FEBRUARY 15, 1906

VANITY FAIR

207

## SURPLUS LIBRARY BOOKS & New Remainders
OFFERED AT GREATLY REDUCED PRICES.

MUDIE'S FEBRUARY LIST, now ready, contains
Popular Works on Sport, Travel, Biography, and
Fiction. 'Sent post free on application to

30-34, New Oxford Street, London.

241, Brompton Road, S.W.

48, Queen Victoria Street, E.C.

The Mutual Life . .
Insurance Company
of New York . . .

Assets over £90,000,000 Sterling.

Head Office for the United Kingdom: 16, 17, 18, CORNHILL, LONDON, E.C.
D. C. HALDEMAN, General Manager.

ST. JAMES'S ELECTRIC,
LIGHT, & HOT-AIR BATHS.

1, YORK ST.,
JERMYN ST.,
S.W.

## The MAYFAIR ASSOCIATION
84, MOUNT STREET, GROSVENOR SQUARE, W.

Telegraphic Address: "MAYFAIRING, LONDON." Telephone: No. 6768 GERRARD.

Quickly Supply Governesses, Companions, Secretaries, Nurses, Housekeepers, Cooks, &c. All Maids, Lady and Men Servants.

Advertising, Ladies' Partnerships and Business Transfer, House and General Agents.

# THE CARLTON

HOTEL and
RESTAURANT,

Telephone:

1598 Gerrard.

PALL MALL, S.W.

## The INDEX . .

to VOL. LXXIV.
(July to Dec., 1905) of VANITY FAIR
... is NOW READY.

Post Free, 6jd.

VANITY FAIR, LIMITED, 125, STRAND, LONDON, W.C.

## TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION TO "VANITY FAIR" (PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.)

In the United Kingdom, per Annum, post free ... £1 8 0

" " Half-yearly, " ... 0 14 0

Quarterly, " ... 0 7 0

For Abroad, per Annum, post free (thin paper copy) 1 12 6

" " (thick paper copy) 1 16 10

"Cheques and Money Orders (on East Strand Branch) to be made payable to VANITY FAIR, 125, Strand, London, W.C.

## NOW READY.

### VANITY FAIR ALBUM FOR 1905

(THIRTY-SEVENTH SERIES).

Containing the year's Cartoons, with "Jehu Junior's" letterpress relating thereto, handsomely bound in green cloth, gilt extra.

### PRICE TWO GUINEAS.

"A portmait gallery of the age, marked by keen insight and genial humour. ... The illustrated 'Who's Who' of our era."—*Obseër*.

"The thirty-seventh volume is particularly interesting. ... An admirable gallery of brilliant, incisive portraits."—*Morning Post*.

"Neither 'Spy's brush nor the pen of 'Jehu Junior' has lost its canning."—*Birmingham Daily Post*.

"Long may 'Spy' and 'Jehu Junior' flourish!"—*Eton College Chronicle*.

VANITY FAIR, LTD., 125, STRAND, W.C.

## ROMANO'S, 399, STRAND, IS THE PARADISE OF GOURMETS.

### VANITY FAIR.

LONDON, FEBRUARY 15, 1906.

### MEN OF THE DAY.

No. MII.—GENERAL SIR HUGH GOUGH, V.C., G.C.B.

IT was some fifty-three years ago that Hugh Gough, a hot-headed and valiant young Irishman from Tipperary, arrived in India, shortly to find himself swept into the grim struggle of the Mutiny. At the outbreak at Meerut, where he was quartered, he was saved by friendly natives. It was at Delhi that he became attached to Hodson's Horse, and first met that famous sabreur, its leader, over whose character men still wrangle. Hodson's Horse was composed of extremely irregular Irregulars. Parade-ground polish was not for them; but in rough-and-tumble fighting they were superb. Their General was much upset by their unsoldierly appearance when they first rode into his camp; but after their capture of the rebel guns at the relief of Lucknow and the battle of Cawnpore, he recognised that his wild crowd were amongst his best fighters. Young Gough rose steadily in the estimation of his superior officers. He was absolutely without fear, yet could control his fiery Irish temper when occasion demanded. He took his life in his hand daily. His duels with rebel troopers were Homeric. His V.C. was the result of conspicuous gallantry at a time when all men were brave.

In Abyssinia with Sir Robert Napier, and in Afghanistan with Lord Roberts, he grew in rank and reputation. In the march to Kandahar he showed coolness and endurance.

With his brother Charles, another V.C. man, he is now resting on the laurels so nobly earned. He is Keeper of the Regalia at the Tower of London. At the Coronation he took part in the procession, carrying the jewelled Sword of Offering, the ruby Ring of Sincere Faith, and the Gauntlet.

