for one to be seen often in the company | pay no attention to the devotional aspects of young men. In all their festivals and of religion, though they are, notwithstanddances the two sexes are kept quite sepa- ing, intensely superstitious. They have rate and apart, and it is a thing unheard a code of morality which, in some respects, of for a Druse male and female to dance appears curious to the mind of a Christogether. Under these circumstances, the tian; but to this code, such as it is, they Druse maidens are trained from their ear-faithfully and strictly adhere. Their place liest childhood to keep themselves from intercourse with the opposite sex, until the time shall arrive for them to enter upon the duties of wifehood.

in civilization cannot be classed as very high; though they have within them capabilities which, under careful and patient guidance, would enable them to become a splendid race; and it is not improbable that in the future they may

In a race which, like the Druses, intermarry exclusively amongst themselves, it is not to be wondered at that the laws of consanguinity are not so strict as they are in European countries. Nevertheless the cases are comparatively rare in which the Such are the Druses of the Holy Land.

rise on stepping-stones Of their dead selves, to higher things.

HASKETT SMITH.

From Temple Bar.

STAFFORD NORTHCOTE.

WRITING to Mr. Disraeli from Harley Street on the 19th April, 1862, Stafford Northcote profoundly observes, "No man can see both sides of a question with equal clearness; at least, if he can, he would probably be unfit for action. What one wants is a friend who would look at the matter in a different light, and who would fairly take counsel with one as to the line to be followed." Here we have struck, all unconsciously, the keynote of the character of the statesman who filled so prominent and peculiar a part in English political life during the last quarter of a century. Stafford Northcote was pre-eminently a man blessed (or cursed) with the faculty of seeing both sides of a question with equal clearness, occasionally a bewildering gift for a man from whom action is expected. Lacking in self-confidence, he was always feeling forth for the "friend who would look at the matter in a different light," and would either help him to make up his mind, or would peremptorily lead him on definite path.

bride and bridegroom are nearer of kin than first cousins. This is, indeed, in far the majority of instances, the relation which actually exists between them. The eldest son of a family is, as a matter of fact, expected to marry a daughter of his father's brother; and he can claim her over the heads of all other suitors. The object of this is doubtless to keep property and possessions in the same family, and its tendency is to foster a great spirit of clannishness amongst the whole race. Indeed, so universally is the custom recognized, that a husband never speaks of his spouse as "my wife," nor a wife of hers as 66 my husband;" he calls her "the daughter of my father's brother," and she in like manner styles him “the son of my father's brother." This is even the case when there is really no such relation existing between them; and the Druse name for "father-in-law" is "father's brother." To sum up the principal points of the present paper, the Druses, those hardy children of the mountain-home, are the representatives at the present day of the Phoenician highlanders. The principal feature of their character-exclusiveness -induced them to adopt a religion unlike that of any other people, and has preserved them as a distinctive race. It is a mistake to imagine that they have any connection either with Islamism or with Christianity. But, in all probability, they From his earliest days, and almost to are, in their origin, closely allied to Free- the last, Northcote was provided with this masonry. Their religion has a mystic controlling force, which, oddly enough, esoteric side; but this has little or no in- came in succession from two conflicting fluence on their practical daily life. As poles. In his early manhood it was Mr. regards the latter, they believe in the Gladstone; later, all through middle life, ever-present providence of God, and this it was Mr. Disraeli. When Lord Beacreed they carry to the extent of fatalism.consfield died, Stafford Northcote had They are incapable of feeling the finer reached an age and a standing which sentiments of sympathy, whilst at the seemed to make it unfit for any of his same time they are remarkably callous to colleagues and contemporaries to do him pain and suffering in themselves. They the accustomed kindness. Lord Salisbury

some

Everything is in so dreadfully a disorganized state [he writes in 1841], Church and State alike shaken, and men so generally inclined to look to human means of setting all to rights that the prospect is discouraging enough; or rather would be so did it not seem that the present condition of affairs was only a prelude to some great working of the Lord.

