The Memoirs of Admiral Lord Beresford
proposed to remove the monument to Captain Richard Rundle Burges, R.N.,
from the south aisle to the crypt; a proceeding to {411} which I
expressed strong objection on behalf of the Service to which I had the
honour to belong. The controversy was conducted in the columns of _The
Times_.
The Dean, writing on 7th July, 1897, protested that the "monument is
unsightly. Captain Burges making love to Victory over a gun is not a
very suitable monument for a church, and during the twenty-eight years
I have been connected with the Cathedral I have been most anxious to
see this monument in a less conspicuous place."
In my reply, I said that, in the first place, I was not prepared to
accept his description of the sculptor's work; and secondly, that it
was rather late in the day to criticise it. And I submitted to the
Dean and Chapter, that as the Cathedral did not appear to have suffered
by the retention of that monument for the last hundred years, no harm
could possibly result from allowing it to remain. And I submitted with
great respect that the twenty-eight years' repugnance of the present
Dean had curiously enough only found vent in action at the time when it
was found necessary to select a spot for the site of a monument to the
late distinguished President of the Academy. I added that "Lord
Leighton was a personal friend of my own, but I have yet to learn that
he was the sort of man who would have wished to usurp the place of any
one, or that he would have even admitted that an artist, however
distinguished, takes precedence in the nation's history of those heroes
to whom the existence of our Empire is due. I rather think from what I
knew of Lord Leighton's character that had such a hypothesis been
presented to him in his lifetime his answer would have been like that
of her gracious Majesty the Queen, who, it is reported, when it was
suggested to her that Queen Anne's statue should be moved to make room
for one of herself, replied, 'Certainly not; why, you would be
proposing to move myself next.'"
Then, on 12th July, 1897, Mr. Balfour stated in the House of Commons
that "the Dean and Chapter, after reviewing all the circumstances of
the case, had decided not to carry out {412} their intention of
relegating the Burges Memorial to the crypt." _The Times_ remarked
that "The public will be interested to know that among the
circumstances which have brought about this welcome change of purpose
an important place must be assigned to an appeal by the Prince of
Wales. His Royal Highness holds very strongly the opinion that if
memorials are to be liable to removal in this summary manner whenever
the taste of a later generation pronounces them unsightly, the door
will be opened to grave abuses. He accordingly expressed to the Dean
and Chapter his hope that they would see their way to retain the Burges
Memorial in its present position, and it is largely in deference to his
wishes that the monument remains where it was erected at the expense of
the nation."
So the good Dean was fated still to be scandalised by the "unsuitable"
spectacle of the gallant captain "making love to Victory over a gun";
although, personally, I doubt if Captain Burges's statue is really
doing anything of the kind. In January, 1897, I had the honour of
being appointed A.D.C. to the Queen. In July, 1897, when the intention
of the Duke and Duchess of York to visit Ireland was announced I seized
the opportunity to advocate a project which I had long desired to see
adopted, and for whose adoption, in fact, I am still hoping. That
project is the building of a Royal residence in Ireland. It has
hitherto been foiled by timid Ministers. Writing to _The Times_ (24th
July, 1897), I pointed out that the total sojourn of the Royal Family
in Ireland during the past sixty years had been fifty-nine days in all.
The letter continues: "In my humble opinion it is impossible to
overrate the harm that this apparent neglect has done to the cause of
loyalty in Ireland. I am convinced that many misfortunes and
misunderstandings would never have taken place if the Royal Family had
been permitted by Governments and courtiers to make more frequent
visits to Ireland, and to render such visits possible by the
establishment of a Royal residence in that country. I know for a fact
that Her Majesty has on one occasion, and I believe more, {413} made
strenuous efforts to obtain a Royal residence in Ireland. Her
Majesty's generous wish was never fulfilled, owing to opposition on the
part of her advisers, who have invariably entertained an ungenerous and
unworthy doubt of the Irish character.... Vice-regal rule from the
Castle at Dublin is hated with all the passion of resentment of a
generous-minded but impulsive people, who possibly regard it as placing
them on the same footing as the conquered and coloured races under
British domination. It must not be inferred that I in any way intend
to say a word against the present or preceding Viceroys of Ireland. I
only wonder that men could ever have been found with patriotism enough
to fill the office; but in common with patriotic Irishmen of all
parties, I object to the sham court of the rule of men who, so far from
really representing the Sovereign, represent merely the political party
which has the upper hand in England at the time of their holding
office--unlike the Viceroy of India, who holds office for a term of
years independent of the political party that appointed him.... I
believe Irishmen would like to have Royalty permanently among them, and
to see Ireland put on an equal footing with the rest of the United
Kingdom in these matters."
