sumed, as a matter of course, by both parties to the conversation. The friendly Irishman, whilst welcoming, as all his political friends did, the prospect of accession to the Chief Secretaryship of a statesman then above all others pledged to Home Rule, on personal grounds advised Mr. Chamberlain not to take the office, foreseeing, as he said, that it would bring upon him incessant trouble and possibly political ruin. On the next day, Friday, the 5th of May, the writ for a new election for the West Riding was moved consequent on the acceptance by Lord Frederick Cavendish of the post of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The Irish member whom I am quoting added the amazing and, save on such authority, the incredible statement that the first intimation of this arrangement Mr. Chamberlain received was when, from his place on the Treasury Bench, he heard the writ moved.
If this story is true—and if I were at liberty to mention the authority it would be accepted as unimpeachable—it does much to explain, if not to excuse, Mr. Chamberlain's subsequent action, and the attitude of relentless animosity he has since exhibited towards Mr. Gladstone.
"One of his Right Hon. Friends."
THE DUELLO. The long fight in the Commons over the Home Rule Bill has been rather a duel than a pitched battle. Night after night the forces were marshalled on either side; firing was incessantly kept up; brigades engaged, and now and then, from other quarters than the Treasury Bench and the corner seat of the third bench below the gangway, a speech was made that attracted attention. For the most part it was dull, mechanical pounding, varied now and then by a personal contest between Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Chamberlain. The House was invariably crowded when Mr. Chamberlain spoke. For him the audience was comprised in the one figure on the Treasury Bench. Mr. Gladstone, when he spoke, habitually turned round to the corner seat below the gangway, and personally addressed his "right hon. friend."
"The Right Hon. Friend."
It was jarring throughout to hear the use of this phrase bandied across the gangway. Mr. Gladstone used it sparingly. Mr. Chamberlain interlarded his speech with it, investing the simple phrase with many shades of meaning, none particularly friendly. Once Mr. Gladstone, contrary habitude, moved to a personal jibe, audibly interposed with the remark, "Which 'right hon. friend'? The right hon. gentleman has so many right hon. friends."
That hint would have been taken by some more sensitive people. Mr. Chamberlain is not inclined to forego one of his advantages. He has never quarrelled with Mr. Gladstone. He still reveres him as the greatest statesman of our time, still thinks of him in connection with a lofty mountain, whose magnitude we do not appreciate whilst we are still close to it. Still he resents the action of "men who, moved by motives of party spite, or eagerness for office, have not allowed his age, which should have commanded their reverence; his experience, which entitles him to their respect; his high, personal character, or his long services to his Queen and his country, to shield him from vulgar affronts and lying accusations." But Mr. Gladstone has gone wrong on the Home Rule Question, as, in quite another sense, he was wrong in the spring of 1882. Mr. Chamberlain, giving the first place to the interests of his country and sternly loyal to a sense of duty, has found himself leading the Conservative party against its former chief. But it is only the political leader from whom he has parted. He still retains the "right hon. friend."
There was a time when it seemed that Mr. Chamberlain, in stepping outside the pale of the Liberal party, had voluntarily suffered political
