BOOKS.

THE EIGHTH DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE.* first occasion on which Lord Harlington took a pro- minent part in political life was when he moved, in 1859, that tote of no confidence in Lord Derby's Government which placed in power the last Ministry of Lord Palmerston. "If Harlington goes on," wrote Lord John Russell to the Duke of Devonshire, " he will become not only a very good speaker, but a man to influence the course of the House of Commons in time to come. This to an old worn-out Whig is a promise and a consolation." How Lord Harlington "went on," and bow greatly, over a long course of years, he influenced Par- liament and the country, Mr. Bernard Holland makes it his business to tell us in two deeply interesting volumes. As a parliamentary speaker indeed, or as a platform orator, he never became distinguished; yet few speeches either in the House of Commons or in the country have keen more telling than his ; not so much perhaps in their immediate effect upon his audience as upon the mind of that large instructed general public which really cares more about the substance of political controversy than for the eloquent flights, party recriminations, and personal retorts that play so large a part in modern political warfare. The oft-quoted remark of Mr. Bryan, the Democratic candidate for the American Presidency, that the speech of the late Duke, to which he had just listened, reminded him of " pile-driving," was a happy description of the force and weight that belonged to his words and to their -delivery.

In April, 1863, Hartington entered Palmerston's Ministry as Under-Secretary for War, and in February, 1866, Lord Russell's Cabinet as Secretary of State in the same depart- ment. It was remarked at the time that the Prime Minister, in simultaneously calling to his counsels Hartington and Goschen, was proceeding on the basis of make-weights, intro- ducing a man new to political life, known only by his abilities, and believed to hold advanced views, as a kind of set-off to the safe constitutional Whiggism to be expected from the ,heir of the Cavendishes. However this may have been, the two men, instead of counterbalancing each other, throughout their long careers shared very closely the same political -opinions, and as trusty allies shared also the honours of many a hard-fought field.

Mr. Holland's "Life" shows clearly enough that from the very beginning Lord Hartington's strong sense of responsibility and powerful practical judgment made him a man to be 'reckoned with by his most experienced and most masterful colleagues. He was not prepared to sink his own individuality as to alr matters " not in his depart- ment." He felt keenly that be personally shared the responsibility of his chief and the Cabinet for their general policy. He knew indeed how to compromise and bow on occasion to yield his own opinion—knowledge essential to a useful colleague and to- one who would himself wield influence.

His individuality, strong as it was, had little affinity with that of men who cannot, so to speak, throw their powers into the common stock, and who are happy in the aloofness of a fancied superiority. He had in a very exceptional degree the gift of seeing things in their true proportion, and there was no one less willing than he to break with colleagues or party -connexions for any cause not in his belief fundamental.

Almost from the beginning the position held by Lord Harlington in the Liberal Party was a unique one. It was felt that his adhesion to a Liberal Ministry was essential to its existence. At the end of the Gladstone Government of 1868 he was the second man in the party, and on Gladstone's resignation of the lead he immediately became the first. He had not always in the past been in hearty agreement with what had been done; but he rightly thought that a breach between moderate Liberals and advanced Radicals would be a misfortune, and it was due greatly to his influence that the party under Mr. Gladstone had been kept together to do admirable work for the country. low that it was defeated, and its old leader had abandoned it, it was felt that no one but Lord Harlington could be at its head. Yet up to that time his political personality had not been strikingly before the world. As Gladstone • The Life 4 Spencer Compton, Eighth Duke of Devonshire. By Bernard Holland, C. B. With portraits and illustrations. Two vols. London Long- mans and Co. [32s. net.] wrote to him in 1875, pressing him to undertake the leader- ship : " the public have an inadequate idea of your force," owing, he says, to his modesty and the infrequency 'of his appearances. "People will be surprised," he continued, " when they come to know by experience the quantity of available material, pith, and manhood that is in you."

With his eyes, as usual, wide open to the facts, Hartington unwillingly accepted the post of difficulty and honour. His main difficulties were perhaps greater than be had expected, for after a year or two of comparative repose Mr. Gladstone was in- flaming the country against the Government for their manage- ment of the Eastern Question; whilst the Radicals, disliking a Whig leadership and tending towards alliance with Irish Home Rulers, were willing to make use of Mr. Gladstone's passionate vehemence to weaken the position of his successor, and thereby to advance their own prospects of predominating over the moderate elements in the party. Hartington throughout this trying period put first the interests of his country. He would not, he writes to Lord Granville (January 7th, 1878), carry a vote of no confidence, even if he could, in the Government, for that would necessitate immediate dissolution, and at a critical time the influence of the country would be paralysed. He was ready enough to resign the leadership ; but whilst he was in the responsible position of leader he and his friends were bound to act on the best of their own judgment, and could not devolve their responsibilities upon anyone else.

When after the elections Lord Hartington declined to accede to the Queen's request that he should form a Govern- ment, he did so on the ground that Mr. Gladstone was the de facto Liberal leader ; and he at once advised and even pressed her Majesty to send for him. That was, be held, the proper constitutional course for her to adopt. Mr. Holland thinks that Hartington in 1880 would have made abetter and safer Prime Minister than a "sentimental idealist" like Gladstone or the " romantically imaginative " Disraeli. Perhaps so, if personal qualifications alone were to be con- sidered. But Harlington had regard to the facts, and the advice which he gave to the Queen was, in our opinion, sound, wise, and patriotic.