would have served admirably had he come | Then he went to the Middle Temple, read earlier to the task; but Northcote, though with a special pleader, and even took not approaching Lord Salisbury in mental rooms in Lincoln's Inn Fields. But alvigor or intellectual strength, was an ready his thoughts were turned towards "older boy." The two had long served politics, of which he took the gloomy view together, Northcote nominally in a posi- that often oppresses ingenuous youth. tion ahead of Lord Salisbury. The gentle baronet, always ready to take a lower place, or even to efface himself, might in time have laid hold of Lord Salisbury's skirts and walked behind him as he had trotted after Mr. Gladstone or followed Disraeli; but there was not time for this arrangement to be made before catastrophe came. Lord Salisbury, succeeding to the premiership under peculiar circum- that breathes over these sentences aniThe spirit of devout, unaffected piety stances, was hurried along till he stumbled mated Stafford Northcote throughout his into that fatal blunder the memory of life. Religion was reality to him, and his loyalty to the Church of England, as its trol over his political action. He could authorized expositor, held supreme conforgive Mr. Gladstone everything but his dealing with the Church.

which will doubtless ever remain with him

a poignant regret. Had Lord Beacons field lived there might have been no Lord Iddesleigh. Certainly Stafford Northcote, under whatever name or title, would

not have been hustled about in the contriv.

ance of convenient ministerial arrange: ments, and one morning, opening his paper in the breakfast-room at Pynes, have learned through this medium that he was no longer a minister of the crown.

Whilst the removal from the scene of his later friend and chief grievously altered the close of Stafford Northcote's life, his early connection with Mr. Gladstone in fluenced, not to say overshadowed, his whole career. It is curious to speculate upon what he might have been had he not started in public life as private secretary to Mr. Gladstone. He would probably have attached himself to some one else, as he did in later life to Mr. Disraeli. His gentle, faithful, in some aspects feminine, character made it necessary that he should have something to cling to, some rock to lean against. In the enthusiasm of his young manhood he found the full realization of his desire when he came to be private secretary to "the rising hope of the Conservative party." That he had already admired Mr. Gladstone at a distance is evident from his letters. It was in the early summer of 1842 that the two came together, Gladstone in the splendor of his young manhood; Northcote (twentyfour) nine years younger than his new master. At this time Northcote was looking round him, wondering what he should do. He had passed a pleasant time at Eton, and run a creditable career at college, winning election to a Balliol scholarship. He had been much troubled about religion, and at one time thought he had found salvation with the Irvingites.

cally at the proffer of the secretaryship to Young Northcote grasped enthusiastiMr. Gladstone, who was already his hero.

"From what I know of Gladstone's char

acter," he writes to his father announcing the negotiation, "there is no single statesmen of the present day to whom I would more gladly attach myself." To another correspondent he says:—

With any other man than Gladstone I might have hesitated longer; but he is one whom I He stands almost respect beyond measure. which I cordially agree; and as a man of alone as the representative of principles with business and one who, humanly speaking, is sure to rise, he is pre-eminent.

Northcote "believed without vanity that he should be equal to the duties likely to be imposed upon him, and the expectation was abundantly fulfilled. He proved an inestimable treasure to Mr. Gladstone, toiling terribly and never tiring.

There grew up between the two an es teem and affection never obliterated even in the storm and stress of political warfare. At a time during the bitterness of feeling engendered by Mr. Gladstone's attitude on Mr. Disraeli's foreign policy, the once powerful statesman seemed to have finally fallen. There gathered round the supposed carcass of the lion the customary troop of unworthy assailants. Mr. Gladstone rising in the House of Commons was like the Stuart king riding through the streets of what had once been a boisterously loyal town. There was none to cry God bless him."" Even his friends and old colleagues on the front

