accept, or notwilling to fight against, what they regarded as inevitable.By playing on the intrigue of one section and the fears ofthe other, it was hoped by some of the Radicals that theHouse of Lords might be deterred from exercising itsundoubted right of throwing out the Bill, and thus forcingthe Prime Minister either to accept defeat or dissolveParliament and appeal on that issue to the verdict of anunreformed electorate. Either alternative would be equallyinconvenient to the Government, and, if possible, theywere determined to detach a sufficient number of Peersfrom the policy announced by Lord Salisbury.

It would have been a comparatively simple matter to getup a cry against the Peers if they came forward as out-and-outopponents of enfranchisement. Lord Salisbury had chosenhis ground with a more subtle judgment. It was impossible,he said, to pass a Franchise Bill without a RedistributionBill. This would but abolish one anomaly and createanother. Nor would it do for the Government to passa Franchise Bill in 1SS4 and promise a Redistribution Billin 1885. If the Peers consented to the first measure theywould be powerless to have any voice as to the natureof the second. The Government would be able, if theLords objected to their Redistribution Bill, to appeal toconstituencies which they had just flooded with new voters.


56/306

42 LORD ROSEBERYNo, if the Government wished to dissolve, let them dissolveon the present electorate. Those were Lord Salisbury'sterms to Mr. Gladstone. To the Franchise Bill as it stoodthe Conservatives would not say either Yes or No. Theymust first be shown the Redistribution Scheme.

It was easier to denounce Lord Salisbury's attitude thanto change it. All the paraphernalia of popular agitationwas brought into operationplatform speeches, pamphlets,processions, and demonstrations. For a time public feelingran very high, and so sincere were the misgivings amongmany moderate-minded politicians at the prospect of a con-flict between the two Houses that some of the Liberals,whose allegiance had been shaken by the Irish policy of theGovernment and the mismanagement of affairs in SouthAfrica, in Egypt, and the Soudan, were beginning to rallyagain to Mr. Gladstone. It was known that such Peers asthe Duke of Argyll and Lord Cowper would exert theirinfluence in the House of Lords towards averting a rupture,and the result of their mediatory action was somewhatuncertain. From a different point of view Lord Roseberywas working towards the same end. On several occasionshe had come forward as the advocate of internal and volun-tary reform within the House of Lords, and on 20 June,within a few days of the Third Reading Debate on theFranchise Bill in the House of Commons, moved in theHouse of Lords that a Select Committee should be ap-pointed to consider the best means of promoting itsefficiency. In spite, however, of the imminent quarrelbetween the two branches of the Legislature, the proposalwas treated as being of an academical character, andrejected, after some not unfriendly remarks from Lord Gran-ville and Lord Salisbury, by a two-to-one majorityseventy-seven against thirty-eight.


57/306

THE ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL 43On 26 June the note was sounded for a grand attack by

Mr. Gladstone, who took the opportunity of the ThirdReading Debate in the House of Commons to utter asolemn warning to the Peers. Ministers, he said, wereanxious to avert a collision between the two Houses.It would open up far more serious problems than anyhe remembered since the first Reform Bill, and, though hehad no fear as to the result, he looked forward to the con-sequences with the gravest apprehension. His warningwas openly derided by Mr. Balfour, who declared thatit would no longer be worth lifting a finger to defend theHouse of Lords if it were to be considered incapableof giving its opinion on a great constitutional question.

It was now evident that the more vigorous section of theConservatives would follow Lord Salisbury in defying theRadical agitation, and that a sufficient majority was ensuredin the House of Lords to reject the Bill. When it cameup for Second Reading Lord Cairns proposed what waspractically a negative motion. While the Peers would beready to concur in 'a well-considered and complete schemefor the extension of the Franchise,' they would not consentto a Bill that did not provide for ' the full and free repre-sentation of the people,' and was ' not provided with anyadequate security that it should not come into operationexcept as an entire scheme.'

