THE HOUSE OF COMMONS FROM THE INSIDE.*

Tins is a deeply interesting, and even noteworthy, work. It is-interesting as being the best account we have ever read of the inner life of the House, and it is noteworthy because of the very accurate political observations made by Mr. White. The author was originally a Bedford bookseller, but he was appointed by Lord Charles Russell assistant doorkeeper of the House in 1854, and soon afterwards became doorkeeper. Though not a professional politician, Mr. White had as keen and true a political judgment as almost any public man of our time, and nearly all his estimates and predictions are full of discernment, while many have been actually realised, and most of his verdicts have become the common property of all intelligent political observers. Mr. White died in 1882, but he had retired some years before his death. It occurred to him that the debates in Parliament might be made more interesting to the public, and so in 1855 he tried his hand at a series of sketches, thus anticipating the descriptive reports of our time. These were published in the Illustrated Times, and they were certainly more replete with wisdom and accuracy than most of the Parliamentary sketches of to-day. Mr. White was personally a strong Liberal, bat he is rarely if ever biassed, he gives credit where credit is due, and, though he evidently disliked, and perhaps despised, a certain type of Tory, he is always scrupulously fair to every person and every idea, reserving his somewhat caustic criticism for ignorance, pretence, and unreason. As the work extends down to the end of the Session of 1871, we have a faithful picture of the House of Commons during the transition period from Whig rule and methods to the more democratic composition and tone of our own time.

In his preface, Mr. McCarthy, who knows the House of Commons as few living men do, and who has known it since he entered as a reporter in 1860, expresses his agreement with Mr. White in the estimate he makes and in the picture he paints, in nearly every particular. There is one important exception. Mr. McCarthy thinks that Mr. White scarcely does full justice to Sir George Cornewall Lewis as a speaker. Mr. White admits his ability, but notes that he was "not specially attractive." Mr. McCarthy, on the other hand, thinks that Sir George Lewis had "a marvellous gift of keen and ready humour, a curious combination of wit, satire, and common-sense." It was, we should say, Sir Cornewall Lewis's unfortunate manner which somewhat tired the genial door- keeper, and prevented him from properly appreciating one of the ablest and most learned statesmen of the present reign. We ourselves can hardly agree with the estimate of Sir Stafford Northcote, whose voice Mr. White thought "harsh and brassy." That was never our impression of Sir Stafford Northcote, though we admit the monotony of his delivery, and the too minute character of his criticism. He certainly was not marked out by nature for a leader of men. Mr. White scarcely foresaw the fame of Lord Salisbury, whom he criticises unsparingly as Lord Robert Cecil, as "haughty and proud, and of an intractable temper," as "a man of a past age." having "no sympathy with the life, and stir, and growth of the present." He dwells on the " acrid temper," the "chronic low fever," which prevented a man of manifest power from rising to any high position in the esteem of the House. On the other hand, Mr. White notes what he calls the "new birth" or " conversion " of this remarkable man when, as Lord Cranborne, he entered the Ministry of Lord Derby, and resigned because he could not stand the democratic concessions made by the Reform Bill of 1867. From the moment of that surrender of Toryism, says Mr. White, all hope of withstanding change through a genuine Tory party deserted Lord Salisbury. We are not quite sure that full credit is given to Mr. Whiteside, who was something more than the striking embodiment of physical power which his critic makes of him. To the present generation Richard Bethel!, Lord Westbury is a mere name, remembered only by reason of a famous epigram. But Mr. White thought him one of the very first men of his time. "His knowledge is amazing," his industry is represented as marvellous, "sixteen hours a day for labour, and eight for meals and sleep." In choosing the right word, Mr. White regards him as Glad- stone's superior. Roebuck was, on the whole, rather a favourite The Inner Life of ths House of Commons. By William White. Edited, with a Preface, by Justin McCarthy, M.P., and with an Litrodnetion by the Anther's Son. London, T. Fisher Unwin.

of Mr. White's, notwithstanding his "asperity of language" and his "scornful looks," because "he tells plain truths which need to be told." For Sir Edward Bulwer-Lytton our author has no admiration, and it is noticeable that he always introduces him satirically by his fall, long-sounding name. His utter incapacity to speak his owni language with even moderate clearness recall* Thackeray's parody, and makes one wonder how it came to pass that many Members thought his speech on the Reform Bill of 1866 one of the greatest orations of the time. The brief Parliamentary life of Samuel Warren the novelist is satirically noted, and Mr. White, though at times amused by Mr. Bernal Osborne, thought, rightly enough, that there was little in his speeches.

Mr. White has naturally most to say of the great leaders of the period,—Palmerston, Russell, Gladstone, Disraeli, Cobden, Bright, Lowe. He is a genuine admirer of Palmerston, not on account of his policy, but for himself. He notes the old leader's courage, industry, bonhomie, cheery and hopeful nature, and he shows us how " Pam " kept his party well together. A new and young Member, who had been absent through sickness, was pleasantly surprised on his return by a hearty slap on the back from Palmerston and a kind inquiry after his health. It is whispered that some of the "great, wise, and eminent" men on the Liberal Front Bench now know nothing of their humbler followers, and would never dream of asking how they were. But Palmerston knew men. We have capital pictures of him, walking upright as a dart, with " surtout coat, buttoned up close, dark trousers, and black necktie." Mr. White never saw him once in evening dress. He lived in the House, dined there, and walked away in the early dawn, chatting briskly after eleven hours in the House. He never attempted eloquence, "but he is a clear and effective speaker, and very sagacious," knowing not only what to say, but what to leave unsaid. Mr. Bright was often indignant at Palmer- ston's levity, but on one occasion the old veteran scored off his censor. "The hon. Member," said Palmerston, "has taken me to task for what he is pleased to call my levity. Now, it is rather remarkable that in the hon. Member's speech there were no less than ten jokes. I cannot, however, find fault with the levity of these jokes, for there was no levity in them." Of Lord John Russell we hear a good deal, but there is no proper estimate of his powers. We are told that he was averse to late hours, and that his Budget speech "almost sent the House to sleep." As a leader, we are told, Russell was always open to a hint in the shape of a pull at his coat that he had spoken long enough, in contrast to Mr. Gladstone, who, absorbed in his subject, was insensible to all tactile pressure.

