ing in his house for the steamer to take | office has been the shortest of them all. us home.

Four days after we came down the Pungwe, some "boys " going along in a boat some miles above the town, saw a lion half sunk in the soft mud at the edge of the river, so they rowed up to him, and as he could not extricate himself they beat him to death with their oars, and brought him down to Beira. Is it not provoking to think that if we had come down four days later we should have seen him? As it is, I have spent five months in the country without seeing either lion, crocodile, or hippopotamus. What has been the use of coming to Africa !

From The Fortnightly Review. MR. PEEL AND HIS PREDECESSORS.

It is probable that no man now lives who sat in Parliament under the speakership of Mr. Abbot, which came to a close in 1817; while even Mr. Gladstone had only been three years in the House when Sir Henry Manners Sutton vacated the chair to be raised to the peerage as Viscount Canterbury. If, therefore, the comparison is to be confined to a period for which the evidence of living witnesses who had adequate opportunities of observation is available, Mr. Peel's record can only be compared to any purpose with those of the last three speakers who preceded him in the chair, Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, Mr. Denison, and Mr. Brand. And, undoubtedly, unless the eulogies to which we have referred are excessive, we should have to conclude that his name will go down to posterity along, let us say, with that of Onslow, when those of the three speakers who became respectively Lord Eversley, Lord Ossington, and Lord Hampden are lost in the shadowy company of Addingtons, Abbots, and Abercrombies.

THE late speaker of the House of Commons has retired from the chair amid a perfect chorus of congratulations in Parliament and the press on the exceptional success with which he has discharged the difficult duties and maintained the high dignity of his Of course, it may be so. Posterity office. It would be alike unjust and will judge of speakers as it has judged, ungracious to suggest that these enthu- judges, and will judge of poets; and siastic eulogies are undeserved. No contemporary opinion in the one case, competent critic of Mr. Peel's conduct as in the other, can only make guesses in the chair could, for a moment, think at its verdict. Still I cannot but think of denying that he has been an able that one may guess with a good deal of and authoritative speaker; or even, plausibility that not posterity merely, though this is a point on which only a but the public of ten or twenty years very prolonged experience indeed could hence, will decline to approve the entitle any one to speak with confi- elevation of the excellent and most dence, that his merits surpass those efficient speaker whose retirement we displayed by the majority of his prede- are all regretting to the position of excessors in that office in the course of traordinary pre-eminence which the present century. Of these he has claimed for him. And if anybody rehad seven; but inasmuch as two of tains the balance of his judgment in them, Sir John Mitford and Mr. Aber- those days (which, to some of us in cromby, only occupied the chair for a hours of despondency, seems doubtful year and four years respectively, we upou present appearances), it will be may say that the number of his com- perceived, by that retrospective critic petitors is practically reduced to five. at any rate, that while Mr. Peel's conThe comparison, therefore, would lie duct of Parliamentary proceedings, from between Mr. Peel and Speakers Abbot, 1884 to 1895, can be clearly made out Manners Sutton, Shaw-Lefevre, Den- from contemporary records, to have ison, and Brand; and it is to be noted, been able and successful, the extravathough the fact of course has more gant eulogies showered upon him at his than one significance, that his term of retirement were merely the utterances

is

of that spirit of "sensational" exag- than usual departs from it, it is for the geration which can neither praise nor blame anything with any sense of measure, and which nowadays so largely pervades our periodical literature, and makes itself so constantly felt, not only in our public speaking, but even in the commonplaces of social converse.