Issue was now joined on the lines laid down by LordSalisbury. The cautious attitude of the Duke of Argylland Lord Cowper was repudiated by so moderate apolitician as Lord Carnarvon. He was scornful of the'monotonous, stupid, and ridiculous threats' uttered againstthe Lords, and did not believe that the country wouldresent their rejecting the Bill. The poUtical clubs might


58/306

44 LORD ROSEBERYbe angry, but it was to the decision of the country thatthe Lords wished to refer the question. He taunted theLiberal Government with shrinking from appeaUng to the'source of their strength,' and intimated that they weredeterred from dissolving Parliament by the fear of beingcondemned for their foreign policy.

Lord Rosebery took the ground that, on the confessionof Conservative Peers, the Bill deserved to be accepted,yet they were resolved to throw it out. But they wouldnot defeat the measure, they could only retard it. Thedemand for a simultaneous measure of Redistribution couldnot be granted, because, in view of the state of businessin the House of Commons during the past few years, itwould be impossible to pass a Redistribution Bill in con-nexion with a Franchise Bill. Every member whose seatwould be affected might raise a distinct discussion on that point, and the opportunities for obstruction (which hadrecently been reduced to a system in the House of Com-mons) would be unlimited. On the representation ofIreland, of London, and of Scotland, on the representationof minorities, and on whether the number of membersshould be increased or retained at its present figure, itwould be possible to raise a discussion ' on the first breathof a measure of Redistribution. Besides, the question ofhnking it to the Franchise Bill had already been settledin the House of Commons, wlien the amendment movedby Lord John Manners was defeated by a majority of 130.'The fears of the Opposition that Ministers, having carriedthe Franchise Bill, would break their promise to bring ina Redistribution Bill in the following Session, implied aninsult to the Government. If such a breach of faith werecommitted, he and half the members on his side of theHouse would join in a Vote of Censure.


59/306


60/306

46 LORD ROSEBERYterrible kind.' And, in the end, if they might judge by theexperience of 1867, a much stronger measure of reformwould be carried. Was it of the interest of the Conservativeparty or of the House of Lords that they were thinking?A connoisseur the other day had paid ;;^4,5oo for anancient, elaborate, costly horn. That would be a very badinstrument for poking the fire with. But that was preciselywhat they were then about to do. They were using an institu-tion of the most ancient and valuable kind to poke up a con-flagration for which it was wholly unsuited and of which hecould not pretend to see the limits. They were settingthemselves against two millions of persons desirous of thevotea few hundreds against a host as large as that ofXerxes, and without the singular advantages that Ther-mopyla conferred upon its little band of defenders.The conclusion of the speech was an elaborate appeal

to the statesmanship and prudence of the Lords Temporaland Spiritual.

If the people of this country be with you you are justified inthe course you are now taking. If the House of Commons doesnot represent the people of this country, you are justified in thecourse you are going to take to-night. If the three millions ofvoters who already possess the suffrage are anxious to pre-serve the artificial legal distinction between the town and thecountry, then, my lords, you are justified in the course you aregoing to take to-night. If the two million non-electors who arereckoning on the promises and the votes of the House of Com-mons, and upon the practical unanimity with which the Billhas been passed, feel that they are not entitled to the votewhich you are going to deny them, and are prepared to kiss therod with which you chastise them, you are justified in the courseyou are going to take to-night.

But, my lords, is it on such hopes and on such prognostica-tions that you are about to face the storms of popular prejudice


