Absurd, of course! He _was_ an old friend of Ferrier's, whose relation
to his mother necessarily involved close and frequent contact with her
son. And at the same time--although in the past Ferrier had no doubt
laid him under great personal and political obligations--he had by now,
in the natural course of things, developed strong opinions of his own,
especially as to the conduct of party affairs in the House of Commons;
opinions which were not Ferrier's--which were, indeed, vehemently
opposed to Ferrier's. In his, Oliver's, opinion, Ferrier's lead in the
House--on certain questions--was a lead of weakness, making for
disaster. Was he not even to hold, much less to express such a view,
because of the quasi-parental relation in which Ferrier had once stood
to him? The whole thing was an odious confusion--most unfair to him
individually--between personal and Parliamentary duty.
Frankness?--loyalty? It would, no doubt, be said that Ferrier had always
behaved with singular generosity both toward opponents and toward
dissidents in his own party. Open and serious argument was at no time
unwelcome to him.
All very well! But how was one to argue, beyond a certain point, with a
man twenty-five years your senior, who had known you in jackets, and was
also your political chief?
Moreover, he had argued--to the best of his ability. Ferrier had written
him a striking series of letters, no doubt, and he had replied to them.
As to Ferrier's wish that he should communicate certain points in those
letters to Barton and Lankester, he had done it, to some extent. But it
was a most useless proceeding. The arguments employed had been
considered and rejected a hundred times already by every member of the
dissident group.
And with regard to the meeting, which had apparently roused so sharp a
resentment in Ferrier, Marsham maintained simply that he was not
responsible. It was a meeting of the advanced Radicals of the division.
Neither Marsham nor his agents had been present. Certain remarks and
opinions of his own had been quoted indeed, even in public, as leading
up to it, and justifying it. A great mistake. He had never meant to
countenance any personal attack on Ferrier or his leadership. Yet he
uncomfortably admitted that the meeting had told badly on the election.
In the view of one side, he had not had pluck enough to go to it; in the
view of the other, he had disgracefully connived at it.
* * * * *
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account