Way out of the Indian Difficulty,' which Mr. Tupp thought did not by any means solve the problem. Mr. Tupp called his attention to certain papers and lectures on Bimetallism, to which Lord Sherbrooke replied more suo :— 34 Lowndes Square: July 21, 1881 I have read Mr. Gibbs, so need not trouble you, and have had the advantage of a lecture from Mr. Geruschi himself. I congratulate you on your discovery of the philosopher's stone. If saying that one metal shall be equal in value to another can make it equal, you are fairly entitled to claim to have discovered the secret of boundless riches. But why bimetallism only? Why not trimetallism, or quadrimetallism? It is as easy to say that copper is equal to gold as silver. Believe me, truly yours, SHERBROOKE. It is needless to say that this line of reasoning did not shake Mr. Tupp's confidence in bimetallism. But a little while before this, he had met Lord Sherbrooke by appointment at the Athenæum Club, and in a long hour's talk had found him as brilliant and incisive as ever. Lord Sherbrooke's next contribution to the Nineteenth Century (August 1881) was on our Bankruptcy laws, a subject in which he had ever taken a deep interest from old Sydney days. It was entitled What shall we do with our Bankrupts ?' and was really aimed at the legislation of Mr. Chamberlain as President of the Board of Trade. The article is slight, but tersely written, enforcing with much clearness Lord Sherbrooke's well-known views as to debtor and creditor. In 1883, Mr. T. F. Cashin issued a pamphlet entitled The Inutility of Bankruptcy Laws: Lord Sherbrooke's Remedy; to which Lord Sherbrooke himself contributed a Prefatory Dissertation on Bankruptcy.' This was a further attack on Mr. Chamberlain's proposed legislation at the Board of Trade. Briefly, Lord Sherbrooke's drastic remedy for bad debts and commercial fraud was the destruction of the Bankruptcy Court. 'If I am asked what I would put in its place, I answer without hesitation-Nothing. We have the common law of England, purified from the barbarism of imprisonment for debt. . . If you want to make or keep people honest, you should above all things avoid putting severe and drastic remedies in the hands of the creditor. It is quite reasonable to trust a man for his wealth, his ability, his honesty, or his industry; but every day's experience shows us that nothing is so unsafe as to trust your money to the fear of disgrace or punishment.' To judge from the following humorous epistle to his Indian correspondent, Lord Sherbrooke continued to look back to the stormy arena of the House of Commons with a certain regretful feeling. Viscount Sherbrooke to A. Cotterell Tupp, Esq. Sherbrooke, Caterham : September 28, 1881 My dear Mr. Tupp,-When I was in the House of Commons and could make myself disagreeable, I could do something. Now I am nothing, and no attention would be paid to me. Now I am like Giant Despair in Pilgrim's Progress, who could only grin at the people whom he once could have eaten. I am quite sure I can do you no good. I should have thought that Lang or Balfour were the proper people to apply to. In 1852, I should have been glad to take it up myself, but now I really should have no influence in such a question. Stanhope or Lord George Hamilton I could give you letters to. They are both clever fellows, and up to Indian questions. Very truly yours, SHERBROOKE. In the Nineteenth Century for April 1882, he wrote a short paper called 'What is Money?' in reply to the bimetallic views of Mr. Cazalet and Mr. Grenfell. It opened with the following Lowian sentence, which, though true enough as an abstract proposition, by no means soothed the feelings of his opponents: The wisest course which can be taken with popular delusions is very often found to be to treat them like raging waves of the sea, and let them foam out their own shame.' Mr. H. R. Grenfell, who replied in the May number by an article entitled 'What is a Standard?' seems to have been somewhat exasperated by this phrase as to foaming out his shame; and it must be admitted that, in arguing with the bimetallists, Lord Sherbrooke treated them rather too much after the controversial methods of Dr. Johnson. 6 Lord Sherbrooke contributed a very striking article, on 'Parliamentary Oaths,' to the same periodical for August 1882. This article, re the Bradlaugh imbroglio, was written to controvert certain opinions put forth in the House of Lords by the Duke of Argyll and Lord Redesdale. The latter had proposed that some general formula might be used, binding on all, which should simply imply a belief in God. This, Lord Sherbrooke boldly challenged as being a test that might include the rudest savage, and exclude the subtlest metaphysician.' He then took pointed objection to the ordinary form of oath, which he defined as an imprecation. To testify truthfully is binding on every citizen, without any form of oath; and he should be subject to severe punishment if he wilfully violate or evade this primal duty of citizenhood in a court of law, or elsewhere when his testimony affects the well-being of society. The taking of oaths is notoriously no criterion of truth: those who are the most addicted to solemn adjuration on the slightest provocation being notoriously the greatest liars. Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay. It was in his answer to this article, in the succeeding number of the Nineteenth Century, that Cardinal Manning declared that Lord Sherbrooke's sayings and writings were always sharper than a two-edged sword.' On November 13, 1882, Lord Sherbrooke wrote as follows to his brother: I am very unhappy about our proceedings in Egypt. We are, I think, making a very stupid mess of it. We ought to have tried Arabi by a court-martial of English officers for abusing the white flag and for destroying Alexandria; and if he was guilty of either, to have shot him-if not, required the Khedive to banish him. This miserable jumble of English and Mahommedan law can lead to nothing but confusion and injustice.' On the subject of Egypt, Lord Sherbrooke also wrote as follows to a Manchester correspondent: Sherbrooke, Caterham: September 26, 1882 Dear Sir, I think the Government were quite right in putting down the military revolt in Egypt. Egypt is really more European than African, being united to the one by the sea, and separated from the other by burning deserts. We ought to keep a sufficient British force there to keep the peace. The government should be ostensibly in the Khedive, but it should be understood that nothing could be done contrary to the will of the English general, on whose support the existence of the State depends. We ought to be able to manage this better than anyone, for we have been practising in India for a hundred years. Everything will turn on his prudence and discretion. We never can allow our troops to be made the means of enforcing injustice or oppression. Above all things, I would avoid a joint occupation with a European Power. It hampers us in time of peace, and is very likely, as in a recent instance, to desert us in time of war. In the present state of Europe, I think our policy should be-Friends with all, alliance or joint enterprise with none. Our object is not to conquer or annex, but to foster and control. Your obedient servant, In the autumn of 1883, Lord Sherbrooke wrote the following letter to a correspondent who had consulted him with regard to the question of the extension of the county franchise, which, in the following year, was carried through both Houses by an amicable arrangement between the two parties. This brief letter was Lord Sherbrooke's last words in his life-long battle with democracy: I hold the same opinion which I have always held that to place the supreme power of a State in the hands of the poor and ignorant is the way to destroy it. But from the time when the Tories basely sold their principles, their convictions, and their country, for a few months of ignominious office in 1866, I have felt that the completion of the work could not much longed be deferred. The crisis has now come, and no one who has watched the begin ning can doubt what the end will be. What the Conservatives commenced, the Liberals will complete; and numbers will rule in the place of culture and intelligence. All I can say is: Taste not, touch not, handle not; and leave the task of pulling down the Constitution to the hands of those who think such a wreck not too heavy a price to pay for a few months of dear-bought office. When Mr. Gladstone brought in his Home Rule Bill, Lord Sherbrooke, with the greatest reluctance, separated from him. He took little or no part in the formation of the LiberalUnionist party, but he advised all who consulted him to follow the Marquis of Hartington. The health of Viscountess Sherbrooke, which had long been in a precarious and critical condition, at length finally gave way. She had been a confirmed invalid for some two years, when an attack of paralysis supervened at Caterham, in the summer of 1884, from which she partially recovered, and was able to drive up to London. But after two months she had another seizure, which proved fatal, and she died on October 3 of that year. It can easily be imagined what such a loss meant to Lord Sherbrooke in every way; his increasing blindness had made him more than ever dependent on the kindly offices of those nearest to him, and the blank in his life was all the greater from the solicitude that his wife's long illness had entailed. Lord Sherbrooke's public career may now be considered closed; for though he continued to take a certain interest in public questions, he bore no further part in their discussion or settlement. The simple words of his old schoolfellow and much valued friend, Lord Selborne, seem to me the best commentary on his services and character as an English statesman: What he did in Parliament and in office is matter of public history; for me, it is sufficient to bear to it this testimony, that in acuteness and uprightness he has not been exceeded by any of his contemporaries.' |