61/306

LORD ROSEBERY'S PLEA 4/and popular indignation ? The crisis is grave. We stand by aprecipice if we are not hurrying to it, and I cannot consolemyself with any of those honeyed expressions about our autho-rity and our standing in the country which aftbrd so muchconsolation to the noble Earl. 1 see a situation as grave as theunwisdom of a Leader and the strength of a party in this Houseare able to produce. I do think that when we consider what wehave at stake to-night, we have a right to appeal to the moreindependent members of this House. I do not pretend to saythat we have at stake the existence of this House, because I donot think so ; but we have at stake that without which existenceis not valuable or tolerablethe weight and authority which aregiven by wise decisions and by sympathy with the nationthatnation for which we legislate and which governs us. I ventureto appeal to the independent members of this House to pausebefore they vote for the amendment of the noble Earl (Cairns).I was delighted with the defence of the cross-benches whichcame from the noble Duke (Argyll), who has sat so long duringhis Parliamentary career on the front bench, and I am quitewilling to endorse all that he said. But I appeal to thesecrowded cross-benches which are always asking to be enlarged.I appeal to themto those who can regard politics withoutbeing affected by mere temporary party prejudices I appeal tothem to pause before they endorse the action of the noble Earl.

But, my lords, if I may make another appeal, it would be tothose right reverend prelates who in this House representa faith, and who preach a gospel, which is not merely a messageof peace and goodwill to men, but which is also the highest andpurest theory of democracy which has yet been vouchsafedto men. I appeal to them to assist us in giving this greatprivilege to two millions of men, and I appeal to them to separ-ate this House from the storms and anxieties that we must faceif we pass this Resolution.

I do not say that I regard this Motion as a wanton onewanton is too strong a word. I have no right, either from mystanding or my age, to use such an expression. But I havethe right to ask your lordships to pause on every consideration,public, private, and personal, which can influence an ancient


62/306

48 LORD ROSEBERYand illustrious Senate. I would ask you, in the interests ofyour Order, of your authority and of your Party, not to pass aResolution which may strike a fatal blow at your existence.The speech turned no votesin the division only fifty-nine Peers supported the Government against three hundred

and fifty-onenor can Lord Rosebery have looked for anysuch result. It was in the highest degree improbable thatany appreciable number of the members of the Housewould attend it without having made up their minds onan elementary question which they had enjoyed ampletime to consider. Lord Rosebery's speech on this occa-sion has been given at some length, because it is a fairlyrepresentative, though not specially favourable, exampleof his Parliamentary style. It contained some tellingpassages, which lost none of their effect from the mannerof delivery ; but the argument is beaten too thin for anassembly of educated and more or less experienced poli-ticians. In truth, Lord Rosebery was addressing thecountry rather than the Peers, and he is heard to besteffect at Westminster when his tone is more conversationaland his reasoning more condensed. It may also be objectedthat in the special appeal to the bishops he struck whatmany of his audience would consider a false note, and thusimpaired the force of an eloquent peroration.The importance of the speech, coming from a statesman

not directly associated with the Government, was that itsuflEiciently identified the orator with the more advancedsection of the Liberal partyin spite of a suggested pro-viso against the agitation which was being conductedagainst the hereditary Chamberwhile it showed that hewas still in the enjoyment of Mr. Gladstone's most in-timate confidences.


63/306

REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS 49It would be a tedious story to describe the subsequent

movements of the party leaders. For a long time theywere engaged in ' manoeuvring for position ' rather thanpreparing to join battle. The Liberals flatly declined toexpose the text of the Redistribution Bill, which had beendrafted by a small Government committee, while the Con-servatives vowed that until they had seen it they couldnot permit the Franchise Bill to become law. The impassehad apparently become absolute, when the situation wassuddenly relieved by the happy accident or indiscretionthrough which the full text of the draft scheme for Re-distribution was published in ' The Standard.' After this,it was comparatively easy for the party managers to arrangeterms of accommodation, and, in spite of certain stormypersonal incidents, the crisis was resolved. The Redis-tribution Bill was introduced in the Lower, and the Fran-chise Bill was read a second time in the Upper Housebut it was not till 12 June, 1885, that the final stages ofthe latter measure were concludedafter the GladstoneGovernment had ceased to exist.