He has ever been a man who does things as distinct from the man who gets things done. That he is the brother and uncle of a V.C. as well as a V.C. himself proves that the Gough motto, "Faugh-a-ballagh," or "Clear the way," is well merited. He has written a book on the Mutiny which is specially distinguished by the modesty of its author. He has a genial and kindly nature. The ladies call him "dear Sir Hugh."

JEHU JUNIOR.

> "MANNERS MAKYTH MAN."

### A MISSION FOR DEMOCRACY.

BRITISH society—in the broad meaning of that term— is composed of five strata;—the aristocracy, the upper middle class, the lower middle class, the "working class"—generally so called—and the "impossible" class. In the last order are included the Unemployable, the Loafers and Cadgers, the Habitual Criminals; in fact, all the waste human products of an unscientific civilisation and a wrong-headed morality.

The Aristocracy is constantly being recruited from the Upper Middle Class, but—to accept the definition that most Englishmen really give to the word—it consists, properly, of families which have become accustomed to the circumstances attendant upon ennoblement, and of those major county families which possess no title but are of old enough

208

VANITY FAIR

FEBRUARY 15, 1906

standing to have attained general recognition. The aristocracy, of course, overlaps into the Upper Middle Class, and by the process of descent the members of it more remote from the heads of families are always passing into that class.

The Upper Middle Class consists of members of the fighting and Civil Services, and of the learned professions; of the minor landed gentry and persons of independent means who are sufficiently educated; of financiers, stockbrokers, wealthy merchants, and others whose connection with commerce secures them an abundant income and enables them to maintain a style and manner of living which is easily recognised but cannot be closely defined; of artists, authors, and journalists, &c., who are either successful or persons of refinement; and of those well-educated men and women whose tastes and habits bring them into this class, though their employment may be such as is more usually associated with the class below.

The Lower Middle Class consists of tradespeople generally, of the bulk of commercial clerks, and of the most highly skilled and highly paid artisans.

The Working Class consists principally of those who earn daily or weekly wages by manual toil.

One does not pretend that this classification is even approximately exact, but it corresponds roughly to the idea which most Englishmen have in speaking of those four great divisions of society.

Now, there is a line of demarcation which, generally speaking, distinguishes the two upper from the two lower of these classes. In the upper, a man is expected to possess, and—though there are numerous exceptions not confined to any one rank—ordinarily does possess, the manners of a gentleman. In the lower, he is not expected to possess, and ordinarily does not possess, them. Is this line of demarcation necessary and inevitable? When one considers what manners mean—that without them life is unpleasant and with them pleasant; that without them a man may be a good, but must be a disagreeable, friend or neighbour; that existence must be barbarous, revolting, not even free from the taint of animalism when manners are bad, and only admits of general happiness and personal dignity when manners are good—one cannot deny the importance of the questions. The working classes have been educated in other things; their knowledge of the sort of facts that are set forth in text-books not unfrequently exceeds the knowledge in the like kind of men who have been to a public school and a University. In the Latin countries good and even grateful manners are not confined to one section of the community; in Spain, where so much latinity in other respects is permissible, rudeness is a crime, and a rare one. Cannot our own masses emulate the Spaniards?

It is quite true that English people—who do not, of course, include “the Celtic fringe”—have not the genius of manners. Even among the classes that receive a social as well as an intellectual education the manners of men are too often disagreeable, though they are not formally bad. The Englishman either cannot or will not accommodate himself to those whose tastes differ from his own. He does not wish to be forbidding, and he does not lack cordiality. But if you meet him and do not share his tastes and interests, he is too apt to assume an appearance of tolerating your company because he must, of considering you an outsider whose inferiority is too obvious to be overlooked. In France the most military of soldiers and the most rapturous of composers could meet at table, entertain one another and those who heard them by their conversation, draw wit from their differences and good humour from their limitations, and part excellent friends. What would be the effect of expecting a smart and keen English officer to hold converse with a brilliant decadent poet or an enthusiastic impressionist painter? The boredom and contempt on both sides would be stifling.

And yet this national failing has, among the socially educated classes, been in a great measure overcome. In any ordinary assembly of well-bred men and women, beside Frigidities and Pomposities male and female, there will be sympathetic people who are able and willing to please without sacrificing oneiera of their dignity. Cannot this education be extended downwards?

In the lower middle class the underlying fault is blindness to the value of manners; in the working class it is not so much that as the mistaken idea of politeness is unmansly.

