SEVENTH SERIES. Volume VII.

FROM BEGINNING Vol. CCXXV.

Several years ago, at the moment when Mr. Chamberlain quitted the ranks of the Liberal party to enter the admiring circle of the Conservatives, I watched him one evening in one of the Belgrave Square palaces. He was standing, surrounded by many of the handsomest and most elegant gentlemen of the aristocracy, and graciously accepting their very respectful homage. It was a strange spectacle; and I suspect that Chamberlain himself, though giving no external evidence thereof, enjoyed it all'immensely. His physiognomy thoroughly indicates his character, not striking nor distinguished, but full of energy, intelligence, obstinacy; the physiognomy, in short, of a merchant, not of a statesman, of a shrewd man, not an intellectual one. The inevitable monocle in his eye serves to conceal its expression, and the short, turned-up nose gives a common cast to features otherwise fine and regular. In the last few years he has changed more in appearance than his age would justify, and he is tortured, it is said, both with gout and neuralgia. Surely, one of these afflictions might have sufficed! Chamberlain dresses well-"too well," one of my friends, an ex-viceroy, whispered in my ear that evening-and is never Translated for The Living Age by M. W. L.

seen without an orchid in his buttonhole, a flower culled from those famous hothouses which the Conservatives threatened to burn down only a short time ago, when he was so hated by them as to be considered little better than anti-Christ. It has been said, and probably with truth, that Chamberlain left the Liberal party on account of his jealousy of Gladstone, and of his irritation at the mastery which the latter never failed to exercise over his colleagues. Another cause of his defection was the presence of Lord Rosebery, just then at the beginning of his promising career in the Liberal ranks, also of Vernon Harcourt, and, among the Home Rulers, of that great genius, Charles Stewart Parnell, in whom Chamberlain must undoubtedly have recognized an invincible superior. If these were his real reasons, he ought surely to feel satisfied now, since no one in Lord Salisbury's cabinet dare venture to contradict or thwart the powerful Colonial Minister, who is, in fact, if not de jure, the actual head of the Government. Many a distinguished man has been minister to the colonies, notably Lord Carnarvon and the first Lord Lytton, but no one has ever made of this subordinate office the throne of Suprema Lex that it is made by Joseph Chamberlain. And with whom lies the

fault? Let us endeavor to settle this question, since the problem is an interesting one; and it is a phenomenon of even greater interest to see Robert Cecil, Marquis of Salisbury, fallen under the dominion of the merchant of Birmingham. party, at the moment of Chamberlain's entrance into it (as indeed later, and even up to to-day), there was no one equal in force of character and depth of intelligence to himself. The only person who might have ventured to command him was Lord Salisbury, but, as the facts have since clearly shown, Chamberlain was perfectly sure of his ability to overrule the illustrious head of the Tories as easily as he overrules and subordinates so many lesser personages. A friend of mine, in speaking to me of Lord Salisbury, once said: "He is a cannon of large calibre, but he either misses fire or shoots wide of the mark." This is probably Chamberlain's opinion also, and it makes him determined to manage this "cannon of large calibre" himself. And the facts show that he has judged correctly, when one considers his triumphal success. Let posterity condemn him if it will; I believe him to be a man to whom it matters but little what may be said of him after his death. He is strong and callous, with a large dash of cynicism in his composition, and to a politician of this type the judgment of history is of no moment, and fame but a carnival masquerade, to the sound of a blatant trumpet. The great Napoleon after his Egyptian campaign said: "If I should die tomorrow, I should be given only half a page in a universal dictionary." To Chamberlain I believe it would be a matter of indifference whether he got half a page or a whole one. What he cares for is to lead others. Had he appeared fifty years earlier, would he have succeeded in this? I do not believe it. For, in the first fifty years of the nineteenth century the world sought

In the Conservative

after and admired qualities vastly different from his own; while nowadays it is precisely such talents as his which succeed best; by which remark I certainly do not mean to pay a compliment either to him or to the times. In a nobler or more upright epoch than the present, a great party like the one which calls itself the Conservative would have rejected with scorn the Radical turned Tory. Instead, it has received him with open arms, and paid assiduous court to him; indeed, the victory of the Tories at the elections of 1895 would not have been possible without his permission-had he not felt sure, that is, of being included in the ministry.