pleasure of launching some picturesque phrase which has been suggested rather by his own artistic instincts than by its special appropriateness to the object. Thus it was of Mr. Denison, certainly not a speaker exceptionally remarkable for the commanding quality of his auOther causes, too, have no doubt thority, that Mr. Disraeli observed in contributed to the same result, and, characteristic fashion, that even the indeed, one such case, and a most" rustle of his robes as he rose to influential one, obtrudes itself upon rebuke a breach of order was sufficient notice. I refer, of course, to the fact to awe an offender into submission. that so large a proportion of the mem- In the language, in short, of the leader bers of the present Parliament, and so of the House, and of the leader of vigorously vocal a body of writers for the Opposition for the time being, the newspaper press, have had so short each retiring speaker in turn has spean experience of the House of Com- cially distinguished himself in the dismons, and are really so ignorant, if I play of the qualities demanded by may say so without offence, of even the his office. An Amurath of promptitraditions of past Parliamentary gener- tude, firmness, impartiality, and urbanations on this subject. The history of ity, invariably succeeds an Amurath the speakership begins for many of of readiness, decision, fairmindedness, them when Mr. Brand was about mid- and conciliatory manners. It is only way in his career; not a few of them right that it should be so; it could were in long clothes, some of them un- not be otherwise without infringing born, when Mr. Brand's immediate the proper and, indeed, indispensable predecessor was called to the chair. It conventions of public life. Nor, of is difficult for them to realize that the course, do I suggest that even the resolution of thanks moved by Sir Wil- youngest journalist or member of Parliam Harcourt on the 9th of April is liament is theoretically unaware of the substantially common form;" that conventionality of all such ceremonial speaker after speaker has been assured proceedings. It is easy, however, to that the House "fully appreciates the understand that this fact does not, and zeal and ability with which he has dis- cannot, come home to him as it comes charged his duties," and entertains the home to those who have been themstrongest sense not only "of the firm- selves eye-witnesses of three of these ness and dignity with which he has ceremonies, and retain a vivid recollecmaintained its privileges," but also of tion of the account given them by (what many an ardent youth has doubt-eye-witnesses of a fourth. less regarded as a special compliment Some, to be sure, among the high to Mr. Peel) the "urbanity and kindness which have uniformly marked his conduct in the chair, and which have secured for him the esteem and gratitude of every member of the House." Even if they do realize that this resolution is common form in Parliamentary procedure, they are assuredly not likely to have assimilated the fact that the tributes paid to a retiring speaker from the two front benches, are themselves in a large measure the common form of Parliamentary rhetoric, and that when an orator of more originality

66

qualities ascribed on these occasions to speakers may be predicated of all of them with substantial truth, and in substantially equal amount. No speaker, of modern times at any rate, has ever been accused, or perhaps, save in a few irritated minds, and then only for a few irritated moments, even suspected, of partiality. Nor have any of them ever failed of a desire to maintain the dig. nity of the office; a weakness of human nature co-operates with its strength to secure that. Zeal, industry, vigilance, and so forth they have none of them

1

ever wanted. The attribution of these | dignified; if not, he is admired the merits might well be stereotyped, and more for being dignified without it. historical accuracy would not be vio- Mr. Peel in the chair filled the eye of lated by assuming that every speaker the visitor to the House of Commons, is, as a matter of fact, equally worthy as Mr. Irving on the stage fills the eye of it. But, of course, the qualities of the playgoer at the Lyceum. No which go to make one speaker superior one certainly could have said that of to another are the intellectual qualities | Mr. Brand; yet surely even the youngof acuteness, readiness, and mastery est of members and journalists must be of Parliamentary law; the moral quali- able to remember the time when the ties of courage, firmness, and self- "extraordinary natural dignity" which restraint; and last, but not least, that carried off Mr. Braud's insufficient indispensable "authority," which is inches, was the theme of general adprobably much more closely connected miration. It is hardly just to the with physical than with either moral or memory of the late Lord Hampden intellectual characteristics, but which thus completely to ignore the signal no doubt possesses affinities with all success with which he overcame physthree. It was to this last-mentioned | ical drawbacks hardly less marked than gift that Mr. Peel was no doubt most the counter advantages of his suclargely indebted. He unquestionably cessor. inspired more awe, in his later years of office at any rate, than some, at any rate, of his predecessors. Peculiarities of physique had, of course, not a little share in the production of this effect. His tall stature, his stately bearing, his resonant and powerful voice, in its stronger tones, so admirably expressive of indignant displeasure, all in their several degrees contributed to it. The "natural dignity" which his most ardent admirers attributed to him in such unbounded measure, was doubtless to no inconsiderable extent a personal attribute; yet not quite to the extent supposed. As a matter of fact no speaker within living memory, and probably none within reach of living tradition, has ever been wanting in dignity. It would be a wonder if any had. The position is a great one; far too august, indeed, not to react upon and influence the bearing of its occupant. Historic traditions, immemorial and splendid, surround the chair with an aura of majesty which at one and the same time inspires the speaker and illudes the spectator. The former would be truly a poor creature if his demeanor did not borrow some dignity from his office; the latter would be a dull dog indeed if he did not lend it still more from his own imagination. If a speaker has what is called a good presence he is naturally described as

