Part 21 (1/2)

”But,” it ued in reply, ”why need you bark in such a loud and raucous way? Why need you be so bitter?” Here coive a warning in earnest without exposing one's self to the accusation of being bitter? I have again and again tried, as a journalist, to consider this question, for it has often been my lot to be accused of ”intense personal bitterness”

Yet in reality I have felt no such feeling What people have called bitterness has tosufficiently loud to force attention I have often, indeed, had a great deal of admiration and sympathy for the s I have longed to say nice things about them, but that, of course, is in The journalist that does that is lost At once the friends of the person against who is issued complain of your lack of character, of your want of stability, of your habit of turning round and facing the other way

You cannot be a watch-dog only at stated hours, and on off days purr like the family cat

I will take a specific illustration of what I houtdeoverning Dominions, which constitute the British Ereat help to the cause of peace, civilisation, and security, and it will render still hout India, we have done an incomparable service to huovernment

Our record on the hideous crime of slavery, even if it stood alone, would be a justification for the British Empire But it does not stand alone; there are hundreds of other grounds for saying that, if the British Empire had not existed, it would have had to be invented in the interests of h I was always so ardent a supporter of the British Empire and of the Iht that the mere word ”Imperialism” would cover a multitude of misdeeds

To coht that the watch-dog had to do a good deal of barking in the case of Mr Rhodes's practicalthe British Eerous and so little consistent with a high sense of national honour and good faith that I felt it was part of th We were told, for example, by his friends, that Mr Rhodes believed in the policy of the open cheque-book If you wanted a thing, you must pay for it, and he did He went further than that: his favourite maxim was said to be, ”I never yet saw an opposition that I could not buy or break” It appeared to ainst whoht to be warned, and as loudly as possible

What first set ift of 10,000 to Mr

Parnell for the funds of the Irish Nationalists The gift was et his Charter through the House of Commons Of course, I know that Mr Rhodes was accusto to do with each other, and even that the dates would not fit It was, he declared, an unworthy suspicion to suggest that it had ever crossed his mind that Parnellite criticisood subscription

Besides, he was and always had been a whole-hearted Hoht policies as other men buy pictures, made it a condition, of course, that the Nationalists should assure hi the Empire!

My view of the facts was different, and I believe it was the true view

Mr Rhodes wanted the Charter badly, and he did not ot it He did not, of course, want the Charter in order to make himself rich He wanted to extend the Empire in South Africa on particular lines, and these included a Chartered Province under his personal guidance To acco to take the help of bitter eneland, like Mr Parnell; ive our E to give them the pecuniary help they needed in their effort to destroy England, and to risk the consequences That was surely a case for the watch-dog ”Look at what the ot under it”

To my mind as even worse than the Parnellite subscription was the way in which the Chartered Company was run and the way in which its shares at par were showered on ”useful” politicians at home and in South Africa The Liberal party at Westminster professed to be anti- Iust that Mr Rhodes not only called himself a Liberal, but that quite a number of ”earnest Liberals” were commercially interested in the Charter

In this context I may recall a phrase used by a witness before a Parliamentary Committee at Capetohich made inquiries as to the distribution of ”shares at par” when the selling price of Chartered stock was very high The witness was asked on what system certain authorised but unallotted shares were distributed at par They were, he stated, given to journalists and other persons ”_who had to be satisfied on this Charter_” I aly, that appeared to h personally I knew nothing about Rhodes, and was inclined to like an adventurous, pushful spirit, it was clear tothe views I did as to the functions of the journalist, I had no choice but to bark my loudest My Imperialist friends were for the ross and unjust personal prejudices against a great man Soed Unionist and anti-separatist vieith opposition to the great Empire-builder When I told them that it was just because I was an Imperialist, and did not want to see the Empire destroyed, that I opposed Rhodes, pointed out to them that he was an arch corrupter, and insisted that corruption destroyed, not made, E about I was a foolish idealist who did not understand practical politics Such self- righteous subtleties reat affairs

This talk, instead of putting me off, reeable, to pursue ood fortune to obtain the support and encouragement of Lord Croreatest of living Imperialists Yet I found that he was in full sympathy withon

As I have said, I felt very deeply about the gift to the Nationalists

Later, I heard that Mr Rhodes had not only bought off, or tried to buy off, Irish opposition, but that he had actually offered and given a considerable suet thereat part of the Liberal leaders and the party generally considered that ere pledged to leave Egypt This did not suit Mr Rhodes, with his curious shi+lling-Atlas and round-ruler point of view about a Cape to Cairo Railway What would happen if, when the railas coyptian frontier, the platelayers found either a hostile Egypt or a foreign power in possession, and deterarded such a possibility as intolerable, and, after his reat hobby

