Page images
[blocks in formation]


HE Right Hon. Richard Seddon, prime minister in New Zealand, occupies most of Mr. Frederick Dolman's sketch of political leaders of that colony, which appears in the Windsor for September. It is interesting to note that this Premier of Labor, the author of the first old-age pensions act passed within the British empire, began life himself as a poor workingman.

The son of a Lancashire artisan, he started life at St. Helens with much the same education and prospects as any other lad in his grade of life. Before he was twenty, however, he showed independent judgment by emigrating to the colony of Victoria, where Mr. Seddon spent some years as a working engineer on the railway. Then he was attracted by the gold discoveries in New Zealand, and in 1876 he settled at Kumara, on the west coast of the South Island."


He once acted as manager of a canteen at a miner's camp, and is therefore sometimes called "an ex-publican. He made his way, not by great finds of gold, but by his championship of labor.

"Mr. Seddon did not make a 'pile' by his change of country and of employment, but it proved the making of his public career. He was first heard of as an advocate of miners' rights in the local court, then he was elected the representative of the district on the county council, and finally well started on the road to the premiership by his election in 1879 as member for Hokitika in the House of Representatives."


Mr. Dolman, who has interviewed Mr. Seddon, communicates the following incident, which sug gests that the rising statesman made his way by means even more forcible than tongue or vote:

"Of the turning point in Mr. Seddon's life an anecdote was told me which, if not literally true, may be regarded as an illustration of the sort of hold which he has got upon the people of New Zealand. A dispute occurred between the miners of Dead Horse Gully, let me say, and those of Falling Star Creek. The miners of the Gully wished to settle the matter by the ordeal of battle, and accordingly sent their chosen representative to the Creek with a challenge to fight the best man. The champion of Dead Horse Gully was a bully who had tyrannized over the miners in both camps, and was only chosen now in the belief that his prowess would intimidate the enemy. This effect it seemed likely to have, until Dick Seddon offered to fight the bully in his comrades' cause. Fight he did, and won such a victory as made him the hero thenceforth of the whole camp."


How this Lancashire lad, who began his career by working hard on his grandfather's farm in the old country, has been able to attempt legisla tion of the most difficult and successful kind is perhaps partly explained by a hint dropped in the following paragraph:

"Early in 1896, Mr. Reeves resigned the posi tion of minister for labor to accept the office of agent-general for New Zealand, in which he is so well known in London. Having exercised a great intellectual influence over Mr. Seddon, it is almost with paternal enthusiasm that Mr. Reeves adds to the ordinary duties of an agent. general that of explaining and defending the social legislation for which New Zealand has dis tinguished itself during the last few years, and

he would seem to be clearly destined for the premiership himself as soon as a vacancy should occur."



In an appended pen portrait by Mr. W. S. Myers of the Premier Imperialist at Home," Mr. Seddon is reported as saying:


My latest trouble,' said he, and cae that has brought me keen disappointment, was the colony's failure to respond to my call for New Zealand volunteers for China. My demand was dubbed "far-fetched," "quixotic," "ultra-imperialistic." But the press and my colleagues are wrong. This is no extreme, impulsive scheme of mine. I always try to look a long way ahead. Eventualities may arise in connection with the adjustment of affairs in China that will necessitate New Zealand's coming to the fore. geographically, in a direct sea line from Chinese ports,-three weeks' sailing will bring any foreign warship to our shores. Were we to send New Zealand soldiers to help in the defense of British rights in China, we would make them feel our power. But, to my profound regret, my foresight is misinterpreted."""


We lie,


N the Fortnightly Review for September, the writer who disguises his identity behind the nom de plume of "Calchas" contributes an "Open Letter to Lord Rosebery," in which he treats the former leader of the Liberal party more seriously than most of his critics are inclined to do. will be good for you," he says to Lord Rosebery, to avoid a too general popularity, and to cultivate a little hatred."


Speaking of Lord Rosebery's recent deliverances to the City Liberals, "Calchas" says:

"So far as your intentions were declared to the City Liberal Club, they were absolutely disappointing to those middle elements of national opinion to which you had hitherto appealed with most success. They dislike the government. They reject the opposition. But they believe that the rôle you propose to yourself, so far from providing a remedy for the weaknesses of either, would confirm the supine security of the one, make confusion worse confounded among the other, and aggravate all that is already weak and bad in the political situation. No honest man with the slightest claim to a knowledge of public feeling could hesitate to tell you, if his opinion were asked, that your public influence with any characteristic section of the community would be extinguished by another intervention of that character."