66

bench stood apart from him. Stafford Northcote never joined in the contumely with which his interposition in debate was greeted. On the contrary, he was even increasingly respectful in tone and manner. In the two volumes of “ Memoirs, Letters, and Diaries,” which Mr. Andrew Lang has just given to the world, there is only one peevish remark about his old master. This is very small indeed, its only excuse being that it was penned at a time when Sir Stafford was in the full heat of the fight on the Bradlaugh question. Writing in his diary after a night's debate, he says: "Unfortunately the House had greatly emptied for dinner when Glad. stone sat down. It is a favorite habit of his to speak into the dinner hour, so that his opponent must speak either to empty benches or forego the advantage of replying on the instant." This is not only not true, but, for reasons that will strike any one familiar with the course of debate in the House of Commons, it could not be

true.

On the whole, when in these later days they sat in the House of Commons with the breadth of the table between them, | one leader of the House the other leader of the opposition, Northcote's gentler and more affectionate nature bore the change with the least sign of strain. Mr. Glad stone was wont occasionally to testify to the depth of his affection in a singular fashion by directing against his old pupil outbursts of withering anger. More especially in debates on financial questions he resented Northcote's criticisms:

from 1876 till Stafford Northcote walked out of the House of Commons for the last time, there is no picture that rises more vividly to the mind than Sir Stafford sitting on one front bench, spectacled, meekvisaged, with head bent before the storm, and hands thrust up the sleeves of his coat, literally trying to make as little of himself as possible; on the other side of the table, partly leaning across it as if desirous of closing his extended hand on the collar of his old friend's coat and shaking him, stands Mr. Gladstone, his eyes flaming wrath, and his voice uplifted in angry denunciation.

It is one of the little etiquettes of the House of Commons that the term honorable or right honorable friend should be reserved for members sitting together on the same side of the House. The custom was at one time varied in the case of the Irish members, who have always sat on the same side as the Liberals. There is nothing which in these days more sharply marks the march of political events during the last ten years than to hear Sir William Harcourt referring to Mr. Healy or Mr. Parnell as my honorable friend." Mr. Gladstone, most punctilious of Parliamentarians, deviated from this custom only under very special circumstances. Oddly enough, one exception was made in the case of Mr. Balfour, who all through the Parliament of 1880, even when he was ranked as a member of the fourth party, was with the premier "my honorable friend." Between Mr. Gladstone and Stafford Northcote it was, almost up to the last, "my right honorable friend." Gradually, insensibly, there was imported into the phrase a ring of sarcasm that In the Parliament of 1874, and in fuller made it more biting than the ordinary and degree in that of 1878, there was no man colder form of address. Then the inevion the Conservative benches whom, with table change, meaning much more than the or without occasion, Mr. Gladstone was simple alteration of phrase would imply, prone to rate with the tremendous sever-befell, and the two old friends became ity he turned upon Stafford Northcote. Others might contradict or argue with him and be met with argument or contradiction in return; but if by chance Northcote ventured to step into the arena, Mr. Gladstone, when his turn came, often before it was due, flung himself upon his former secretary and hewed him in pieces before the Commons. Writing to him in 1855, when some little cloud was on the horizon, Mr. Gladstone says: "Nothing which you say can offend me. But I do not agree with you, which is quite another matter." Twenty-five years later this fine distinction became no longer possible. Looking back on the heated debates 3752

Keen are his pangs, but keener far to feel
He nursed the pinion which impelled the steel.

LIVING AGE.

VOL. LXXIII.

each to the other, "the right honorable gentleman." I am not quite sure who began the change, but I think it was Mr. Gladstone.

