A BOOK OF THE . MOMENT

LORD MORLEY AS DIALECTICIAN

(FIRST NOTICE.) [COPYRIGHT IN THE UNITED STATES OF A3IERICA. BY THE

New York Times.] John, Viscount Morley. By Brigadier-General John H. Morgan. (John Murray. 10s. 6d. not.) Tins is a fascinating book. It could hardly help being so, considering that its subject is John Morley, and the writer a man so well practised as is General Morgan in the art of writing, so actively interested in the things written about, and so sincere an admirer of the philosophic politician with whom he deals. The book is readable, suggestive, and stimu- lating throughout and in a high degree, but by far the best and most attractive part, as General Morgan would admit, is that containing the extracts from the notebooks in which he recorded his conversations with John Morley. They are not only eminently delightful, but what the poverty of the phraseology dedicated to such subjects compels me to call, though I detest the click% "a valuable contribution not only to contemporary history, but to the art and science of statesmanship in the abstract."

- All who knew John Morley with anything approaching intimacy knew him to be one of the most delightful of con- versationalists. His talk was exactly right. It was not too suave ; it was not too dogmatic ; it was not too erudite, and yet it was never empty. Again, Morley as a talker was not too genial as was Renan. Henan, it was said, when he wanted to contradict you, always began with the phrase, " You are right a thousand times over." Morley never cloyed his listeners with any such talk. He was not the least afraid to tell you- that he heartily disagreed with you, or that what you said was a monstrosity. Yet he was always the most courteous of talkers, and never snubbed a man because he disagreed. As a result he was the least quarrelsome of men in conversation, though he kept his own end up with so much verve. The truth was, he loved conversation and realized, as must every true votary of the art of dialectics, that, unless you can keep your temper, you not only do away with the pleasures of conversation, but destroy your work of art, for such is a good talk, almost before it is begun. The man who, in effect, is always glaring at his interlocutor and saying, " Do you really believe that, you fool you ? " or " Great heavens ! To think that a sentient human being could be so silly ! " or, again, " Your facts are not only untrue, but badly stated ; and you cannot even draw a clear inference from your own erroneous premises ! " knows less than nothing of the art. In a word, John Morley talked like a reasonable being„ and never-.roared at you either physically or metaphorically. His, indeed, was not a roaring mind, but one which essentially allowed for differences. Of course, he liked to get the better in an argu- ment, for there was a very strong and wholesome touch of human vanity in him. Still, he had no desire to trample upon the slain and no scorn for people with whose views he disagreed or even thought harmful. He was essentially a merciful man, and a man of wide opinion.

A cynic once said of him that in his conspectus of life and literature, as in politics, he had the views of an old maid. Though it was perhaps said unkindly, there was an element of truth in the words, assuming that by " old maid " is meant a woman of insight, sympathy and power of understanding, though inclining too much to fastidiousness of view. Morley was in a sense, though it sounds absurd, very easily shocked, especially by new ideas, new paradoxes, and new evolutions and convolutions in man's regard for his enviromnent. He had as a young man shaken, or was thought to have shaken, the pillars of society by what were then regarded as daring, if not, indeed, blasphemous challenges to things as they are. All the same, Morley had a very conservative temper. When he had pulled down what he thought the rotten part of the building and had erected his ideal of a practical, commodious, and beautiful new wing, he wanted to prevent any further meddling with the structure. In a word, he had a

good deal of the Sacerdos as well as of the Vates in his com- position. He asked, no doubt, that it should be his own brand of Sacerdotalism, and that he, and not the other man, old or new, should be regarded as the prophet. When once, however, his intellectual currency was stabilized, and placed upon a gold basis, he was quite as fierce an enemy of inflation as of deflation. • - A concrete example is the best way to illustrate what I mean. He was for far-sweeping democratic reforms in India and introduced them ; but there must be no going beyond

the line he had marked out. The Montagu-Chelmsford scheme was for him as much anathema as it was for any old Indian General at the Senior—the club of which he, the

pacifist, was so proud and delighted to be a member. In truth, his was never a revolutionary mind, though it was the mind of a great and sane reformer. But all this fastidiousness, conservatism and sympathy, mixed with an intellect of great daring and with an over-mastering desire to face facts and know the truth, made him one of the most delightful

of men. That delight, I may say incidentally, was shown in his spoken style as well as in his written. It was never vulgar even in the slightest degree. Indeed, he shuddered rather too much at a vulgarism. He hated it as much as he did conventionality or pomposity. This intolerance of banality was also carried too far. You felt sometimes that it a little derogated from his humanity. He wilted too visibly at bouncing and bounding talk, or at the slap on the back style of humour or of comment. You cannot imagine Morley calling anyone " a damned good sort," or letting anyone else use such a boisterous cliché without that raising

of the eyebrows which General Morgan so well paints. , If I wanted to describe him exactly on this personal side I do not think that I could do better than give a quotation from Pope, the greatest analyst in our literature ;—

" Reserve with Frankness, Art with Truth allied, Courage with Softness, Modesty with Pride. Fixed principles with Fancy over now, Shapes altogether and produces you."

But there was something besides this. Morley had a benignity and charm which would have made him eminent in the best society that the world has ever seen—the society of Athens in its prime. Where the dialecticians controlled, and deserved to control, men's acts and thoughts, Morley must have held a place of honour. But Morley was also a man of action, a Puritan, a man of conscience, a man who felt what it was to be a trustee of Truth, Justice, and Mercy. When he was called upon to act, he made, as Cromwell said of his soldiers, " a conscience of what lie did."

