MR ASQUITH.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLVI, Issue 116, 14 May 1912, Page 6

MR ASQUITH.

"Why Asquith?" It is just 20 years since people asked this question, for it was in 1892 that Gladstone selected him to fill the important office of Secretary for Home Affairs. Arid to-day if there be one man in the whole Empire of whom it may be 'Said th-nt foe occupies a groat«r space in the sun than, any other, that man is the same Herbert Honry Asquith. When in 1876 he left Oxford, after a brilliant course, he went straight to the Bar, and, not being a man of means, he passed through his share of the disappointments of the briefless barrister. But he wasted no time, and while waiting for briefs he gave Mmself up to the study of politics. In 1886 he contested East Fife, and was returned as a supporter of Mr Gladstone and Home Rule- He was then 34 years of age. In the following year he attracted some attention amongst lawyers and politicians by nis defence of those charged with rioting in Trafa]gar Square. It is interesting to remember that one of the rioters of this period, John Burns, is now a colleague of Mr Asquith. But though this incident obtained for liim some distinction, it was not until the following year that he made !his mark, and impressed all with a sense of his ability. And it oame about by a mere chance. He was engaged as junior to Sir Charles Russel for ■ Parnell in the Special Commission.

■ The examinstion-in-ehief of Mr 'Parnoll he condiicted, and >it occupied two days. "During this time I well remember. bearing Asquith, as "junior," reading out to the Oourt column after rolumn from Patrick Ford's 'Irish World.' extracts from O'Donovan Ros^a's 'Warning to Landlords,' and a full account, from the 'Congressional Record.' of Parnell's 'address on the Irish Question t to the House of Representatives in the United States. But* it wa*s *<ot until Friday, February 15, 1889, thnt 'AscfilLh irt-ped /into prominencel. No one who- was present in Proßate Court No. 1 on that eventful day is likely to foi-got it. ' The court-room and corridors wore crowded. John Morlev" was there, and Xxeorge Augustus Sal a, aifd 'Mr Labouchere. Mrs .Gladstone, too, was "there in a seat. near \t'he judicial bench. and, of course, ParneN, Tim Healv, and 'Michael Davitt. Another figure T also remember. fr>c,tbpticallv pttired and carrying a fur-Hned coat,—the urfortunate genius, Oscar Wilde. .AIL fully expected -the appearance of Sir Gharles Russell +<o extract from Tlie , Times manager. Mr Maodonald, same ' anberestins: evidence in regard to tho forged letters."

It was after the'luncheon adjournment "when, to everyone's amazement, Mr Asquith rose to cross-examine. iWord quickly was nassed round that Sir Charles was indispossd', and that 3ie had during the adjournment informed his junior that he must take on the cross-examination of Mr Mactlonald. Up to this point not a word hail been got from f>ny of The Times witnesses about the famous letters. Mr 'Boaon-?«r, The Times solicitor, had been, in the box, and Sir Charles himself could no no good ■with him. - The unfortunate Pipcott was not called for some five days after. '. Michael Davitt whispered to ma: "Th's is the crr.x-of our case. It 'is a terrible risk to put up this youns: man to cross-exami:ie this shrewd old Scotchman." There was absolutely no material for the cross-examiner. Mr Asquith's first Question was:— "Now, Mr Macdonald, when, 'did you first learn aletter1 of Mr Parnell's was in the market?"

,' "June, 1886,';' was the answer. 1 A few more questions, and "all th& fat was in the fire." Macdonald was forced to admit that he T>aid no less than £2,530 for a few forged' letters. And this hard-headed Scotchman, "who had been for years manager of the greatest newsDap^r on earth, was a child in Asquith's hands. For two days the cross-exairn'nntion went on, and Asquith succeeded in making a deadly rent in the case of The Times, and established his own reputation.

Ascmith's pflort second only +o Sir Charles Rnshell's most dramatic mid successful coss-sxamanatinn of Pigott. When Pamoll and Davi+t contratnlatsd Asouith.1 he vmodestlv said: "Tho merest accident of (an accident. If £;r Charles had not be^u tired 1/ would never have had the chance"

Mr Asquith's ivrmtation dates from this\ moment. But success at the Bar does not imply triumph in the House of Commons. Tn fact, the very opposite is invariably tho case. In this connection v.c have only to look at all the leaders of the Bar who warn engaged in this celebrated case, and who were at the time also m^mbws of the House of Commons: Sir Charles Russell (afterwards Lord Chief Justice of England). Sir Richard Webster (now Lord Chief Justice), Sir Henry James, Mr Frank Lockwood', Mr R. T. Reid (now Lord Loreburn). Every one of ■'these, brilliant lawyers, who were his seniors 'at the time, were more or less a failure in the ■Commons. .

Very soon after the Parnell Commission arose Asquith got his first chance in the House. And it was iilio outcome of the commissioners' report, which was under discussion, when he made a speech in reply to the Attorney-General, Sir Richard Webster. He impressed members of all parties, and he was recognised as a coming man. But most people expressed surprise when, in 1592, \a man so new to politics was made Home Secretary in the Gladstone Administration. His old senior, Chast Russell, was Attorney-General, but without a. seat in the Cabinet. And it was at this time the question ''Why .Asquith ?" was asked. But he was not long in supplying a satisfactory answer.