The project was received with the general approval of the public, in so
far as their opinion was represented by the Press. The truth was, the
Queen often wished to go to Ireland; but her Ministers prevented her
from visiting my country; and their action was keenly resented by
Irishmen. Personally, I protested against it; affirming what I believe
to be the fact, that the Irish are the most chivalrous people in the
world. In her sentiment towards my country, and in all her dealings
with the Irish, Her Majesty was invariably most charming. It is very
much to be regretted that the anomaly of Castle government was not
ended long ago: that it must be ended, is certain.
The Duke and Duchess of York, visiting Ireland in August, 1897, were
received with the greatest possible enthusiasm. The township of
Kingstown presented an {414} address in which the hope was expressed
that their visit might lead to the establishment of a Royal residence
in Ireland; and thirteen other addresses presented on the same day
expressed a like aspiration.
In the same month (August, 1897) I was promoted to rear-admiral.
Among other occupations, I had been collaborating with Mr. H. W. Wilson
in the preparation of a Life of Nelson. The work was published under
the title of _Nelson and his Times_, by Messrs. Harmsworth, in October,
1897.
In the meantime the Government had been making tentative efforts
towards the constitution of a Council of Defence, upon which both
Services should be represented, and which should form a kind of
advisory body. The President of the new body was the Duke of
Devonshire, who, universally esteemed and respected for the
high-minded, conscientious statesman that he was, had neither the
training nor the aptitude required to fulfil such an office. At the
same time, the Duke was not only occupied with the affairs of his great
estates, and in the discharge of many social duties, but he was also
head of the Education Department. While expressing the utmost respect
for the Duke, I did not hesitate publicly to express my opinion, in the
course of an address delivered at the Cutlers' Feast at Sheffield in
November, 1897, that under the circumstances it was impossible to take
the new Council seriously. Nor is it probable that anyone did take it
seriously, least of all Her Majesty's Ministers.
It was in 1897 that I first saw Mr. Marconi's invention for wireless
telegraphy. Mr. Marconi, to whom I recently wrote asking him for
particulars of the occasion, very kindly replied as follows:
"In July, 1897, you first saw my original apparatus working at 28 Mark
Lane in the City of London, the corresponding instrument being placed
in another office in the City. Among others who witnessed the tests
was the late {415} Mr. Ritchie, then, I believe, President of the Board
of Trade."
But the time was shortly to arrive when I was once more to take part in
doing what I could to represent the interests of the Navy in
Parliament. Since 1890, I had been approached by forty constituencies
as to whether I would become a candidate. One invitation came upon me
unawares. It was in the garden of my house at Ham Common. I was
seated at my sailmaker's bench, clad in my old canvas jumper and
trousers, employed in fitting a dipping lug I used to have in the
_Undaunted_, for the roof of a summer-house; when to me entered a party
of gentlemen, immaculately clad in frock coats and silk hats. I had
not the least idea who they were; but they conversed with me very
affably, fell to criticising my work, and presently inquired if I had
seen Lord Charles, as they had been told that he was on the lawn. At
that, I suddenly recollected that I had promised to receive a
deputation.
During 1897, I had accepted the invitation to stand for a division of
Birmingham; but in consequence of a misunderstanding, the intention was
abandoned. Then, in December, owing to the death of my old friend Sir
Frank Lockwood, the seat of York became vacant. My opponent was Sir
Christopher Furness (afterwards Lord Furness). First in my election
address was placed the necessity for improving the efficiency both of
the Navy and Army by connecting the two Services in a plan of combined
defence. The advisability of altering the Constitution of the House of
Lords was also urged, together with the necessity of constituting a
strong Second Chamber.
The election campaign was lively enough. Sir Christopher's main
supporter was no other than Mr. Sam Story, who afterwards became an
enthusiastic Tariff Reformer. He and I interchanged ideas in a debate
conducted for the edification of an audience of 12,000 people, turn and
turn about for twenty minutes each.
My brothers Lord William and Lord Marcus were {416} helping me. Lord
Marcus accompanied me to a meeting, and I told him that he must make a
speech.
"I can't," he said. "I don't know what to say."
I told him to begin, because he was sure to be interrupted, and then,
being an Irishman, he would certainly find something to say. Lord
Marcus thereupon rose to his feet; and a voice immediately shouted:
"Who are ye?"
It was enough. The fire kindled.
"Who are we?" cried Lord Marcus. "I'll tell you who we are. We are
three brothers, and our names are Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. And
we have come here to put out the burning fiery Furness!"
There was a good deal of excitement during the election, and sometimes
stones would be flying. A cousin of mine, a lady, was driving along
the street, when a stone lodged in her bonnet. Lord William caused it
to be mounted in silver, upon which was inscribed the legend: "This
proves that our opponents left no stone unturned to win the York
election"; and presented it to the lady to use as a paper-weight.
It was a close contest indeed. On the night of the poll, the Mayor
most unfortunately succumbed to the strain and died suddenly.
In the result I won the seat by a majority of 11 (after two counts), on
a poll of over 11,000 votes.
When I had taken my seat in the House, a political opponent whose
opinions were as changeable as the wind, who had held high office, and