LIBERAL PARTY: "Oh, deary me! What's the trouble now? And just when we were beginning to get on again so nicely, too!" THE SEA-SERPENT: "Don't be frightened, ma'am; I've only come up to blow!"

["I hold myself absolutely free from the restraint which I imposed on myself nearly five years ago. Not that I desire to reenter the arena of party politics; far from it. I shall never voluntarily return to it."-Lord Rosebery's Letter to the City Liberal Club.] From the Westminster Gazette.

"Calchas," after thus faithfully dealing with Lord Rosebery, does him a good service in exhuming the presidential address which he delivered at the Social Science Congress in 1874, when Lord Rosebery was only twenty-seven years of age. "Calchas" says:

"No one has diagnosed the elements of national weakness more clearly, even since the searching lessons of the present war afforded the unmistakable revelation of our symptoms, than you did in 1874, when your instinct for the future was more sensitive than that of any politician in Great Britain."


But having thus laid some salve, Calchas" resumes the rod, and discourses to Lord Rosebery as follows:

"The place of ethical fervor, believe it, has not passed away from politics. Beyond all men. prominent in public life, except Mr. John Morley, you have the authentic impulse born of social insight and sympathy. When you plead for the wretched, the suffering, for the poor in darkness, you move, you agitate. In that mood of eloquence you can trouble and lift the heart of the nation with something of the lyric cry, and communicate a fine inspiration to the imperial idea. England needs you if the clotted philistinism of a vulgar and a vaunting sense of empire is to be dissolved. Your message to the country has been, Action, action, action!' The message of the country to you is, Action, action, action!' But if the rôle of the accomplished Ishmaelite is not to be combined with the retention of your

[ocr errors]


public influence, who are to be your associates? The dream of a middle party disappeared after the Blenheim demonstration as swiftly and irrevocably as if its fascinating attractions had never floated before any human mind."


His conclusion is as follows:

"The only personality through which Liberalism can hope to appeal to the nation and the empire against Mr. Chamberlain's is yours.

"It appeared, after the South African disasters had changed the public view of many men and things, that henceforward only two men would count in public life-Lord Rosebery and Mr. Chamberlain. The doubt now is whether Mr. Chamberlain alone is to count. Your destiny has reached its crisis, and upon your present determination to sink or swim with the fortunes of one party or the other will depend whether history is to devote to your career the damaging footnote or the appreciative chapter."

His Aggressive Lassitude.

The author of " Musings Without Method " devotes two or three pages in the September number of Blackwood to a discussion of the position of Lord Rosebery. He says many sarcastic things at the expense of the late leader of the Liberal party, and sums up the case against him without even recommending him to mercy. He


66 6

Dalmeny is one of those,' said an Eton master some forty years ago, who like the palm without the dust;' and assuredly Lord Rosebery has won more palms with less dust than the most of men. He is a Nicias who translates hesitation into inertness, a Fabius who delays so strenuously that he never comes into action. Nor would his temperament and character be an inconvenience to the state had he not usurped a sort of leadership."

In endeavoring to account for what the writer calls the aggressive lassitude of Lord Rosebery, he attributes it first to his cunningly unstable character, and then to the fact that to high rank and a love of affairs he brings no passionate conviction, no reckless enthusiasm. Moreover, the defects of an inactive temperament have been intensified fivefold by a hapless education. For Lord Rosebery was at once the creation and the creature of Mr. Gladstone."


But the writer in Blackwood is more puzzled to account for Lord Rosebery's popularity than he is for his fame:

But more strange than his vacillating career is his unbroken popularity. Being a leader, he

may demand to be led, he may throw over his party at its worst crisis, but he cannot destroy the people's interest. No public man of our day has a more generous notice of the press which he fears. But the press, for all its arrogance, is not yet omnipotent, and is daily weakening its influence by a reckless disregard of truth. It can force the world to talk about this man or that; it cannot insure any man's acceptance. In other words, it has the power of nomination, and none other. Accordingly, it has nominated Lord Rosebery for every position to which wealth and intelligence may aspire, but its nomination has not been ratified, and in its despite Lord Rosebery will probably remain dissociated and isolated' until the end. Fifteen years ago, Mr. Gladstone declared him the man of the future ;' a man of the future he remains to-day-with a shorter time of fulfillment.".