Dignity, however, though it may assist "authority," is not identical with it. In moments of excitement the appeal to the eye goes for nothing. It is the voice, its words, their tone and accent these and the associations which they awaken, and the knowledge of what they portend, which recall the rebellious to their senses; and the late speaker undoubtedly possessed an abundant measure of the potent influence which these things confer. But so also did Speaker Brand. I should certainly say that his control over the House was little less complete than that of Mr. Peel in his later years of office, and much more assured than was that of the latter at the commencement of his term. And, judging from my still lively recollections of the report of men who sat in Parliaments of the 'forties and 'fifties, they were neither of them regarded with such profound reverence as was paid during seventeen years of office to Mr. ShawLefevre. The fame, indeed, of this great speaker, and in particular his reputation for intellectual ability and profound acquaintance with Parliamentary law and precedent long survived his retirement, and may even be said to have more or less overshadowed the blameless, if undistinguished, record of his immediate successor in the chair. There is, therefore, a dis

tinct note, if not of proved exaggera- | a moderator of the debates, and a tion, at any rate of most hazardous guardian of the privileges — and manprediction in the language of those ners of the House of Commons. panegyrists who undertake to assure us Enough will have been done for my that Mr. Peel's speakership will, a gen-purpose if I suggest certain reasons eration hence, take rank in our political for demurring to that excessive exaltaannals as "the speakership of the cen- tion of the late speaker's merits and tury." When the historian is left, as achievements which imports something he then will be, with no materials to more than a bare claim on his behalf to work upon save traditional evidences be credited with ability superior to that of the contemporary and posthumous of his predecessor, and implies, unless repute in which each successive it be the merest insincerity of adulaspeaker was held, he will be at any tion, that he was a sort of heaven-sent rate no less likely perhaps more likely, considering the greater fickleness of the popular memory in these days to assign that position to Mr. Shaw-Lefevre than to Mr. Peel.

redeemer of the House of Commons from the state of indiscipline and disorganization into which, under that predecessor, it had been allowed to lapse. This may not be meant, and perhaps is not meant, by most of Mr. Peel's unmeasured eulogists, but it is an almost inevitable inference from the very excess of their panegyrics, and it is, of course, whether an intentional or not, a gross injustice to the late Lord Hampden.

It will be said, however, and with perfect truth, that the conditions of a true comparison between the records of these two eminent persons do not exist. To have been a strong and authoritative speaker during any period between 1867 and the present day has required far greater strength of char- How little this could have been anacter and force of personality than to ticipated eleven years ago, the House have earned that fame at any time be- of Commons has been recently and tween the first Reform Act and the for one party, perhaps - somewhat inintroduction of household suffrage. opportuuely reminded. But Sir HerThis, let it be again admitted, is un-bert Maxwell's reminiscences of the deniably true, and one may further events of 1884-of the inconsolable limit the first-mentioned of these regrets expressed for the loss of Sir periods by dating it from 1875, the epoch of Mr. Parnell's first appearance in Parliament, and the invention of the Irish "policy of exasperation." Practically, therefore, the comparison, to be in any degree profitable or instructive, must be confined to twenty years and to two competitors. Mr. Peel's conduct of business in the House of Commons between 1884 and 1895 must be compared with Mr. Brand's conduct of it between 1872 and 1884.