In the Parliament of 1880 lay the seed of much future change. Of Hartington's action within the Cabinet Mr. Holland is able to tell us a good deal. It all tends to confirm the general belief in his strong, sane judgment and to create a feeling that had his counsels more often prevailed many of the mistakes and much of the maladministration of 1880-85 would have been avoided. That portion of the work that deals with Egypt and Gordon will be read by everyone with deep interest. The result, which we cannot but regret, must be to lower the reputation of Mr. Gladstone as the head of an Adminis- tration daring critical times abroad. Harlington, whilst in agreement with the main principles of Mr. Gladstone's policy, thought it right, in loyalty to his colleagues, to remain in the Ministry, though sorely tempted at times to resign when he could not get his advice attended to. Hartington's resignation of office at any time during Mr. Gladstone's administration would have produced an immediate collapse of the Government—a testimony to the immense respect in which be was held. It was Hartington's habit to consider consequences; and this made him feel himself almost cruelly debarred from seeking freedom in the easy way open to dissatisfied and less important members of a Ministry. That Hartington was recognized as indispensable shows how very exceptional was his position. He could not but be a main prop of any Administration of which he was a member. When iu 1882 the Duke of Argyll resigned, nay, when a few years earlier Lord Cranborne, Lord Carnarvon, and General Peel resigned in a batch, or a few years later

when Lord Randolph Churchill, the Leader of the House of Commons, resigned, there was no Ministerial collapse ; vacant places were filled, and the Administrations went on in peace. But Harlington was always a representative man to whom a large portion of the country looked. Hence his power, though he had at his back no organization, and had never tried to build up a party of his own.

The change of Government in June, 1885, caused the divergent tendencies within the Liberal Party to become more acute and more apparent. Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke were the recognized leaders of advanced Radicalism. Their hopes were excited by the probable early retirement of Mr. Gladstone and the prospect that to their section of Liberals would fall his succession. Their attitude became highly aggressive against the more moderate section, for whom Goschen -was the first to take up -the cudgels. Hartington, now free from official restraints, was in continual communication and consultation with Goschen as well as with Lord Granville and Lord -Spencer ; and the two former, now- closely allied, were made the mark for the onslaughts of the Radical leaders. Mr. Chamberlain in a succession of speeches spoke his mind. He advocated, amongst other things, the disestablishment of all State Churches, a progressive income tax, one man one vote, the payment .of Members of Perlin.- meat, the total abolition of the " barbarous Game Laws," the taxation of private property by way of "ransom " for the security it enjoys; and he denounced in-very violent language that "club of Tory landlords "—the House of Lords. Such language from an ex-Cabinet Minister, Lord Hartington thought it right to point out, did not represent the views of the party as a whole ; but the " political Rip Van Winkle," who had been slumbering on "his mountain," was warned that he bad no right to descend from it in order to narrow the Radical programme. Mr. Holland's narrative takes far too little account of this almost open war between the Radical leaders and the Moderates in 1885. Yet the great position of Lord Hartington in 1886 at the bead of the combined forces of 'Liberal Unionists and Conservatives was in no small measure due to the firmness with which he had spoken and acted during that momentous autumn.

The events of December and January staggered the British public. To them it seemed that -Gladstone bad suddenly abandoned the principles of a lifetime. Where were they to turn ? Whom could they trust ? Lord Randolph Churchill was now second in the Conservative Party to Lord Salisbury only. But brilliant as he was, he-was very little trusted by many on his own side of polities, whilst he was profoundly distrusted by his opponents, especially by the -moderate Liberal section. There was a universal and spontaneous feeling that Lord Hartington could be trusted, if no one else could. There was no engineering, no "caucusing" about it. Hartington was the man of the lour. He refused to join Gladstone's Cabinet cn the ground that Mr. Gladstone was for Home Rule and he -was against it. The rejection of the Home Rule Bill was his doing. He stood like a rock, in the midst of all the vacillations, hesitations, and timid counsels inseparable from such times of crisis. After the Home Rule Rill. had been defeated, both in the House .of Commons and at the General Election, and Lord Salisbury had been sent for, he very generously wished to advise the Queen to make Lord Hartington her Prime Minister, an honour which for the second time the Liberal Unionist leader -declined, feeling that be and his political friends would be able more effectually to guard the cause of the Union from an independent position.

A few months later the sudden resignation of Lord Ran- dolph.shook Lord Salisbury's Government to its foundations, and once more .1Iartington was summoned to the rescue. The Queen and Lord Salisbury both hoped that he would now consent to form a Government in which the latter would serve as Foreign Secretary. But for the third time, for reasons -which seem convincing, he declined, whilst advising Goschen to enter. Lard Salisbury's Government as Chancellor of the Exchequer. it was not till 1895, after another Home Rule Bill had at his instance been rejected by the House of Lords and the country, that the Duke of Devonshire and his friends abandoned their independent standpoint and entered the third Salisbury. Administration.