I have dwelt so long and so strongly upon Morley's power of dialectic and his personal charm, not only because they were the essentials of the man, but because the examples given are the essential things in this book and make us long for more, more happy generalizations, more of that air

of touch and go which was in Morley's talk. That talk was never frivolous or foolish, and never frenetic. Morley let his mind fly at any game ; but he never used it recklessly or allowed it to operate anyhow. To put it differently, he never talked through his hat, but always with sincerity. Even if he could spare only a few minutes or a few words on a subject, he said something which, right or wrong, was memorable, which started a vibration of a kind

that could not but have well marked reactions upon the listener. I will take two examples of opinions expressed by

him in regard to Mr. Lloyd George. Very possibly neither of them is quite fair, but they were both sincere at the moment when they were said, and both of them are extraordinarily characteristic of Morley's power to " edify " as an old- fashioned theologian would have said—i.e., to build up .soine- thing in your mind and not merely give you a flash of lightning, or to make a dogmatic outburst.

• The first example is an excerpt from a conversation which General Morgan had with Morley on February 15th, 1918.

" J. H. M.: And his principles ? LORD MORLEY : Principles ! Do you talk to me of his prin- ciples ? What are they ? But he is not dishonest, he's only tricky. Some shabbiness perhaps."

More than two years later, we are told, there came inMorley's mind a curious change of estimate as to the mercurial statesman :—

" Loan 'MORLEY : Ll. G. may yet emerge with the reputation of Burke.

J. H. M.: But he has no fixity of purpose. He has too many acts of apostasy.

Loan MoRLEY : But hadn't Burke ? Weren't all his utterances on the French Revolution apostasies ' ? ISn't politics simply a matter of expediencies ?

J. H. M.: Would you say that of Lincoln ?

Lone MORLEy : Ah, his task was infinitely less complex."

General Morgan caps these instances by telling us that there was yet a third change. When the Coalition Govern- ment fell on October 20th, 1922, Morley's comment at dinner that night was, " I feel inclined to open a bottle of champagne." One of his guests hazarded the comment, " Then you've revised your estimate of Mr. Lloyd George ? " Morley paused in reply, " and then turning slowly round and looking his inteylocutor full in the face, as was his wont in moments of emphasis, he delivered himself of a devastating judgment."

That, I may say incidentally, is an admirable picture. I have often seen Morley give that look full in the face, seeming for a moment to hold you like one of the Weird Sisters, or, to adopt a violent change of comparison, as might some great religious Director when the art and science of the confessional were at their highest—i.e., in the middle of the sixteenth century.

In this context, though I began to write this article with. a desire to be non-political, I cannot help referring to several of Lord Morley's prophesies. They were all very poignant.

Some have been fulfilled ; and some, in my opinion, are never likely to be fulfilled ; and yet one is rather afraid to say that, considering how many of the most unlikely have come true. Take this for example :--

" I foresee the day,' he said to me on December 22nd, 1921, when Birkenhead will be Prime Minister in the Lords with Winston leading the Commons. They will make a formidable pair. Winston tells me Birkenhead has the best brain in England. . . . But I don't like 'Winston's habit of writing articles, as a Minister, on debatable questions of foreign policy in the newspapers. These allocutions of his arc contrary to all Cabinet principles. Mr. G. would never have allowed it.' "

It looks at the moment as if the trend of events were all against this prophecy. Indeed, I confess it looks to me as false as would have been a prophecy made in 1836 that Lord Brougham would some day be Prime Minister with Sir Robert Peel, leading in the Commons.

As early as 1914 Morley was virtually prophesying as to' Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's future. " Ramsay MacDonald," he said, " has a front-bench mind. Years ago I tried to get him taken into the Ministry, but others thought otherwise." General Morgan notes that we may infer from this that he looked upon Mr. MacDonald at that time as more of a Liberal than a Socialist.

. Here it is not out of place to note some of Morley's curious' comments upon the Labour Party, which illustrate incidentally' what I have called his fastidious intellectual " old maid "! point of view. For example, he called Mr. Henderson's: speech about a capital levy " rank piracy," and condemned the Labour leaders' sacerdotal airs and dogmatic pretensions.; He listened, we are told, with keen enjoyment to a friend's; description of one of them :—

"When Henderson utters the word 'Labour' he lowers his voice as if he were assisting at the Elevation of the Host."

Here, again, is an excerpt which is the very apotheosis of the old maid view, though I hope no one will think from my iteration on this point that I am so foolish as to bring it

forward as something ridiculous. A good deal of what Morley said on this matter had, I believe, an element of truth in it and was necessary to be said :-

" LORD MORLEY : I've been reading the Hammonds' book. They regard the Factory System as having converted the working than from a free craftsman -into a serf.

Yes, that is true enough of the time _of the Industrial Revolution and long after, but to-day with the abolition of the laws against combination, with limitations of output and restriction of apprenticeship in the skilled trades, the workman is more of an autocrat than a serf. He is certainly better off that he ever has been before.

LORD MORLEY : How better off ?

J. H. M.: Financially.

LORD MORLEY : Yes, but is he a better man than he was 1 Does he care about the things of the mind ? How do he and his wife spend their money ? On vain pleasures—his wife on meretricious finery, himself on betting. (December 21st, 1919.)"

It is not - pleasant—nay, it is in a sense odious to hear the

well-to-do man censure the pleasures of the poor, even though they may be per se foolish and wasteful. It is of the very essence of individualism and freedom that a man should be allowed the freedom to be in the wrong as well as the freedom to be in the right. If not, we have not got freedom, but only a gilded fatalism. The strictures on meretricious finery and betting ought, one cannot help feeling, to come from the poor man, and not from the well-to-do. There are plenty of people among the workers who are perfectly able and willing to condemn such proofs of waste and folly. However, the point is what Morley said and thought, and not what I or anybody else thinks ; and, therefore, I apologise for this irrelevance.

J. St. Lou STRACHEY. (To be concluded next week.)