and individuality, in many things they pulled together in their work and
policy like one man.

When Mr. Chamberlain took leave of local municipal life and went up
higher, Mr. Collings was not long in following him, and now both have
been for some years very familiar figures in Parliament. Since they
first entered public life both men have in some ways mellowed down.
Compared with what they once were, their foes at any rate say, they have
both lost colour. They were once ripe, full-bodied Radicals, and now
they are tawny Liberals, who have been bottled late--but bottled.

Although time and experience may have taught Mr. Collings many things,
he probably retains more of the old Radical Adam than does Mr.
Chamberlain. At one time he was regarded by some of his opponents as a
political fire-eater--a democratic despot who would have decapitated
kings and queens without a tinge of remorse, and slain wicked Tories
with the sword. He was, however, never the ungenial, self-seeking,
aggressive person some of his foes may have fancied him. He was always
an affable, pleasant, agreeable man, who could be civil and even polite
to his adversaries, especially when political fighting was not going on
in front. But, as I have said, he has toned down during late years and
has learned, as many other men have done, that there are large lessons
to be learnt by experience, and that there is some virtue in expediency.

Of course a good deal of mud has been flung at Mr. Collings by some of
his local friends in consequence of what they consider his political
perversion, but I don't know that much of it has stuck to him. With some
of his former allies it is not so much that he may have become more
temperate in his views, or that he did actually abandon his absolute
freedom and take a Government office. They might have forgiven these