Arthur James Balfour, 1848-1930
by his niece,
[Putnam, 2 vols., $10.00]
FOR more than half a century — from 1874 to 1929 — Balfour was continuously, with the exception of three months, an active member either of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords. He held almost every important political office, including the premiership. He accompanied Lord Salisbury (‘My dear Uncle Robert’ of many letters) to the Congress of Berlin in 1878, represented England at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, and came on two missions to the United States — in 1917 to coördinate war efforts, and in 1921 to the Washington Naval Conference. He wrote books on philosophy, delivered the Gifford Lectures, composed numerous memoranda for aid of colleagues, and established the Zionists in Palestine. At Christmas, however, and often for weeks during the summer golfing season, he was the delight and centre of a large family of brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews, who gathered at the Balfour estate of Whittingehame at the foot of the Lammermoor Hills near Berwick.
The story of Balfour’s extraordinarily long, manysided, and richly filled life is delightfully told with Boswell-like devotion by his niece. In the intimate family circle since infancy, she is able to recall in vivid and charming simplicity the picture of ‘Nunky,’ the beloved uncle who did n’t smoke or take cocktails, but liked tapioca pudding and had the nightgowned children waked up on New Year’s Eve to drink his mulled claret and see the Old Year out.
Delicate in health and languid in youth, Balfour lived to play a vigorous game of tennis at seventy, to say nothing of golf, owing in part perhaps to his serenity of mind, his refusal to overwork himself, and his joy in living. Though without a naturally good memory, he carried all he needed very clearly in his head. For speeches in Parliament or for learned lectures in philosophy he never had more than a few headings on the back of a long envelope. His letters and private papers he let fall freely on his bed, on the floor, or anywhere about his sitting room at Whittingehame, and there they lay until gathered up by a servant. By the time Balfour was approaching eighty they formed a vast accumulation and a rich mine of information for Mrs. Dugdale. She says she counted every day’s excavation lost unless it produced some document or letter which roused her uncle’s curiosity or recollection; then would follow his comments or a dialogue between the two, which she reproduces.
One might suspect that under these circumstances Mrs. Dugdale’s volumes would suffer from too much hero worship. This, however, is hardly the case. She meets fairly and squarely some of the criticisms made upon Balfour. She has been very conscientious in interviewing other persons as to disputed episodes. She leaves one with the impression that this Tory Democrat, born aristocrat, nephew of and co-worker with Lord Salisbury, did not quite live up to the great political opportunities which fortune of station opened to him, but that as friend, companion, and adviser he was unequaled in lovableness and loyalty.
Readers will enjoy these volumes more for Balfour the Man than for Balfour the Statesman. Historians will not find many important revelations, though here and there arc interesting bits: Chamberlain’s lone-hand alliance feeler to Germany; the Portuguese colonial treaty; the diplomatic finesse with which Balfour informed President Wilson in 1917 of the secret treaties; and many things concerning English party politics and personalities. Sir John Fisher, for instance, at first favored a quick attack on Turkey. In a characteristic letter of January 4, 1915, he urged Balfour to put it through without delay: ’Celerity. It was solely celerity that sent the German Squadron to the bottom at the Falklands! Anything done in a hurry is always done the best. . . . You are really the one man to direct the war. As it is I don’t find anywhere the courage of a louse or the backbone of a slug!’
In the conflict between Asquith and Lloyd George in December 1916, Balfour, sick in bed but constantly consulted by both factions, favored ‘giving a free hand for the Little Man.’ ‘I have no prejudices in favour of Lloyd George. I have opposed every political principle he holds — but I think he is the only man who can at this moment break down that wall of military red tape, and see that the brains of the country are made use of.’ This was typical of Balfour. Though he might differ fundamentally from other people’s views, he never allowed that to disturb his personal friendship for them or to blind him to their abilities.
SIDNEY B. FAY