PREFACE

among the first to denounce negro slavery, John Woolman perhaps the very first, and when slavery had been at last abolished, they took up the cause of those backward races which had come under the power of Britain and were always ready to work for their protection against injustice.

Another principle, also drawn from the New Testament, was opposition to war. Some went so far as to

think non-resistance a duty.

Mr. Bright was not one

of these, for he never concealed his approval of the action of the Northern States in the American War of Secession, holding it to be waged for high aims vital to human progress.

They also deemed it their duty to take an active part in the concerns of the nation whenever matters of principle were involved. Though there were some religious Quietists among the Friends, they did not generally, like the Moravians, withdraw from the world, for they were convinced that the individual cannot by passive acquiescence escape responsibility for public wrong-doing. The maxim "We must obey God rather than men required them not only to bear personal witness to the truth as they saw it, but to endeavour to argue for and try to advance the truth by all pacific means. Truthfulness was to them a duty of

prime obligation.

In all these respects Mr. Ellis was a worthy example of the type I have sought to describe. To hold a body of definite convictions and to feel bound to stand by them, give expression to them, do battle for them, requires courage and courage is, next to, or side by side with, honesty, the most essential of all public virtues. He was courageous by nature as well as by training, always thinking for himself, never afraid to

withstand the multitude whatever might happen to himself. The intensity with which he held his principles made courage easy to him, but did not make it seem less admirable in him to those who saw others shrink from an unpopularity that had for him

no terrors.

enough.

To stand firm was his duty. That was

No one had a stronger sense of what is due from England to those over whom she has assumed dominion; no one more anxious that her attitude towards other countries should be one founded on fairness, and that her policy should be directed towards peace and goodwill among the nations. Like Mr. Bright, he applied to all questions a moral standard, conceiving that standard to be the same for peoples and for individuals. Righteousness was in his view the highest of British interests. No consideration of any material advantage to be won for the country could justify aggression or cruelty, and the same justice was due to the weak as to the strong, to the backward and coloured races as to white men.

His sense of public duty made him assiduous in the discharge of his functions as a member of the House of Commons. Constant in his attendance, he applied himself to master its complicated procedure, and became a high authority on the subject. When called upon, as he often was, to sit as Chairman of Committee of the whole House, he showed complete familiarity with the rules and perfect self-possession. The feeling of what is required from a member made him take quite unusual pains to arrive at the true facts in the questions that from time to time came up. He studied for himself and thought for himself; and though his practical good sense made him occasionally, in minor matters,

PREFACE

support his party where he might have doubted their wisdom (for if every one were always to express and follow his own particular view, parliamentary government could not go on) he never abdicated his independence, or through indolence took opinions upon trust. Desiring nothing for himself, holding steadily to his principles, and a seeker no less than a speaker of truth, his course in politics was singularly consistent. To use a familiar House of Commons phrase, "you always knew where to find him." His opinion was valued, not only because it was sure to be honest, but also because it was never given lightly. One might differ from him as to the facts of a case, or as to the relative weight to be assigned to various facts. But the principles he applied were always clear and the arguments always cogent. Whether you agreed with him or not, you were the better for a talk with him, for he thought straight and spoke straight.

He did not seem to have any personal ambitions and showed no wish for office. When an important post, amply deserved by the position he had secured in the House, was offered to him, he accepted it, but retained it for a time only, considerations of health counselling retirement; and I think that, like Mr. Bright before him, he felt somewhat more free as an independent member, who could take whatever course his conscience prescribed.

Here let it be added that though there may appear to be a measure of austerity in the unflinching application of a moral standard to politics, there was in Mr. Ellis's judgments no acridity or bitterness. He was not prone to condemn persons, even those whose conduct he most disapproved, and attacks made upon himself did not provoke any vindictive replies. On

one occasion when he had been, as his friends thought, unfairly treated by a prominent opponent, and when he was pressed to retaliate, as he could easily have done, he refused, and seemed to feel no personal resentment. His nature was a kindly one, large in its charity; and his hatred of oppression or wrong was rooted in his own tenderness, and took on no tinge of selfrighteousness.

Men who are in politics not for the sake of fame or office, but that they may serve their country and help forward good causes; men careless of popular applause and fearless when unpleasant truths need to be spoken; men who think for themselves and try every question by the touchstone of honour and justice, are none too common in any assembly. Fortunately our British constituencies are usually loyal to such men, for the British voter loves courage; and they are respected by opponents as well as by friends. These men have been in our House of Commons an element of inestimable value, giving it that tone and spirit by which it has retained the confidence of the country. When one of them adds to the qualities I have described such exceptional ability, industry, and force as belonged to Mr. Ellis, he well deserves to be held in grateful and reverent memory.

January, 1914.

BRYCE.

AUTHOR'S NOTE

SHORTLY after the death of Mr. John Edward Ellis in 1910 Mr. Joshua Rowntree, his brother-in-law and friend of a lifetime, compiled a memoir of him with a view to its being privately circulated, but this project was abandoned, and Mr. Rowntree very kindly placed his manuscript at my disposal for the purpose of the present work. I now desire to put on record my indebtedness to him in the matter. Not only have I drawn largely upon the materials there collected, but I have by its means been enabled to preserve a certain note of intimacy which must otherwise have been lacking. To the family, also, I owe my thanks for the kindness and consideration which they have shown me during the preparation of the work, and for unreservedly placing at my disposal the diaries and other documents at Wrea Head. For permission to publish letters I am grateful to Mr. Lewis Harcourt, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, and Mr. Jesse Hind, and lastly I wish to acknowledge the great assistance rendered by the Rev. Frank Partridge who, at the sacrifice of considerable time, read through the manuscript and made many important suggestions and corrections.

A. T. B.

December, 1913.