Returning from this brief anticipation of events, we findthat, not discouraged by the action of the Peers in theiremphatic repudiation of his advice in regard to theFranchise Bill, Lord Rosebery continued his missionarywork as a reformer of their House. In his motion for aSelect Committee to inquire into and report on the wholequestion he had given definite form to his views. He com-plained that the existing House represented nothing exceptthe Church, the Law, and the Hereditary Principle. Hedesired that it should include exemplars of Medicine,Science, Art, Literature, Commerce, and even Labour. Hesuggested also that India and the Colonies should be given


64/306

50 LORD ROSEBERYa more direct way of expressing their views, and he furtherproposed that the question of Life Peerages should be con-sidered, and whether, on special occasions, the Houseshould be empowered to consult persons who were notPeers.

This schemethough some portions of it have since beententatively carried into effectfound no favour at a timewhen excitable Radicals were threatening to destroy thewhole fabric. After the temper had cooled down on bothsides Lord Rosebery thought that he might renew his pro-posal with a better chance of success. Accordingly, he drewup a circular letter (dated December, 1884), which wasaddressed to many members of the House. Li this briefdocument he simply asked to be placed in communicationwith any Peer who would express himself in favour of thegeneral principle of the reform of the House of Lordswithout adopting any particular method, or accepting any ofthe views of the organiser of the movement. In this wayLord Rosebery hoped to bring about some sort of concertedaction. The invitation, however, met with no response.One reason of this failure may be found in Lord Rose-bery's close association with Mr. Gladstonewho at thetime was generally, if erroneously, regarded as an enemyof the Upper House. Another reason may have beenthat the Peers, like the Commons, have a standard of theirown for judging their colleagues, and very often the innerestimate of a public man differs widely from the popularopinion of him. Quite other factors than eloquence andadministrative capacity are taken into account, and it some-times happens that the men most powerful at Westminster ormost influential in party councils are hardly known outsidethe walls of Parliament. If ever a reform of the House of


65/306

HIS REPUTATION 5Lords be brought about from within, it will be done throughthe agency of some of those unobtrusive and, perhaps, notvery clever persons who have acquired a reputation, notalways deserved, for solid judgment and practical sagacity.Such a position had not been attained in 1884 by thebrillianttoo brilliantyoung Peer who was already reck-oned in the running for the succession to Mr. Gladstone.

This peculiar kind of reputation, though keenly enjoyedby its possessorswho look with kindly toleration orsuperior contempt upon mere Ministers and leaders ofpublic opinionshould be studiously avoided by everyaspirant to the highest places in the State. Consistently,and sometimes in defiance ofcommon prudence, Lord Rose-bery has manifested his scorn of the average intelligenceand the commonplace opinion. More than once he hasfallen into a mistake frequently committed by men consciousof clevernesshe exaggerates the inferiority of second-ratepersons. It is a dangerous challenge to declare war ondullards, and Lord Rosebery has been pursued by themon both sidesever since he became prominent in publiclife. The Demos that he has courted has been an abstractDemos, and he has credited it with those qualities in him-self for which he has the greatest regard. This Demos,which has a certain existence in the intelligent and recep-tive spirit of the high-class Liberal working-man, has alwaysappreciated the compliment, and will be faithful to himso long as he continues to stimulate and amuse it. Hislove for racing, his occasional disappearances from publiclife and apparent neglect of its duties, his seeming indifferenceto censure and reproofthese rank for virtues rather thanvices in the eyes of a class who are much more men of theworld than those who hold a somewhat higher rank in


66/306

52 LORD ROSEBERYsociety. They relish his rank, they do not dislike hiswealth, while they admire his facile success in everything hehas undertaken. He has the art of winning their sympathybecause he speaks to them in such a way that they under-stand what he says, while he never makes them feel that heis talking down to them. At any moment, if he couldappeal directly to the Liberal working-men, they wouldacclaim him as their chosen Leader. But besides them hehas to reckon with a solid mass of middle-class opinion.This in the earlier period of his career he had almost wonover. Undoubtedly it supported him during the closingyears of Mr. Gladstone's second Administration.


67/306


68/306

54 LORD ROSEBERYan indifference to which their Leader had never confessed.To the end of his days Mr. Gladstone did not adm

samuel henry jeyes: the earl of rosebery

Documents