Accordingly, he approached Mr Schnadhorst, the Boss of the Liberal Party, and told hiive 10,000 to the Liberal funds, which were thento the secession several years previously of Lord Hartington and Mr Chaift was conditional Mr Rhodes did not see his way to present the money unless he could have an assurance from Mr Gladstone himself that the Liberal party would not, if they caypt In a word, he proposed to buy a non-evacuation policy, and offered a good price for it Mr Schnadhorst wanted 10,000 for his party, and wanted it badly Accordingly he wrote a letter to Mr Rhodes, assuring hiypt The letter would not do for Mr Rhodes He wanted a categorical pledge from Mr Gladstone This he only obtained indirectly, and ultimately I believe that only about 5,000 was paid

But though for several years I heard rue subscription by Mr Rhodes to the Liberal funds, they were vague Chance, however, enabled me to prove what I felt was probably the truth It happened that Mr Boyd, one of Mr Rhodes's private secretaries, sent a letter to _The Spectator_ about Rhodesia, in which he made a clear allusion to the subscription to the Liberal funds I at once noted this admission and insisted that the ht, I declared, to say frankly whether any subscription had ever been accepted from Mr Rhodes

Sir Henry Campbell-Bannernant letter to _The Spectator_, declaring that the statement was a lie He added that he was authorised by Sir William Harcourt to say that he joined in the denial and so in the accusation of falsehood against Mr Rhodes's secretary I then called on Mr Rhodes in justice to hiations of his private secretary

Then the whole strange story came out Mr Rhodes wrote to say that the correspondence with Mr Schnadhorst was at the Cape, but that he had cabled for it, and that when it came he would send it to _The Spectator_ and let the British people judge whether the story was or was not a lie When the letters arrived they showed that Mr Rhodes had actually proposed to buy the policy he wanted, as he ht a shi+rt or a suit-case, and that the fa to do business--especially as it was pretty obvious that the evacuation of Egypt was no longer popular with a considerable section of Liberals

I was, naturally, well satisfied with the result of the warnings which I had given in regard to Mr Rhodes I had brought about an exposure of his methods, and had also exposed the carelessness and recklessness which allowed the agents of the Liberal Party to make a secret deal with a man like Mr Rhodes, and a deal in which the consideration was a large sum of money And all the ti Mr Rhodes for his shoddy Iard to my action was curious The politicians on s too far, and had been indiscreet Some of the unpleasant were to coested that I should have to do exactly what I had done in the case of the Liberals, they were very much shocked at my ”disloyalty to h the vastwhatever of the transaction, and were in truth greatly ashaer, were violently angry witha ood man like Mr

Gladstone I had ”entered into a conspiracy with Mr Rhodes in regard to the publication of a private correspondence” When I pointed out that, as a matter of fact, I disliked Mr Rhodes's methods quite as much as they did, and held that it was as bad to buy a policy as to sell one, they inconsequently ainst the sanctity of public life by helping Rhodes to break faith, and that ivable

I may end ard to this matter with Mr Rhodes at his hotel in Mayfair It was the only occasion on which I saw or spoke to him His private secretary, Mr Boyd, came to me and said that Mr Rhodes was very anxious to hand over to er Would I thereforehim tell me the whole story in his oords? I did not feel in a particularly kindly frahly disliked his ith the Press Further, I did not want to run any risk of Mr Rhodes hinting later that I had tried to black me later in the Chartered Company which had been apparently welcomed by me, and so on and so on I therefore expressed my opinion that there was no need whatever for a personal interview Mr Boyd thereuponplea _ad ly ill and orrying hi to live, and I should be playing a very inhurant the interview to a very sick reed, but only on the condition that if Mr Rhodes had anyone present at the interview, I also must have a friend present That I felt was rather an insulting condition, and I rather expected that Mr

Rhodes would have replied: ”If Mr Strachey cannot treat entlee careed to estion and that he would see me quite alone Why Mr Rhodes was so insistent as to an interview I cannot tell, unless it was that he had been rather worried about _The Spectator's_ hostility to hiht be able to mollify me in the course of a private talk I remereat trouble and surprise at my attitude towards him Why should a journalist whom he had never seen be so hostile? What could have induced him to take the line he took in _The Spectator_? ”I have never been able to make him out,” was how he summed up the position That struck me as very characteristic It had evidently never occurred to Rhodes that a journalist could act on the watch-dog principle The way hislike this

Strachey and _The Spectator_ are avowedly Ilanders Therefore they ought to be on my side If they are not without for some reason or other What is it? It isn't money If they had wanted to be ”satisfied on this Charter”