Chamberlain has been equally fortunate in the opportunities with which fate has presented him, and in his capacity to make use of them; in the mediocrity of the men acting with him, as well as of those opposed to him, and in his ability to master the former and intimidate the latter. Fortunate has he also been in respect to the present indifference of the English people on the subject of religion, for, in the past, the whole nation would have regarded with horror the entrance of a Unitarian into an office of the government. But his most marvellous piece of good fortune has been the appearance of Irish autonomy on the scene, precisely at the moment when he conceived the desire to enter the Conservative camp. Without the agitation for Home Rule it would have been very difficult for him to make the saut perilleux with the assurance of being well recompensed, and of being able to assume among the Tories the same exalted position he had held among the Radicals, if not, indeed, a more exalted one still. Later, Chamberlain's good star so willed it that, in the year which is just ending, the grave illness (terminating fatally) of the Prime Minister's faithful life-companion preoccupied and saddened Lord Salisbury, deeply at

tached to his wife, to the point of causing him to resign, more and more each day, the guidance of the ship of state into the hands of his colleagues. Το me it seems that the Queen of England would have done well to say to Lord Salisbury, "Either turn Mr. Chamberlain out of your cabinet or resign your own post to him." So long as he is permitted to exercise the full powers of the Government, it is but just that he should also assume the full responsibil ity. Perhaps, had the Sovereign thus acted, matters in the secret dossier of the Colonial Minister would not have kept secret so long. I believe the Tory party would have made a better figure, and would have deserved better of the country, if it had not allowed itself to be intimidated by Chamberlain; what is done, is done, however; and, at this moment, the merchant of Birmingham finds himself the master of the situation. But Chamberlain denies that he has become an Opportunist, or in any way changed his views; according to him, it is the Conservative party itself that has seconded all his wishes, and in this assertion there is a grain of truththough not the whole truth. As two negatives make an affirmative, perhaps also two desertions constitute fidelity! The Conservatives, and especially their central organ, the Primrose League, received the Liberal ex-minister with hysteric joy; the whole of its aristocratic society fell on its knees before him, and all shouted "Chamberlain," as one might shout "Christ." Imperialism had gained thereby, Home Rule had indisputably lost, but what no one seemed to perceive was that the aristocratic party stood harnessed to the triumphal chariot of the deputy from Birmingham, and has remained thus harnessed up to the present hour. It is a singular spectacle, and, as I have said, far from a noble one. It will be a chapter little honorable in the history of England should it terminate in

the delirious triumph of an unjust war and the consequent apotheosis of Chamberlain. It is he who has incited and driven the whole nation into this war in the Transvaal, and well may he call it, as the Empress Eugenie called the war of 1870, "Ma guerre à moi." Had Chamberlain remained a simple Syndic of Birmingham, with the sole ambition of turning out screws and ruling its municipal council, this struggle in the Transvaal would never have taken place. The war has been conceived, and forced upon the nation, by the Colonial Minister alone. Lord Salisbury, late in the day, and after a long and significant silence, accepted the responsibility of it, in his speech at Guildhall some time ago. The Premier naturally repelled the attacks of the French Chamber of Commerce, but whoever has attentively followed the action of Chamberlain, both before and after the epoch of the Royal Commission upon Rhodes and the Jameson raid, can have no doubt of the intimate relations existing between the former and Chamberlain. The Commission broke off this work suddenly, without allowing any light to drift in upon Rhodes's obscure proceedings, and at each smallest appearance of danger to him the President of the Commission intervened and closed the mouth of the witness. We have been witnesses to similar disgraceful strategems in Italy, also! During the first two days of the examination Cecil Rhodes, it is said, was extremely nervous, but afterwards, thoroughly reassured when he saw how matters were proceeding, he resumed his usual appearance of stolid indifference. These accounts are not mere suspicions nor idle tales; they are truths which clearly emerge from the reports of this comedy of a commission, or committee, of inquiry, of 1897.

Later on, indeed only a few months ago, the Chartered Company of Africa,

finding itself in great financial embarrassments, was bought by the Government, of which Chamberlain is one of the most conspicuous members, and the price paid seemed to many too great. Every one knew well that Chamberlain held a considerable number of shares of this Company, and a timid interrogation in regard to the transaction was ventured upon in the House of Commons. But Chamberlain replied curtly, when questioned, that he had not negotiated the sale to the State, and had not been present when the vote was taken, and there the matter dropped, and the State and the Nation were obliged to rest satisfied with this audacious excuse. In the past life of the nation nothing was more vehemently inveighed against by all parties than an act of a statesman that might seem to accrue to the advantage of a private chartered company, but, although this transaction had all the appearance of such an arrangement, no further notice was taken of it, in spite of the fact that nothing similar of so glaring a nature had occurred since the days of Sir Robert Walpole. Chamberlain, as an eminent English author wrote to me a few days ago, has carried with him into political life the standards and modes of belief of an unscrupulous commis voyageur. He boasted one day, in one of his speeches, of belonging to the Gentlemen's party, but no true gentleman would have made such a boast. A trader may possess shining qualities, -great audacity, great shrewdness and intelligence-but these are not the only qualities required in a political leader. A gentleman (truly a simple-minded one!) having written to Chamberlain to know if it were true that he had always cherished the desire and the intention of going to war with the Transvaal, the latter replied, on October 16th last: "I fear that there will always be found those who attribute bad motives to my actions. Tennyson said that

