AN APPRECIATION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6493, 13 April 1908, Page 7

AN APPRECIATION

SIR HENRY CAMPBELL HANNETiji'AN. (iiy !’. J. O’Rsgan.) Th- rouienion'. of Sir Henry CampheiiBanaornnin morks a crisis in the fortunes of the Liberal Party! Mr Asquith who riioceod.-. to the csalted once of Prime jlini.-ler of Britain, lias indeed ono <.rriit advantage over his late cli:e;, inasmuch ns lie is comparatively young, ifo was born in 1352, and is, Jierefoie, now about aG years old. But Sir Ueury vine aged 52 when he became Pader oi the Liberal Parry, and, after o Mrenaoiis and ditccuragilig strwirgle lasting ten yearw, ho bocitmc Premier at 70. Notwithstanding the wlvantago of age, uoweyer, Mr A.-quith liud.s iiimself in a position which, difficult under any circuiruiances, is part icubi rlv difficult ju*t now when parties are in the nieUing pot and the nation j.s bc ; ;et on all sides with pressing domc.Aic problems of the '.,ravc-;-t importance. Mr Asquith’s <li*iicti I .ties arc ateo enhanced by the deep and widospread personal populanly of tho late Prime Minislcr. Notwithst-anding rhe sustaincil and ruthless tirades of the "yellow” pre.-c,. of London, no public man in Britain has over been inoro popular with thn ma's of the people ’nan Sir Henry Gahipbell-Bannennan.

' Alii GLA DSTONE WAS REVERED, It is true; but the admiration for him among the rank and file of the Libera) Party was largely tempered with fear, ami Mr .Gladstone never gained die simultancoins hold on the people of the three kingdoms. Sir Ilcnryn popularity with his party, as well as his skill a leader, has been admirably exemplified during the two years during which, with admirable skill, ho has handled his unwieldy majority in the House oi Commons. His following, divided as it is into grouxx- holding little in common to maintain them in constant unity, has , readily responded to his disciplinary hand, and the tcunper of his party is typical of the affection of the nation at large. Air Asquith, in spite of his brilliant intellectual gifts and his high oratorical attainments, does not inspire the same warm personal confidence as the statesman ho is now called upon to succeed. The Radicals cannot forget that Mr Asquith coquetted with Lord Rosebery at a time when THE WHIG ELEMENT ■ was making desperate efforts to capture the party. The Nationalists can ocarecly be expected to forget that Mr Asquith has repeatedly "fenced” with Home Rule. The Labour Party took kindly vo the robust radicalism of Sir Henry. They have long since bracketed Mr Asquith with Lord Rosebery, and with the Labour Party Lord Rosebery is impossible. It is for these reasons that the retirement of Sir Henry may produce grave effects on the destinies of the Liberal Party and of Britain.

It is difficult to account for Sir Henry's popularity. As Macaulay has written of Horace Walpole, "it is easy to describe him by negatives.” He is not a brilliant platform orator like lord Rose bory or Mr Cliamberlain, He is not a mail of fervent ciithuelasmS like Mr Gladstone* He rarely ROSE TO GREAT HEIGHTS

in the House of Commons Ho was essentially a cautious man, in many re* spects not unlike the late Duke of Devonshire. When Air Gladstone declared for Home Rule for Ireland, Sir Henry, loyal party man though lie was, held aloof for a time. He had already been severely criticised—even abused—by the Nationalists. Yet he lived to win the confidence and affections of the people of Ireland, and ho has, oven in the dark days of the Boer war, when the fortunes of Liberalism seemed lowest, inspired all sections of his followers with a respect that hushed disaffection, and finally ripened into an abiding confidence at least equal to that which Air Gladstone inspired in his best days.

Not the . least of tho obstacles with which Sir Henry has had lo contend during tho last two years has been Ms huge majority. The defection of the ablest Unionists- after Mr Chamberlain had mad© it plain that he meant to make protection a plank in the platform of tho Tory Party DISHEARTENED AND DEMORALISED Mr Balfour's followers, and tho nation, wearied by twenty years of continuous Tory rule, gave Sir Henry a record majority. A House of Commons - elected mainly on a negative policy—that of maintaining freedom of trade —must necessarily be difficult to manage. The manner in which Sir Henry nas accomplished the difficult task is a lasting tribute to his capacity as a statesman and an effective answer to the venal press whose settled policy it has been to misrepresent and discredit him.

Doubtless it matters little to a man who has won the exalted office of Prime Minister of Britaitn what colonial opinion may be regarding him. It is interesting to record, however, that until very recently ‘the reader of colonial newspapers would look in vain for a single complimentary reference to Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. It seemed to be taken for granted that ho was a nonentity, and during the Boer war in particular, when the public mind was

STRICKEN WITH A PLAGUE of senseless Jingoism, colonial politicians and journalists said and wrote things of him that can only bo characterised as disgraceful. These people have lapsed into significant silence, '> owever, since his countrymen have placed Sir Henry in the highest office in their gift. Had these self-satisfied critics been capable of the slightest reflection they might have realised that the man who can command the confidence of the Liberal Party of Britain could scarcely be a mere nonentity. Reflection, however, is about the last quality to expect from persons who take their ideas of British politics from the London press and from the tainted cable news of which it is the radiating centre. During the Boer war and since Sir Henry line been roundly abused by publications like the London "Times,” the "Daily Mail,” and the "National Review.” Here it is interesting to note that every eminent public man has had to encounter the