Sir Stafford Northcote took his seat in the House of Commons on the 16th of March, 1855. He was returned member for Dudley on the recommendation of Mr. Gladstone, and at the instance of Lord Ward, who owned most of the shops and houses in the town, and in those days the Parliamentary seat went with them. Lord Ward seems to have been a very practical person, going about to choose a member for his borough much as he might have gone to select a pair of trousers for his

66

wardrobe. "Lord Ward is a staunch | for him, but when elected to make him Peelite," Northcote writes during the financial secretary to the Treasury, probcontest, "and very anxious that the bor- ably the most important of offices in the ough should be represented by a pure government classified as second rate. animal of that breed. But if there was to Northcote's first idea was what would Mr. be any admixture, he would rather it were Gladstone_think or say? I would," he Derbyism than Radicalism." Dropping writes to Lady Northcote, "much rather in to consult Mr. Gladstone and Sidney give up all thoughts of Parliament and Herbert on the subject, Northcote was office than do anything that would give recommended to him as a person coming him the impression that I was deserting as nearly as possible up to his require him. Moreover, I should take care to let ments. He was accordingly nominated Disraeli know, if I do accept, that I shall and of course returned. But the patron of never act against Gladstone in a personal the borough presently learned that he, as question, should such arise,”. a pledge was not uncommon with the passer-by, had which, as we have seen, was faithfully mistaken Northcote's affability of manner kept. “As for Dizzy,” as Northcote calls for docility of character. After he had his proximate new chief, "I only look been in Parliament two years there arose upon my obligation to him as binding me a ministerial crisis. It was on the Chi- to be personally civil to him and not as nese question, in which Lord Ward voted committing me to him in the event of any with the government. He expected that great break up." Even later in this year, his nominee would do the same, or at after he had been in office pretty nearly a least would abstain from voting, and in an session, he regards Disraeli from a lofty interview he sought with him on the eve standpoint curious to look back upon with of a division in the Commons he politely the knowledge of the years that followed. but plainly told him so. This was a crit- He was a guest at Knowsley in the autumn ical moment for young Northcote. He of this year (1859), and found himself in was just commencing his career. He had company with Mr. and Mrs. Disraeli. a safe seat, and everything depended upon his being in the House. Lord Ward had built a golden bridge for him. He did not insist upon his stultifying himself by voting against his conscience, merely asked him to take a course, ordinary enough even in these days when a fiercer light beats on the House of Commons, and walk out of the House. Northcote promptly declined. "Had I done so," he said, "I should have accepted the position of a mere tool, which would not suit me." So he voted against the government and sacrificed his seat for Dudley, believing at the time that it meant subsidence into

private life. "As to standing anywhere else, I think in the circumstances of our family and fortune I must give up the idea.'

Parliament was dissolved in 1857, and Northcote, standing for North Devon, was beaten after a contest, the expense of which crippled him for a short time. He went to France to economize, occasionally visiting England. During one of these trips Disraeli, who had had opportunity of judging of his value whilst he sat in the House for Dudley, made overtures to bim. Like the Greeks Disraeli came bearing gifts, and Stafford Northcote, steeped in classic lore, was inclined to distrust him. The Conservative chief was so anxious to gain the new recruit that he offered not only to procure a seat

Mrs. Disraeli [he writes to Lady Northcote] is great fun, and we made capital friends in the train, though I could not help occasionally pitying her husband for the startling effect her natural speeches must have upon the ears of his great friends. . . . you say of asking them to Pynes? It would complete the astonishment of our neighbors.

What do

Twenty years later that is not quite the way in which Sir Stafford would have discussed the suggestion of inviting Mr. Disraeli to be his guest in his ancestral home. But a great deal had happened in the mean time.

Even five years later, Sir Stafford showed himself prone to regard Disraeli as a person who might be safely chaffed. Writing from a country house in Yorkshire, in the autumn of 1864, he says, "The principal delight of our friends here is Dizzy's advice to the farmers to cross their sheep with the Cotswolds. Can't you imagine him gravely giving it; as if he knew the difference between a Cotswold and a Southdown? Here is the lordly English landowner, with an ancestry which, according to a pedigree preserved at Pynes, went back within half a century of the Conquest, disclosing his latent scorn for a man who even yet was regarded by some of the party, who profited by his leadership, as an adventurer.

