page_0002

2.

and Merton. The world, remembering the Rockinghams and Lafayettes
of history, suspects a lack of humour and of common humanity. I
remember Lord Rosebery once telling me that, in his early days, when
he was Mr. Gladstone's chief lieutenant and the apostle of Scottish
Liberalism , he was always in terror of being tarred with that brush.
The reason is plain; such a type is apt to be condescending, and
democracy has no use for condescension. Durham's political creed
was mainly a family bequest and not very suited to his temperament.
He was called "Radical Jack" and "The King of the Colliers," but I
wonder how much he really understood that fine stock, the Durham
miners! He was their master, and their patron; I doubt if he could
ever have been their comrade and friend. But he had one truly
Liberal quality; he hated cruelty and tyranny of any kind; and he
was as vehement a critic of the brutality and intimidation of the
miners' unions as of the misdeeds of Tory landlords.

What was the nature of the man? There i s not much to attract
us in the malicious picture drawn by Charles Greville. He
was full of class pride and had a good deal of personal vanity. He
was q uick-tempered, intolerant, suspicious, always a difficult colleague.
The fact is that he had been badly spoilt by home indulgence
in his youth. He was capable of deep affection, as the beautiful
letters to his wife and children show, but that affection was largely confined to
his family circle. To the world at large he presented a cold, aloof
demeanour, varied by sudden fits of passion. There was something
febrile in his nature, as in Canning's, which was not altogether due
to his wretched health. He was respected and feared, but not gener[ally]