UNSCRUPULOUS ENMITY of' the “Times.” It was the “Times” that referred to Bright as “an nnimpeached traitor” when ho denounced the Crimean war. Yet tho late Lord Salisbury, in later years, referring to that war, one of tho most uncalled for in history, declared that "we put our money on tho wrong horse." It was the 'Times” that described Richard Cobden aa "a blatant demagogue” when he had convulsed the nation by his anti-corn Ia n' agitation and made it impossible for either party to tax bread.' But Cobden has won a place with Galileo and Newton. O’Connell wan once described by the "Times” as "scum composed of Irish hog.” Nevertheless, tho principles for which O’Connell contended are now regarded as part of the heritage of mankind. When tho American Republic had entered into the (loath grapple of the civil war, the "Times” championed the cause of slavery and slandered Ahwaham Lincoln with an amount of severity that would now shame the most violent, partisan. In later davs we have seen the same paper in alliance with a notorious perjurer and nfonuer to ruin Parnell. Surely to bo vilified by the "Times” must, in view of its history, be taken rather ns a compliment than otherwise to Sir Henry CampbellBannerman ? What, after all, has Sir Henry done to be vilified by the london Tory press? Wo are told that he "slandered the British soldier,” inasmuch ns he . ensured what he termed Lord Kitchener’s “methods of barbarism” during the South African war. Now, what are the facts? In order to cope with the practice of train-wrecking, Lord Kitchener adopted the plan of placing distinguished Boer prisoners on the engines. The practice had last been adopted by the Uerman?

when at war with the French in IS7O, and international law may reasonably bo oU]ij>o.:-cd to haye made tome progress in thirty years, jurists have

UNb P A R INGL Y DENOU XC E D die conduct of the Germans. For examide. Hail, in his ‘Mnleriuitionai Law/’ rays: '“The older was universally and justly reprobated on the ground that it violated the principle which denies to a belligerent any further power than that of keeping his hosfcagn in confinement; and it i« for govornmento to consid< r wheliicr it is worth while to retain a right which cun only be made cuVetive oy means of an illegal principle which existing opinion refuses to condone.” Mr Hall did not live to see the practice ho hud thus condemned put in operation by Lord Kitchener in South Africa; but'the fifth edition of his book appeared in 19ht, and I find that the editor has. rdded tho following to the passage quoted : f ‘ltisto bo regretted that on some occasions during tho South African war tho British military authorities should have adopted a similar noiiov in the hope of staying tho epidemic of train-wrecking. Its futilily, to say nothing of tho question of humanity was soon recognised.” Sir Henry thus voiced tho opinion-of the most enlightened jurLLri in condemning a practice at variance alike with the settled principles of international law and the general feeling of Christendom. Bat, even if Sir Henry had condemned a practice less universally reprobated, it would still bo a gross slander to twist hi" censures to imply the slightest reflection on tho British soldier. The soldier is not expected to unravel tho tangled skein of international practice. It is not for him to ask questions. It is for him

TO OBEY ORDERS, and if these involve the commission of illegal practices the responsibility must bo- chaigod to his superiors alone. Sir Henry rightly condemned an illegal practice, but he ‘did not censure the Br’tish Army. The critic;.', therefore, have been guilty of giossly maligning him; but ; uoccdy ojipcfio unyllung eise Horn tho HarmVvoruis and the i/carsons v ho control the London press. Dean Swirt is credited with faying that tho unfortunate alono speak of hick, because the fortunate in variably _ attribute everything to themselves. This is largely true, bul, like all truisms, it is subject to exceptions, and we think that cron Swift would have excepted politics. In politics, of course, very much must depend-on tho man; but much more depends upon circumstances beyond the control of the ablest of men. Frobably no more brilliant man than Pitt the Younger over filled, tho position tf Prime Minister of England. Like Mr Winston Churchill, he entered Parliament full of ambition and full of promises. Before, however, tho opportunity came to apply the principles on which he had set his heart, the French Revolution xmvulsed Europe, and Britain, sorely against Pitt’s will, joined tho COMBINATION OF DESPOTS

in their endeavour to quench iho spark that had been lighted at Versailles. Thus Britain became involved in a struggle which lasted from 1792 to 1815, and Pitt lost the opportunity of realising his cherished ambitions. Fortune has treated with similar unkindness the man who has just retired from office. In the ordinary course of events he would have been Prime Minister several years earlier. Tho outbreak of. war in South Africa gave the Tories an opportunity of which they made the fullest use. and the result was to delay Sir Henry’s acession to power until the voifht of years made it impossible for him to repair the ground he had lost. Mr Gladstone was 77 when he took p Homo Pule, and at the age of 87 ho hurled the javelins of his indignation at the head of Abdul the Damned. But it is given to few men to follow' the long gallery of events through which Mr Gladstone passed, and at the ago of 72 Sir Henry finds himself unable longer to remain in office. He has held office long enough, however, to live down the tirades of his. Critics and to ohow the world that his countrymen deservedly regard him as an able and a worthy loader of men.