In the somewhat disappointing compilation of familiar episodes in the life of

Disraeli which Mr. Froude has just pub- | him the duty of winding up a debate. It lished there is a passage which admirably was said at the time that Stafford Northsums up a long period in his career which cote was "feeling his feet," and no fond some of the adulators of Lord Beaconsfield mother watched her firstborn with greater are apt to forget. assiduity than Disraeli looked on Northcote, nor was any more delighted at his growing ease and strength.

He had [Mr. Froude writes] started on his own merits, for he had nothing else to recommend him, and he had challenged fate by the pretensions which he had put forward for himself. His birth was a reproach to be got over. He had no great constituency at his back, no popular cause to represent. He was without the academic reputation which so often smooths the entrance to public life, and the Tory gentlemen among whom he had taken his place looked upon him with dubious eyes. It was not till Disraeli had been justified of his resolve not to be lured into accepting office when, in 1873, Mr. Gladstone was defeated on the Dublin University Bill, that there disappeared from the writing and conversation of members of his party all trace of the contemptuous distrust which had for more than forty years hampered his progress.

The personal intercourse between these two men, extending over a period of more than twenty years, was, I believe, unruffled by a single misunderstanding. Stafford Northcote was a hard man to quarrel with, and Disraeli, according to the testimony of all who worked with him, was the most courteous of colleagues, the most considerate of leaders. Northcote formed the habit of writing letters to him at critical periods. They were, perhaps, a little prosy, but full of wise counsel. What Disraeli thought as he read is not told. There is a charming account in the diary of a Sunday spent at Hughenden in the summer of 1880. Parliament was busy with the Irish Land Bill, and Northcote went down to "give the chief an account of the Parliamentary position." (At this epoch one notes that the personage who was written and spoken of at the outset as Dizzy," who next lapsed into "Dis," becomes "the chief,” and is always so called. Mr. Gladstone, it may be observed, is in private conversation or correspondence in these days always alluded to by his colleagues on the front bench as "Mr. G.") On this July Sunday, Northcote "found the chief very well and delighted to see me." "He has been quite alone with his peacocks, and revel

never seen in May or June before." After dinner the talk chiefly turned on books, Northcote making the pleasant, and to some surprising, remark that "the chief is always at his best in his library, and seemed thoroughly to enjoy a good ramble over literature.'

It is interesting to watch Stafford Northcote pausing and pondering at this parting of the ways, lingering around the old love before he finally committed himself to companionship with the new. But having once given his hand to Disraeli, he was drawn closer and closer, never again to part. Thereafter, whenever a government was formed in which Disraeli had prominent place, he always cared for Northcote, advancing him step by step till, when he quitted the House of Commons, he installed him in his own place as leader. Mr. Lang's account of North-ling in the country, which he says he has cote's Parliamentary career naturally grows more reticent as he approaches later times. There is no reference either in the memoir, the diary or the letters to what took place in the Session of 1876, in the closing weeks of which Disraeli disappeared from the scene. To those who chanced to be eye-witnesses of the course of events it was pretty to see how the premier, contemplating his departure, dexterously accustomed the House to the idea of Stafford Northcote as their leader. The course was not absolutely clear. There was in the person of Mr. Gathorne Hardy at least one other in the running. But Mr. Disraeli, a consummate judge of men, preferred to promote Mr. Hardy to a peerage, reserving the post of leader for Stafford Northcote. Gradually, by almost imperceptible steps, he drew Northcote to the front, leaving him to answer ques tions addressed to the leader of the House, and occasionally transferring to

One other peep we get of the chief and his lieutenant in company which is of more dramatic interest. The precise date is not made very clear in Mr. Lang's book, but reference in other quarters show that it was on the 24th of January, 1878. The meeting of the House of Commons had been prefaced by alarming news from the East, where the Russians and the Turks were still fighting. It was rumored that the Russians were marching on Gallipoli bound for Constantinople. In a House densely crowded and wrought to a pitch of high excitement, Sir Stafford Northcote, with that air of offering a casual remark always assumed when he had a