It is in the lower middle class that people may be benevolent, honest, and good-humoured, and yet indescribably painful as associates. They either do not know when they are making the person who is delivered into their society uncomfortable, or do not care how much discomfort he endures, provided that they act according to their conventions; for they have rigid conventions which take the place of manners. Their hospitality, often well meant and liberally given, is apt to be excruciating. They are not overtired, but they are personally oppressive. The lack of tact in the form of considerateness, the want of discerning reticence, the unsuitable questioning, the unpolished manner of carrying individuality into social life—these things are faults only too prevalent, though, of course, they are very far indeed from being universal. And they are a torture to nerves which are not immune to their effects.

Among the working classes there seems to linger a tradition that a real man must be something of a brute, and that most civility is namby-pamby. Women are often treated with good humour, still more generally with tolerance, rarely with chivalry; yet anyone who knows the working classes is aware that there are men in them to whom a simple and modest chivalry of an exquisite kind seems natural. Nor is this innate good breeding limited to the men. Not only has one known an expensive establishment in which the only gentleman was a gardener, but one has seen a lavishly-supplied house in which the only lady was a housemaid.

The cure is that manners should be taught. They should be a part of the regular course in every school. Among the wealthier classes boys and girls learn manners at home; and, in an age of informality like the present, they are usually taught better behaviour than their parents practise. Among the lower classes they are seldom taught manners at all. But that wise and generous old spirit, William of Wykeham, could have left no more brilliantly true maxim to his disciples than that which heads this article. Manners do make men.

The lower middle class and the working class have now supreme political power in their hands, and political power sooner or later opens all gates. In the future working men will not only go to Court as Ministers, but they and tradesmen will—so to speak—gradually become social currency. It is right that the different classes should mingle more freely, and there is no reason why they should not do so with mutual respect. But if life is to be livable under a thoroughly democratic regime, the curse of bad manners must be lifted. First and foremost, it is the duty of the masses to raise life many degrees in happiness and dignity by delivering themselves from the reproach of unmannerslieness. Is it too much to hope that we shall yet see corduroys and hibernailed boots associated with the graceful *savoir faire* of the Spanish gentleman, and find in the plumber, the rate-collector, and the cabman the pliant but correct demeour of the cultured Parisian?

## PARTY ORGANISATION.

THE question of Party organisation is one of consummate importance to the Unionist Party. We reproduce the substance of what an influential Unionist—a man who knows thoroughly well what he is talking about—gave as his opinion a couple of days ago. He was outspoken, but everyone who is aware of the real facts will recognise the justice of his observations:—

> The thing to go for is to get the organisation out of the hands of the smock-fitter who at present manipulate it. The gross mismanagement and negligence of the class which is eliminated, as everyone outside the inner ring foresaw that it would, in a crushing disaster. But, quite apart from persons and individuals, the whole principle seems to be entirely wrong. The organisation of a great party cannot be properly conducted in a hole-and-corner way, but should be in the hands of a standing committee composed of representative men of proved capacity, who would have under review the whole political machinery, and who would guide and control the operations of the chief party agent.

> All shades of Unionist opinion upon Tariff Reform should be included in this body, and Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Balfour should be ex-officio presidents or chairmen. This would imply amalgamation of the Liberal Unionist and Conservative organisations. The Tariff Reform League would remain a separate and outside body, and be used for purposes of propaganda.

> My whole idea is that a democratic should be substituted for an autocratic body. Hitherto the party, as a party, and the individuals composing it, have not a voice in the management of their most vital interests and affairs. Outsiders here and there, who happened to be in favour with the powers that be, were consulted; but, taken as a whole, the rank and file have been treated with no consideration, and in many instances with downright rudeness. It is indeed remarkable that they have tamerly submitted to this kind of thing for so long, and it is to be hoped that if a strong lead is now given to them they will insist upon a root and branch reform. Very likely the people who are at present controlling the machine will kick against inroads being made upon their influence. I hope, however, that any such opposition may be overcome.

> Another point which should be noticed is the manner in which favours are distributed. The one thing which should command most influence and respect is real hard work in the constituencies. This is of far more importance than regular attendance at the House or slavish adhesion to the command of the Whips. In any other calling — the Army, the Navy, in business or at the Bar—if a man neglects the unit which he commands he has usually to suffer for his conduct. A colonel of a regiment whose battalion goes to pieces does not, as a rule, receive emoluments or promotion; a man who reaches a torpedo boat is not placed in charge of a battleship; a barrister who muddles a case entrusted to him has small chance of reaching the judicial bench; and a business man who neglects his department of any big concern is usually put into the street.

> In politics, however, the direct opposite seems to be the case. It is nothing but money or social influence which gets a man into the ring, and once in the ring there seems to be no limit to the follies he may commit without his right of succession to high office being impaired. Have not the object failures of one department been translated with the apparent object of bringing disaster upon another?