A.D. 1891.]

REGARD FOR MR GLADSTONE.

345

would swallow up the whole surplus; but the Government had made up their minds, and the thing was done.

On the vexed question of the Sunday opening of museums, Smith made the following reply to one who had addressed inquiry to him :—

March 20, 1891.

I know there is difference of opinion between men who all earnestly desire to promote the happiness of their fellow-creatures, as to the opening of picture-galleries and museums on Sundays. I do not presume to find fault with those who differ from me, but I remain of opinion that on the whole it would be harmful to the interests of the working classes, as it would involve the compulsory employment by the State of many of these servants on Sundays, and set an example to private employers of labour in the direction of amusements.

I am of opinion that a Sunday rest is invaluable to the working man, and I am anxious to protect it for him as much as I can. -Yours very sincerely, W. H. SMITH.

Stoutly as Smith had opposed, time after time, the policy of Mr Gladstone on many subjects, and plainly as he sometimes expressed his disapproval at the inconsistency of that statesman's course with the principles which, as Smith held, should lie at the base of all government, it is pleasant to record an instance of the personal regard which endured to the end between these political opponents. On March 28 Smith wrote to the Right Hon. Akers Douglas, M.P., the Patronage Secretary :—

Harcourt asks me to dinner on April 15 to meet Gladstone, and I am very much inclined to go. Would it frighten our friends?

Three months later, on June 28, he observed in a letter to Sir Henry Acland :

Gladstone is more kindly in his personal relations than I have ever known him, but he is physically much weaker, and the least exertion knocks him over.

Smith had thoughts for gentler subjects than political strife, as is shown by the following letter, written on April 4, to the Duke of Rutland :—

This is the last of my so-called holidays; but every day has brought its three or four hours' work. It is however a most restful change to write my letters in full view of trees and hills, which to-day are refreshed by their first April shower. I have long wanted to ask you to do me a kindness while there is yet time. I have a great desire to put the proper names to Disraeli's characters in his political novels. Would you mind doing it for me? I would put it by as a literary treasure in my library: not to be opened for any number of years that you might stipulate, if you thought it desirable to do so. Baillie-Cochrane is gone, and there is no one I know of who can supply the information but yourself. . . . Cranbrook writes to me to-day to say that he has seen it stated in the papers that Michael Davitt has been placed on the Royal Commission on Labour. I wrote at once to say there was no truth in the story. Justin M'Carthy, who has been at Cannes, wrote and telegraphed asking that he (Davitt) might be put upon it to represent the late Parnell party, but I telegraphed in reply that it was impossible. Lord Granville's death is a real loss, although he had got very old lately. The bench opposite to you in the House of Lords will not be at all the same without him.

One more distinction and mark of his sovereign's favour was to be bestowed on Smith, and one which probably gave him more gratification than any of the honours he had already received. On May 1, 1891, after Lord Granville's death, Lord Salisbury wrote to him to say that he had submitted his name to the Queen for the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports:

It is a semi-naval position, & you have been since 1878 always exceedingly popular with naval people: & I think the Dover people would feel complimented at the Leader of the House of Commons taking it. I enclose the Queen's answer.

Will you take it?

The Queen to the Marquis of Salisbury.

WINDSOR CASTLE, May 1, 1891.

The Queen highly approves of Mr Smith's being offered the office of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. No one deserves it more than he does.

Some foolish comments were made at the time on Smith's acceptance of this office. It was murmured that it was a post which should have been reserved for some Minister in circumstances other than affluent, who had not, like Smith, a country residence of his own. How little these critics

A.D. 1891.]

AN AMBITIOUS OFFICE.

347

understood the motives which had led to the offer being made and accepted! So far from the Wardenship being an office of profit, Lord Salisbury wrote about it: "I made a mistake in thinking it should be reserved as an assistance to a poor man. It is a white elephant of the whitest kind." In former days it was indeed a lucrative post, and the Lord Warden used to derive £3000 or £4000 a-year from the proceeds of wreckage; but latterly there has been no income of any sort, but on the contrary a heavy expenditure in upkeep and household charges.

The usual letters of congratulation poured in, but there was a touch of pathos in them, arising from the precarious state of the new Lord Warden's health.

May you and yours [wrote Sir Henry Acland] long enjoy the peaceful retreat, looking from the Great Duke's window over the Downs and imbibing the lovely sea-breeze that ever moves along the shore.

Among the many letters of congratulation which Smith received was one from a naval officer of high rank, containing an amusing anecdote :

In 1870 I was lying in the Downs with two other ships. Mr Gladstone, then Prime Minister, was stopping at Walmer Castle with your predecessor, and they intimated their intention of visiting the senior officer, who at once turned to the Regulations to see what honours a Prime Minister was entitled to on visiting a man-of-war, and nothing could be found. Here was a dilemma! but fortunately it was found that the Ld. Warden is entitled to 19 guns in his own jurisdiction, so yards were manned & the salute fired, and Mr Gladstone stood up and graciously bowed, & took to himself what was really ineant for the Lord Warden.

According to the archaic rule which compels all members accepting office under the Crown to vacate their seats and offer themselves for re-election, Smith had to go through the form of an appeal to the Strand electors. He was not opposed, and the manner of his reception by the House on taking his seat is best shown by an extract from the parliamentary report of an evening paper, the 'Pall Mall Gazette,'