s question."

He dropped that aspect with an easy grace, and went on with his general
theme that political conflict was the outcome of uncertainty. "Directly
you get a thing established, so that people can say, 'Now this is
Right,' with the same conviction that people can say water is a
combination of oxygen and hydrogen, there's no more to be said. The
thing has to be done...."

And to put against this effect of Evesham, broad and humanely tolerant,
posing as the minister of a steadily developing constructive conviction,
there are other memories.

Have I not seen him in the House, persistent, persuasive, indefatigable,
and by all my standards wickedly perverse, leaning over the table with
those insistent movements of his hand upon it, or swaying forward with
a grip upon his coat lapel, fighting with a diabolical skill to preserve
what are in effect religious tests, tests he must have known would
outrage and humiliate and injure the consciences of a quarter--and that
perhaps the best quarter--of the youngsters who come to the work of
elementary education?

In playing for points in the game of party advantage Evesham displayed
at times a quite wicked unscrupulousness in the use of his subtle mind.
I would sit on the Liberal benches and watch him, and listen to his
urbane voice, fascinated by him. Did he really care? Did anything matter
to him? And if it really mattered nothing, why did he trouble to serve
the narrowness and passion of his side? Or did he see far beyond my
scope, so that this petty iniquity was justified by greater, remoter
ends of which I had no intimation?

They accused him of nepotism. His friends and family were certainly well
cared for. In private life he was full of an affectionate intimacy; he
pleased by being charmed and pleased. One might think at times there was
no more of him than a clever man happily circumstanced, and finding an
interest and occupation in politics. And then came a glimpse of thought,
of imagination, like the sight of a soaring eagle through a staircase
skylight. Oh, beyond question he was great! No other contemporary
politician had his quality. In no man have I perceived so
sympathetically the great contrast between warm, personal things and the
white dream of statecraft. Except that he had it seemed no hot passions,
but only interests and fine affections and indolences, he paralleled the
conflict of my life. He saw and thought widely and deeply; but at times
it seemed