every man attributes those motives to others which would have actuated himself under similar circumstances." This was his sole reply, and any one who can expect from him a direct answer to a direct question knows him but little. Chamberlain is a trickster, but his knavery does not wear an elegant and smiling mask, as did that of Disraeli. He does not possess the talent, unrivalled for a politician, of taking refuge in exquisite and airy phrases which mean nothing. He never speaks boldly and openly; his replies are either equivocal or directly brutal. He is easily angered, and one can see by his face that he does not possess the selfcontrol which is one of nature's most precious gifts to a born gentleman. But his uncouth manners, his cynicism, his business finesse have completely captivated both English society and the English government, and we witness the strange spectacle of cultivated men like Mr. Arthur Balfour, for instance, turned into mere puppets in his hands, voluntarily relinquishing in favor of his schemes their own political beliefs, as well as their personal integrity. He has carried with him to the Treasury bench the manners and mode of speech that formerly served his purpose in administering the municipal government of Birmingham. When he is sincere he is vulgar, and his comparison of President Kruger to a sponge that needed squeezing is a fair sample of his eloquence. I can never believe that the House of Commons at Westminster would have supported him in the days of Palmerston or Melbourne-those days when orators quoted Greek and Latin in their speeches, certain of being understood by at least the greater part of their audience. I uphold that no seed can grow unless it fall on the ground that is fitted to receive it, and the Great Britain which endures, and, indeed, frequently applauds Chamberlain, is no longer the Great Brit

Wellington, Gladhave

ain of Canning, of nor of the first years of stone, for Disraeli's doctrines permeated the life of England throughout its highest spheres as a pernicious fever penetrates into, and predominates over, a district. I have not space here to enter into particulars in regard to that phenomenal Venetian Jew who governed and led in the leash the entire aristocracy of England.

Another time, perhaps, I can treat the subject more at length, and endeavor to explain the causes which rendered possible the dominion acquired by Disraeli over a nation whose ideals and character were so directly the opposite of his own. Never has there been seen a more marvellous spectacle, and, stranger yet, that influence continues, and, indeed, is still growing, fostered by that singular association known as the Primrose League, so called from a supposed fondness of Disraeli for the modest little blossom of the primula. In spite of his real genius, Disraeli had a passion for réclame, for false show, for luxury, for glare and glitter. This is evident in all his speeches, and all his novels as well, and he has succeeded in engrafting this taste upon the taciturn and reserved English character. The first sign of this mania in the nation was shown when Disraeli was allowed to transform an old and illustrious monarchy into a new and "Brummagem" Empire! After this first step the rage for pomp pervaded the whole country, and it is the cause why this truly great and noble nation has become puffed up with the pride of riches, and is never weary of proclaiming loudly her superiority to all the rest of the world, though surely vanity is no more edifying in a nation than in an individual. This change which, without doubt, is the work of Disraeli and the plutocracy, in great part Jewish and commercial, has prepared the way for Chamberlain, who

is ever engaged in beating up recruits for the cause, and who, without the idealism of Disraeli, is vainer, more cruel and less scrupulous; indeed, one may almost say he has no scruples. At the time of Disraeli's ascendancy the country was governed principally by an old aristocracy of elevated sentiments; now it is ruled by financiers and speculators, who make that same old aristocracy dance, whatever tune they choose to play. There are signs that the country is tired of Lord Salisbury, who still remains faithful to many of the best customs and ancient traditions of the state, and that it would prefer to remain under the sole guidance of the Birmingham merchant. Lord Salisbury has too many scruples, is too honorable, too dignified for the new epoch, and it is painful to see such a man become the echo of, and the apologist for, one of Chamberlain's stamp. It seems incredible that the Premier should stoop to repeat the fiction of the war's being waged for the benefit of the Outlanders-the emigrants who went to the Transvaal to work, or to make fortunes, according to the good or ill luck they might encounter there. To say that the war has been brought about because that element of the population has not the right to vote at the elections, is a pretext too flimsy to impose upon even the besottedly ignorant. The English who live in Italy have no right to vote there; wherein, then, does Italy less offend than the Transvaal? And why do the Outlanders remain in a country where they are outraged and insulted? Certainly, it seems to me that England must invent a more plausible excuse than this in order to cover up her bellicose and ambitious designs in South Africa. The proprietor of the Conservative paper, the Morning Post, himself a noted Tory, is chancellor of the Primrose League, and for months past that paper has covertly insinuated that Chamberlain