A ROSEBERY-CHAMBERLAIN ALLIANCE? T is interesting to find in the second August number of the Revue de Paris a character sketch of Lord Rosebery by M. Achille Viallate. The preliminary account of Lord Rosebery's political career which M. Viallate gives need not detain us except in so far as it throws light upon the French writer's exceptional acquaintance with English politics, of which he appears to have an intuitive comprehension. Naturally, however, M. Viallate is most interesting when he quits the easy ground of biographical information and embarks on the delicate task of penetrating within the man himself in order to note what is his position to-day and what are his views and his hopes.


First of all, this appreciative critic fully acknowledges Lord Rosebery's remarkable popularity with all classes of society a popularity won partly by his victories on the turf, partly by a certain natural courtesy and human sympathy. He goes on to say of the ex-premier that there are few problems which his fine, delicate intelligence, with its keen intellectual curiosity, has not attacked, and there are few opinions which it has not forced itself to understand. A debater rather than an orator, Lord Rosebery prefers to appeal to reason rather than to passion. At the same time, he has the orator's gift of sympathy with his audience; his voice, though of no remarkable compass, is nevertheless extremely flexible, and its musical clearness enables it to be distinctly heard even in the largest halls. Curiously enough, M. Viallate prefers the study of Pitt to the study of Napoleon at St. Helena, though he willingly acknowledges the impartial

ity which Lord Rosebery displays in the latter work in denouncing the conduct of the em. peror's jailers.


The French writer then asks himself how a man endowed with all these qualifications failed so completely as a party leader. The answer, he thinks, is not to be found in any handicap of outward circumstances such as the accident of the peerage or the ambitions of rivals, but in Lord Rosebery's own personality. The ex-premier possesses, he admits, something of the same astonishingly wide intellectual outlook which distinguished Mr. Gladstone, but he is totally with out that power of intellectual concentration which was the basis of all Mr. Gladstone's success as a leader.

The critical spirit is Lord Rosebery's worst enemy. As Mr. Pitt so truly said, the English love a statesman whom they understand or think that they understand, and in spite of all his popularity the masses have never really understood Lord Rosebery. What greater contrast could there be than that between Lord Rosebery's fastidious, critical, artistic temperament and the positive, prejudiced mind of the average Englishman!


M. Viallate agrees with Lord Rosebery in thinking that the Liberal party ought to have reckoned with the sentiment of imperialism which has gradually developed in England in the last quarter of a century. This sentiment our French critic attributes partly to the vague fears engendered in the British mind by the sudden growth of several great empires, and he declares that

the preservation of the British empire ought to be one of the chief planks in the programme of every political party." For the rest, M. Viallate recalls regretfully that speech, delivered more than ten years ago, in which Lord Rosebery laid it down that the politics of the future would be the politics of the poor, and that the function of the statesman would be to guide the working classes in the dangerous exercise of power. Now, however, domestic reforms no longer occupy the first place in Lord Rosebery's mind, and he has lost his faith in the democracy. No longer is he

a Liberal without epithet," as he proudly proclaimed himself to be at Edinburgh in 1885; he has become a "Liberal Imperialist." The great mass of the Liberal party, though unquestionably affected by the imperialist sentiment, mistrusts the bellicose character associated with it, and fears to see social reforms elbowed out.

Such, in brief, is M. Viallate's view of the situation, and in so far as he allows himself to

prophesy, he points not obscurely to a RoseberyChamberlain alliance in the future. The Liberal party must, he thinks, come round to Lord Rosebery, who is at the same time fatally inclined to Conservative ideas. M. Viallate admits that Lord Rosebery's conception of the empire is not so dangerous or so vulgar as Mr. Chamberlain's, but if it came to a struggle between the two men sitting in the same cabinet, M. Viallate would have no hesitation in predicting another Cham. berlain victory.



R. FREDERIC HARRISON contributes to the Positivist Review for September a brief paper concerning the recent decision of the House of Lords as to the civil liability of trade-unions for the acts of their officials. Mr. Harrison's paper is pessimistic in the extreme. He regards the decision of the House of Lords as being morally and legally final. He even goes so far as to say that he doubts whether qualified lawyers will find it easy to displace any one of the precise propositions laid down by Lord Lindley in his judgment. We may therefore take it as settled that the law is as Lord Lindley lays it down. And what is the result of this? Mr. Harrison tells the workingmen of England that, as the result of these judgments, judgments, they have lost important interests of their daily labor for which a previous generation struggled and believed they had won forever. Two decisions of the House of Lords in the last few weeks have deeply affected the legal positions of the trade-unions of our country. is not too much to say that these judgments have practically made new law,-law which must prevent trade-unions from doing many things that, for twenty-five years, they have believed they had a right to do, and which exposes the whole of their funds to legal liabilities from which till now they have been thought to be exempt.

