England, I870-I914 BOOKS OF THE DAY
By Professor HAROLD TEMPERLEY Ma. limos' sustains the tradition set by Mr. G. N. Clark in this series with his weighty contribution on the Later Stuarts. Weighty is the word, for there arc 557 pages of text and 634 in all. Yet it deals only with 44 years. Like Mr. Clark's work it is not written with lightness, unless it is the dry lightness of scientific objectivity. There is light, there is dryness, but the cost is pretty high. None the less, there is no one who will not learn something, and very few who will not learn a great deal, from Mr. Ensor. The impar- tiality is real and the handling of events skilful. The views are clear if not dazzling. There is no such history of the period at present in existence and for this reason we owe Mr. Ensor a great debt.
The author is at once well informed in his treatment of topics and versatile in his handling of events. Nothing comes amiss to him. He is equally informed as to the Labour Movement, the reform of the Judiciary, the abolition of purchase in the army, population statistics of the century, the Berlin Congress, or the rise of Parnell. lie is particularly good on the evan- gelical character of the Victorian Age and justly remarks that " sonic high peaks of literature--the Bible, Paradise Lost and Pilgrim's Progress for instance—became extremely familiar to very wide classes who today would never read anything on that level " (p. 140). What would they do today, I Wonder ? Would they read the Daily Herald, listen to the B.B.('., and the latest detective novel ? If these arc the equivalent pursuits of " very wide classes " today—the present age is not an improvement. This very width of view is, however, sufficient to interrupt the story. Chapters 1-11I arc general narrative, chapter IV deals with economics and institutions, chapter V with mental and social aspects ; and the same arrangement is twice repeated for the later epochs. The plan is sound and it achieves its object of presenting every aspect. But it is not exactly presentation in the round. The fact is that many-sidedness is excellent in itself, but it does not quite make up fir a clear and brilliant narrative, driven home with epigrams and rhetorical emphasis, such as an old time historian would have given us. From him we should have learned less but been more pleased, and carried away more permanent impressions. Today history seems in a transitional stage. The old narrative brilliancy has given way to a bewildering diversity. Instead of going down a primrose path to the sound of flutes, we are continually tempted to stray in one or other byway, until we lose our sense of direction. A body politic had a head, limbs and tissue, which could be clearly described. There is no body economic or social, at least they have neither head nor history in the sense generally understood. Hence the difficulty of describing them, though the attempt to surmount it is praiseworthy.
In specific instances Mr. Ensor's handling of events is usually sound. Gibbon declared " diligence and accuracy " to be " the only merits " of the historian. There is no doubt that our author possesses both in an unusual degree when we consider the vast range and scope of his attempt. He is not impeccable ; few historians are. I quote one exception to the rule. I rather doubt whether " the power-prestige " of Lord Salisbury was based on the Army (p. 15) and hardly think we acquired reputation by the Gordon campaign (p. 83). Lord Salisbury complained to Queen Victoria that " as land forces go in these days we have no Army capable of meeting even a second-class Power . . . in all places at a distance front the sea our diplomatists can only exhort, they cannot threaten ; and circumstance often deprives their words of any weight." This was on August 29th, 1886, not long after " the Nile Expedition," according to Mr. Ensor, had enhanced " still further our already very high prestige "
England-1870-1914. By R. C. li. Ensor. (Oxford University Press. 15s.) ••
(p. 83). Lord Salisbury cannot have thought so then, and it is instructive that in 1904 Lord Rosebery feared that the - conclusion of the Entente would annoy Germany, a country with four million soldiers. He also thought such an annoyance might destroy us.
Mr. Ensor has a very just estimate of Gladstonian foreign policy (pp. 5, 85- 6). "Many revere hint as the great champion of right in international dealings ; many others accuse him of sheer incompetence." He adds: "There is truth behind both views." " His supporters blamed hint for occupying Egypt in 1892 ; his adversaries, for abandoning Gordon in 1884.* Yet the first course was inevitable, and the second, though distressing, left no permanent mark on the world." He thinks
. that the fact that " he went into Egypt . . . on the wrong terms . . . prevented Great Britain right down to 1914 from • ever exerting a free and completely detached influence' on the groupings of the other Powers. This was a real factor in the eventual Armageddon." This is admirable criticism from one whose sympathies seem to be those of Gladstonian Liberalism. Yet I am not sure that Disraeli " understood the subtler' realities of foreign polities," as he suggests. Was Cyprus a
good position front which to defend Armenia, and was not.- Layard right in suggesting Basra instead ? None the less,: our author gives an admirable account of South African' affairs, particularly of the annexation of the Transvaal and the instances of Shepstone and Frere (pp. 59-62). In purely parliamentary matters Mr. Ensor is unusually happy. What can be better than this ? Mr. Asquith's Welsh Disestablish- meat Bill "was ably criticised on the score of inadequacy . . . by a young Welsh nationalist, black-haired, blue-eyed, Welsh-speaking, addicted to picture phrases, using English with great wit and fluency but with the air of a foreign language, this young man seemed then the incarnation of the Celtic spirit. His name was David Lloyd Ceorge " (p. 223).
A name to be very fatal to Asquith.
The last political chapter, XIII—entitled " heading for catastrophe "—deals with the years 1910-4. It is one of the best in the book, but I ant not convinced that, in these. (lays, foreign policy, economics, and constitutional change can be intermingled. The revolt of the die-hards, Agadir, the Tripoli War, the great strike, National Insurance, Rus.sia and Persia, the third Home Rule Bill, the Marconi affair, suffragist militancy, the Haldane Mission,'-the Balkan War, these are strange bedfellows. Like Chathan's Cabinet, it is " so variously inlaid, such a piece of diversified mosaic, such a tesselated pavement." The author* tackles his. task with great skill, but I am inclined to think that it is not • possible to give a simple narrative clue to these labyrinths of complex detail. It looks as if the historian of George V's reign is like Satan. He finds "no end, in wandering mazes lost."
The sum of all this is a disturbing refle2tion. Long ago Lord Morley said that democracies would always demand simple answers to complicated questions, and that such answers could not be given. I am beginning to fear that modem life, say since 1900, has developed adjustments, complexities, and diversities, which cannot be put into narrative to be understanded of the general reader. - He must not content himself with special histories, for such '• histories will never supply the place of general narratives. Yet the question whether general narratives of modern, economic, social or political life are possible seems to me seriously raised by this admirable and interesting volume. If Mr. Ensor fails to give us a complete outline, it is not because he fails in knowledge of the facts, or in the needed • gift of interpretation.• It is because of the inherent difficulty of the subject itself, which does not lend itself to straight- forward narrative. We are grateful to him for an heroic '
attempt and. an interesting volume.- • .
Previous page