We imagine that the estimate of Disraeli formed by Mr. White is the universal impression of all men capable of judgment on the subject. He is the great "Asian mystery," the clever play-actor; and for the new generation who knew him not, the picture of the pale face absolutely expressiveless, the almost lifeless figure, the sudden spring forward when the moment for debate had come, the adjustment of coat and collar, recalls him "whom they call Dizzy" better than any account we have ever seen. Mr. White seems to think that only on one occasion did Disraeli show feeling, and that was when Mr. Gladstone had made a graceful and pathetic allu- sion to his dead wife. We are told, however, that Disraeli's reception as Prime Minister was "generous and hearty," showing how deep and wide was the gulf between the new and the old Toryism.

We should have been glad to hear more of Cobden, though he obviously impressed his observer with his high qualities. Cobden's power of holding the House is noted, though "his manner is not specially attractive, nor is his voice particularly musicaL" Mind and character, however, commanded universal respect. Mr. White says that the speeches in the House, save Bright's pathos, on Cobden's death, were purely artificial. Bright himself is perhaps the chief hero of this work, his strong character, as well as his great elo- quence, attracting one whose politics, we should think, closely resembled Bright's. We are told for the first time of a protracted conversation in 1856 between Bright and Disraeli, the particulars of which were never divulged. Lowe is marked out for the Exchequer long before he attained that place, and, though Mr. White did not approve his Reform speeches, he thought him a genuine Reformer, while he

specially praises his first Budget. Mr. White thought highly of Lowe as an orator, as it is no secret Mr. Gladstone does too; but he does not refer to that dropping of the voice at the close of a sentence which always struck us as a defect in Lowe's speaking. The characterisation of Mr. Gladstone is admirable. His speech on the introduction of the Irish Church Bill is asserted to be the greatest he ever delivered in Mr. White's hearing, for all was luminous, and there was not a word too much. The marvellous knowledge of minute details displayed in the several Budget speeches, notably that of 1860, are also dwelt on. A grocer might have imagined that the orator had been a grocer all his life, a wine-merchant that he had spent his time in Bordeaux. On the other hand, Mr. White notes that Mr. Gladstone could be tedious, even

wearisome & and that he lacked tact. It was of no use pulling at his coat. Sic volt), sic jabeo was his motto,

or at least it expressed his general line of action. It is held that John Stuart Mill, of whom some Members of the House were woefully ignorant when he entered, was by no means a failure, and we are told of his incisive speaking, his voice being high-pitched and very clear. On one occa- sion Mill rushed across the House to congratulate Lord Cranborne (now Lord Salisbury) on an Indian speech.

After 1868 a new class of Members came into the House, and new men took office. Mr. White has none but words of praise for Mr. Childers, who was going to sweep the Admiralty with a new broom. He was impressed by the ability and debating power of Mr. (now Sir William) Har- court, but notes a certain coldness as of lack of deep con-

viction, and a too great deliberateness of manner. Mr. Forster's ungainly appearance and brusque style were com- pensated for by weight and earnestness, and Mr. Goschen justified Mr. Gladstone's choice. Mr. W. H. Smith also struck our observer as an excellent and sensible man, marked out for promotion, and the result proved the sound- ness of the verdict. Mr. Mundella was rather too fond of tearing a passion to tatters, but Mr. Richard was a man of eloquence and fine character. Mr. (now Sir W. T.) Charley came up with a great reputation for fervent Pro- testantism, but he simply made himself ridiculous.

In addition to the Members of the House, Mr. White gives us vivid pictures of frequent or occasional visitors. There are Persigny, leaning against a pillar and waiting for Palmerston ; Sumner, fresh from that brutal assault which disgraced the American Senate in the old black slavery days; Motley and Reverdy Johnson ; Montalembert ; Brougham, in his old age, with his hat thrust down over his enormous head, venturing after an absence of a whole generation into a Chamber which he had not even seen before; Stratford de Redcliffe, a little, pale-faced, grey-headed old gentleman gliding across the lobby ; the gigantic "Jacob Omnium" of

the Times, and others. But the most interesting figure among the visitors, perhaps, particularly if we consider the occasion of his visit, was Jefferson Davis:—

"The port and appearance of the ex-President were most likely much more imposing when he sat in his Presidential chair at Richmond, with the news of victories pouring in upon him from every quarter, and very different from that of the bowed, stricken, disconsolate man who glided through the lobby on Monday night Had he entered that lobby when he was at the zenith of his glory, what a crowd of Members would have gathered round him But now he comes and goes, unnoticed and unknown."

The occasion of the Confederate leader's visit was the introduction of the Irish Church Bill by the illustrious man

who, years before, had made the fatal blunder of proclaiming Davis as the creator of an army, of a navy, and of a nation ! Strange and tragic paradox !

On the whole. Mr. White gives a not unpleasant picture of the House. If he reveals cynicism, and sometimes strange ignorance, he also shows much clear judgment on the part of its Members, and a kindly feeling and genuine admiration for the best men quite apart am opinion. We cannot help feeling that the House is unique and characteristic, as no other legislative body is. And, above all, the author shows us the movement, the life, the "very pulse of the machine," as it is revealed in no other work on the House of Commons that

we have ever read. As a history of the House of Commons during an eventful period this work is unique.