[ocr errors]


"Until the acts of 1871 and 1875, which legalized trade-unions and strikes, the unions were illegal societies, and could be robbed with impunity. The authors of those acts assumed that in making unions legal they did not make them corporate bodies capable of suing and being sued. When some of the unions were asking for power to sue as corporate bodies, some of us on the royal commission told them that, if they had the right to sue, they would be exposed to the liability to be sued, in which case they would very soon be ruined. From that day to this it has been held that trade-unions could not be sued as a body and made liable to the whole extent of their funds-benefits to widows

and children and all-like a bank, a railway, or a trading company. The House of Lords has now astonished the legal and the industrial world by deciding that unions can be sued, and the whole of their funds charged to make good whatever is lawfully claimed in costs or as damages for the acts of their officers. How soon, or how far, that new law may ruin them, remains to be seen.

"I certainly have no intention of caviling at this judgment-no lawyer would do so. It is final and makes the law.

"The Irish case, Quinn versus Leathem, decided on August 5, fills up all the holes left open by the Taff Vale case. If the first was the wedge strong enough to rend any union to which it was applied, the second was the steam-hammer to drive the wedge home.

"These two decisions together come to this:

1. When a trade-union seeks to drive any one to its terms by inducing others not to deal, though it may not do anything forbidden by the act of 1875, it may be civilly liable in damages (Quinn versus Leathem).

2. A trade-union may be made corporately responsible for the acts of its officers, may be sued by name, and its funds may be taken to satisfy all legal claims.

"If powerful companies cannot smash up the great unions with these new weapons in the industrial war, they must be a dull and timid lot, and not the men they are commonly supposed to be.

"Now, what are trade-unionists to do? Well, the only advice I can give them is not to enter into strikes or lockouts at all, or, if they do (and it seems still to be lawful for tradesmen to agree not to work, or to work only for specific wages), to be very careful to do nothing which can pinch or inconvenience anybody, workmen or employers, directly or indirectly. make it unpleasant to any one, or cause any one to lose his money or his trade, they run great risk of having their union funds drained dry. So I advise them to take the terms their employers offer them-and be thankful for that."



If they

HE Pall Mall Magazine for September contains a very interesting paper entitled "The London of Ten Years Hence; a Walk from Westminster to St. Paul's and Westward Again to South Kensington." It is written by Mr. Hugh B. Philpott, and admirably illustrated by Mr. Hedley Fitton. Mr. Philpott begins by calling attention to the often overlooked fact of the amount of new building that is going on in London at the present time. He says: "Within the next ten years, there will have

been added to London a greater number of costly and important new buildings than in any similar period since the rebuilding of the city after the great fire of 1666. If it were made known that in ten years' time there would be completed in England on the banks of a noble river a new city of half a million inhabitants, containing a splendid cathedral, great government buildings, a town hall, a palace of justice, three substantial bridges, besides libraries, baths, hospitals, hotels, and business premises, all designed by the most eminent architects and engineers of the day, and erected in a style worthy of any capital in the world, there can be no doubt that the announcement would arouse the most widespread interest and curiosity. Yet that is precisely what is going to happen, except that the fine new city, instead of being separate and self-contained, will be dispersed in sections throughout the whole of the metropolis."

In order to illustrate the change that will be wrought in the outward appearance of the metropolis, Mr. Philpott says:

"Let us imagine the case of a London citizen who knows his London fairly well, and is interested in it, a somewhat exceptional person, it must be admitted, -and who, after an absence of about ten years, returns to town, say, in the spring of 1911. What are the most striking changes he is likely to observe in the streets and buildings?"


Mr. Philpott starts his traveler at Victoria Station, and the first thing that meets his eye is the great new Roman Catholic cathedral which is being built on the right in Ashley Gardens. This is the most important Roman Catholic edifice erected in England since the Reformation. It is in the Byzantine style, with an outside of red bricks relieved with bands of stonework. In time it is hoped that the whole of the interior walls and roof will be covered with the richest marbles and mosaics.

"The building is on a collossal scale: it is 380 feet long by 170 feet broad, and will hold a congregation of about ten thousand people. The campanile, when carried to its full height, will be 300 feet high, and the great arch over the west door is said to be the largest arch over any church door in the world; the tympanum of the arch, which is 27 feet across, will be filled with mosaic."


Leaving Ashley Gardens and proceeding westward, Mr. Philpott's traveler is confronted by the great group of new buildings fronting Westminster Abbey.

« PreviousContinue »