The right* of meeting in Trafalgar Square had been exercising the avtention of the public mind. Mr. Asquith's predecessor in office was Mr Matthews, now Lord Llandaff. He was a cast-iron Tory cf the old school, and by his obstinately adhering to the strict letter of the law, in refusing to allow the holding of meetings, had all but prpduced a violent oolli-, sirm between soldiers and the people. Mr -Asquith took the broader a-nd more humane view, ajid reversed this decision : and during his term in tho Home" Department, a period of three years, it is one . of his rr.ost pleasant reminiscences' that, dealing with successive cases, he took off an aggregate period of 40 years' penal servitude allotted to prisoners by Mr Justice I>ay alone.

When CampbelJ-Rannerman formed Jus Government in 1905 lie selected Asqinth its his Chancellor of tne ji/schemier. A^d h« proved to he what, Sis own Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lloyd George, is to-day— a

i tower of strength to the Government. "Go and bring the sledge-hammer," said Campbell-iJannermaii to one of his colleagues on the Treasury, bench when, his Government was being hard pressed by Mr Balfour. Mr Asquith duly appeared. And the Lords, "Diehards,"" and "Last-ditchers," and all, the world now know what power lay behind that "sledge-ham-mer." It was in 1908 that Asquith got his chance to form his own Government. By merit alone he rose to the position of. Prime Minister of of England. For he had not wealth or rank or family connections. And in his Administration he surrounded himself with brilliant men like. Winston Churchill, John Morley, Lloyd George, Haldane, Edward Grey, and Birrell. Yet amongst all these Asquith stands out as the biggest figure in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister in reality as well'as in name. Be is not picturesque, but is ■essentially practical; solid rather than brilliant. But he has, above all, that .which, counts for so much with men—strength of character. And it is backed by physique, for his power of work is unequalled. He is now in his fifty-ninth year, the youth of old age. ' : • •. i

' Asquith is not an orator, as was Gladstone of Thomas Sexton. John Redmond is said to be the last of the Parliamentary orators. It is only the other day the Irish Chief Secre-. tary, Mr Birrell .(who is truly brilliant), said: "Parliamentary oratory is dead, dead without hope of res mi--rection. The House would n,.t listen to it to-day. The speeches it likes best 'are' in the style of Asquith —plain, lucid statements, gathering up all arguments, the right word, the clear phrase, and no frills." Cobden on one occasion' said: "I always listen to Gladstone with - pleasure and admiration, but I often have to ask myself when he has sat down what, after all, was it he meant, and what practical course does he recommend." Not so with Asquith, for he is at all times lucid . and practical. Words are not made to hide his thoughts. Asquith's words are deeds. Only last month that strong ' .Conservative organ, the Saturday Review, said:— "L\>es Mr Asquith ever make a poor speech on a set occasion? We cannot recall one that re"ad ill next day. His excellence is extraordinarily level, his.parliamentary form flawless. One has heard much poorer speeches at times from genius, often Randolph Churchill, from Mr Ba-lfoiuv.'and Lord Salisbury, if not from Gladstone.. Mr Asquith is doubtless a great commoner. The parliamentary historian will probably set him at least as high as Peel, Russell, or Palmerston." Mr Asquith-, is not j and never will be, a porW.lar:,figure. -He is more or less handicapped by, a cold and? somewhat Jiard mariner. He has not what the America"ns call "personal magnetism," such ag Gladstone and Balfour had. l&e is as precise as a timetable. He does not command # the affection Campbell-Banrierman commanded, nor tlie reverence that belonged to Gladstone. But he, does command, and,that in a rare degree, the full confidence of the whole Liberal party. Politics are not a game to him. as they were to Randolph Churchill, and more or less to Disraeli. . Witness his conflict with the House of Lords when they rejected the Budget. Asquith at once announced his i.ntention of appealing to the people. "We shall," he said, "demand authority to place on the Statute Book a recognition, explicit and com- I plete, of- tlie' settled cloctrine of our j Constitution that it is beyond the power of the House of Lords to meddle in any wayy to any degree, or for j any purr>ose with our national finance. The will of the people, as deliberately expressed by their elected representatives, must, within the limits-of a lifetime of a single Parliament, be made effective. We shall not assume office, and we shall not hold office unless we can secure the safeguards which experience shows to be necessary for the legislative utility and honor of the party of progress."

Thus, iri these few sentences, we have the very essence of the Parliament or Veto Bill, as welt as the clear statement, that, unless the King consented to create sufficient Liberal Peers to "swamp" all opposition in the Upper .ftouse to the Liberal proposals, 1' he would not again take office; And this, meant a "swamp" of 400 Peers. What/followed is well known. Within J2 months he placed on the Statute Book a Bill ■.which gave reality to what was in Gladstone's day only a dream; destroyed the power of,the Lord's for all time, removed the last obstacle to Liberal legislation, and changed the British Constitution, which was the work of centuries. ! He now. faces, the revolutionary t>roblem of Home Rule with a light heart. "The gi%e p.test constitutional problem, Ireland," he said last month, "is by far the most urgent case. Ido not say by what steps or stages the goal may bft reached, but the goal is inevitable." And if we can say anything is certain in political lifr, tho Home Rule goal will be reached within two years. Asquith is not the man tb halt, for", as he says himself. "I hold my office, rot only by favor of the Crown, but by the oonfidenoo of the neonle, and J should be guilty indeed of treason if in this supreme moment of a g'*ef<t struggle I vr<lre te betray +*Wr ■ frnst."— M. Meagher, Sydney Telegraph.