To attempt to pursue such a comparison in any detail, and to assign quantitative values to the qualities possessed respectively by each of the two speakers in question, would, apart from its invidiousness, be signally absurd. It would be impossible to prove, and I am not in the least concerned to maiutain, that Mr. Peel's predecessor was either his superior or even his equal as

Henry Brand, and the despondent presages inspired by the Parliamentary obscurity of his successor -- really lent themselves to more than one moral. Sir William Harcourt used them effectively enough to prove — if such a proposition required proof that a member of Parliament previously little known to his colleagues may admirably replace a speaker supposed to be irreplaceable. They are, however, at least equally material as showing that there is a natural tendency to consider every good speaker irreplaceable until he is actually replaced. And as a matter of historical fact, the doubts of Mr. Peel's ability to replace Sir Henry Brand were not by any means immediately dispelled. Those who have watched professionally, so to speak, his highly honorable and successful career in the chair, from its commencement to its

was never endangered except on one occasion, strangely enough, perhaps, by the insolence of a member too notorious for the brutality of his manners to be capable, one would have thought, of disturbing it.

close, are well aware that that success | encounters with the troublesome, a was all the more honorable to him be- distinct tendency to irritability placed cause it was only gradually achieved. him at a disadvantage; it was by deAbout one-fourth-no excessive pro- grees only that he acquired a selfportion, it may readily be admitted- command which, in his later career, of his official life was spent in acquiring or perfecting those powers which had to be displayed in their maturity before his complete fitness for his office could be regarded as demonstrated, and his reputation as established. Throughout another period, equal perhaps to about a half of his whole term, that reputation went on steadily increasing; and during the last two or three years of his occupancy of the chair, his fame has, in the phrase of Thucydides, won its way to the mythical." That Mr. Peel is, and was from the first, the ideal and heaven-born speaker is a legend of the present Parliament which one could almost watch in the making.

As a matter of fact the fortunes of his official career were, in the first instance, and for some considerable time, rendered doubtful by the very cause which has now unhappily cut it short at the acme of its success. For more than one session it seemed gravely uncertain whether his health was sufficiently robust or, at any rate, sufficiently equable to bear the strain; and it was during the same period, perhaps as a consequence of the same cause, that Mr. Peel had to combat, and did at last completely overcome, certain hindrances to efficiency which he at first encountered. The eulogies which have been recently pronounced on the late speaker's imperturbable placidity of temper were singularly maladroit. He is, in fact, to be congratulated on their inaccuracy. For, indeed, to be known to possess a quick and warm temper is, when once he has acquired control of it, a distinct source of strength to any one charged with authority over the proceedings of a public assembly. His self-restraint invites respect, while the knowledge that it has its limits inspires prudence. Mr. Peel's temper was not, and is not, placid in the sense of slow to move; and though it became at last, it was not at first, by any means imperturbable in the chair. In his earlier

So, too, with Mr. Peel's "rapidity " and "decision " in dealing with points of order and practice. These also were acquired, not original, qualities, or, at any rate, they were qualities which were far from conspicuous in his earlier rulings, and for the former of which he was to the last less remarkable than his predecessor. And though his pronouncements were doubtless generally sound, they were not invariably convincing one of the latest of them indeed, as to the right of a member to evade the tellers, though he has remained in the House after the doors have been locked for a division, being certainly opposed to a Parliamentary rule enforced within the last thirty years against a near relative of my own, whom I well remember to have been publicly and solemnly reprimanded by Mr. Speaker Denison for this very irregularity.

But no doubt Mr. Peel's highest title to fame is founded mainly upon the two grounds of the commanding and, indeed, awe-inspiring authority which, after the first two or three sessions of his speakership, he exercised over the House of Commons, and of the admirably judicial union of firmness and moderation with which he wielded the large and novel discretionary power, over the privileges of debate and in other matters, which was entrusted to him by the new rules. Nor would I, for a moment, be understood to question the weight and magnitude of these two claims. As to the facts on which they are founded, it would be even more absurd than ungracious to dispute them. Mr. Peel's controlling power over the House of Commons was patent even to the least experienced eye, and