We have no space here to touch on the services rendered by the Duke of Devonshire whema member of Lord Salisbury's and Mr. Balfour's Government. In 1903 came the -fatal revival of Protection to break -up the Unionist G-ovennment and Party. In circumstances of great difficulty the Duke played the part that might have been expected of him. He saw facts as they were. His strong brain grasped as usual the main principle -upon which the controversy turned. He was not to be taken in by plausibilities that "-wouldn't wash." Whilst others were obscure, he was clear and firm. He did his very best, in loyalty to Mr. Balfour and the Unionist Government, to prevent or postpone rupture. He advocated the appointment of a Royal Commission to give the public time and opportunity to inform itself of the facts. The Tariff Reform crusade was net, however, to he.kept waiting. When once it became clear to the mind of the Dake.of Devonshire that Mr. Balfour's Government, had in fact abandoned Free Trade, he felt that he could no longer remain umember of it. In 1886 Lord Hartingtoncould not serve -in -.the Home Rule Cabinet of Mr. Gladstone. In.1,903 it was equally impossible for the Duke of Devousifire tuserve in the -Protectionist Cabinet of Mr. Balfour.

As to the circumstances attending the Duke's resignation, the letters and speeches (many of which have already been published) may be left to speak for themselves. In truth there appears to be very little mystery about the Duke's action. It was very natural that, when first informed of Mr. Chamberlain's resignation and the Prime Minister's accept- ance of it, he should think that the Chamberlain policy was to be abandoned by the Ministry. Accordingly he remained. When it became clear that he had misunderstood Mr. Balfour's position on the fiscal question—as well he might—he resigned. Our only regret indeed is that he did not realize a little earlier that he must stand by Mr. Ritchie and Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and-that if they were being "dismissed" from the Cabinet, as he himself said, because of their Free Trade views he, as a Free Trader, was bound to act with them. It was, however, only a question of days, and no harm was done to the cause of Free 'Trade or to his reputation as the most loyal and high-minded of men brthat momentary confusion of mind which he described-with such sincerity and simplicity in his speech in the -House of Lords.

Mr. Holland tells the story of the Corn Duty from the standpoint of Mr. Chamberlain, and is especially angry with poor Mr. Ritchie ! The position a most Unionist Free Traders on the matter was well stated at the time by Sir Michael Hicks Beach, who had himself imposed the duty the year before. If, in 1903, it could only be-retained as the thin -end of the wedge to Protection, it had better be repealed. That, he said, was to choose the lesser of two evils. Protection, of -course, had not been the original intention of the tax ; but Mr. Chamberlain's action had given it that character. The Duke, in spite of advancing years, Showed his old spirit and put himself at the head of the Unionist Free Traders, who numbered amongst them many of the- sturdiest fighters, Conservative and Liberal, for the Union in the days of its hardest trial. With Mr. Chamberlain's meetings the new doctrines—taxation of the foreigner and exclusion of imports —had indeed "gone down like butter," as Lord Randolph once said with his tongue in his cheek. What the Prime Minister and his colleagues thought about it all no one could tell. To the Duke it had seemed in November, 1903, when addressing the Free Trade Unionists, that the Unionist leaders were allowing the guidance of the party to fall from their hands. Did they intend, he asked, to join their late colleague in his retrograde career, or to sit still as silent spectators whilst Mr. Chamberlain assumed all the duties, privileges, and responsibilities of leadership ? This was not the first time when it would have been well for his party and the country had more attention been paid to the counsels of the Duke of Devonshire. The General Election of 1886 saved Free Trade, and the country has not yet shown any signs of a desire to reconsider its verdict.

We are reminded once again by these volumes how much the country since 1885 onwards has owed to the high-minded and disinterested characters of both Lord Salisbury and the Duke of Devonshire. But for this no alliance would have been possible between Liberals and Conservatives, or could have been maintained for twelve months together. Mr. Holland has told the political story of the Duke's "Life," -and the portrait of the statesman and the man with which he now presents us is a true and a striking one. The Duke, as was happily said by Lord Rosebery, "was one of the great reserve forces of this country." That, we believe, his countrymen recognized. Readers, however, will find in these pages thrown on his personality many sidelights somewhat new to them. Again, we agree-with Lord Rosebery that those who did not know him were apt to underrate both his capacity and his industry. We are sure that many a man has achieved a reputation for industry with half the work to show for it. What he did do- was thoroughly done

and his power of grasping the essence of a heavy "Blue Book," an old private secretary tells us, was "phenomenal." There is one trait in his character familiar to all who knew

tim, and must strike everyone who now reads his letters and speeches—his magnanimity and generosity towards others. Many might say on reading these pages that on several occasions Lord Hartington, or the Duke, bad not received fair treatment, and that his course had been made more difficult by those who might and should have helped to make it easier. If blame attached anywhere he always advanced to take it upon himself, instead of trying to shift it on to the shoulders of others. There was no soreness, at all events, on his side of a correspondence, even when he, if either correspondent, had a right to complain.

Mr. Holland has done no more than justice to a patriotic statesman and a great man.