rodneyohebsion.com

Baron Lionel (Nathan) de Rothschild

by John Reeves

Nathan Mayer Rothschild left four sons and three daughters to participate in the immense fortune he had won. Of these four sons, one, Nathaniel, chose France as his home, whilst the other three, Lionel Nathan, Mayer, and Anthony, succeeded to the management of the fine business bequeathed them by their father. The control and management were really confided exclusively to Baron Lionel, for his abilities and skill justly entitled him to that proud position, whilst his brothers, having no great inclination for financial matters, were content to concentrate their attention and energies on more congenial pursuits—the encouragement of art and sport in all their forms. Baron Lionel was only twenty-eight when his father died—an early age at which to be called upon to direct and conduct a business so complicated and so vast as that which he had inherited.

But Baron Lionel proved himself fully equal to the responsibilities of his new position. He possessed great natural abilities, and much of his father's financial skill, which had been cultivated and developed under the careful eye of his father himself. For some years before the latter's death, Baron Lionel had assisted him in the business of the firm, and, owing to a wise rule followed by Nathan Mayer, had acquired a thorough insight into all its various details and perfectly mastered the principles on which it was conducted. Nathan Mayer invariably insisted that all the correspondence and negotiations respecting important transactions should be carried on either by himself or his sons; he discussed the details with them, and encouraged them to study every financial proposition in all its bearings, thus making them participators in the wisdom derived from his vast experience, and training them in the best possible way for the charge which must eventually become theirs. Young as he was, Baron Lionel, thanks to the thoroughly sound training he had received, and to the great financial talenta he had inherited from his father, soon showed that the fame and reputation of his firm would not diminish whilst the management remained in his hands.

Nathan Mayer had wisely observed that it took a “great deal of boldness and a great deal of caution to make a great fortune, and ten times as much wit to keep it when you have got it,” and the justice of this remark was fully appreciated by his son. Baron Lionel, having perhaps little inclination for gigantic speculations, with all the excitement and worry attending them, such as his father had revelled in, concentrated his thoughts exclusively on the consolidation and preservation of the immense fortune and business his predecessor had made with such unparalleled rapidity. Great prudence and unfailing caution invariably marked the enterprises on which Baron Lionel entered. He never mixed himself up with any bubble companies, and carefully avoided purely speculative undertakings. On the Stock Exchange he dealt largely, but he never stooped to avail himself of any of the tricks and stratagems to which his father resorted so successfully. The unrivalled sway and control his father possessed orer the stock market Baron Lionel did not aspire to retain in its entirety, as that would have necessitated the employment of those underhand manipulations and expedients which were in his eyes anything but admirable, even if generally adopted by the members of the Stock Exchange. Naturally his influence on the stock market was great, still it was far below that which his father had enjoyed; but what the firm lost in influence they more than gained in the respect and favour of the public.

In the negotiation of foreign loans Baron Lionel was particularly active, as this business, at once lucrative and comparatively free from risk, was one which he preferred before all others. During his lifetime his firm was interested in the issue of no leas than eighteen Government loans, amounting in the aggregate to one hundred and sixty millions sterling. To enter into the details of these transactions would be to give the financial history of Europe for the last fifty years, and after all no advantage would be gained by our doing so, as the immediate cause of the whole of them was the same—the pressing necessities of the borrowing States. The only difference was the circumstances and conditions under which each loan was issued, and these particulars belong rather to the history of the individual countries than to that of the Rothschilds. In all these great loan transactions the direction was invariably left with Baron Lionel, not only on account of his influence as head of the family, but also on account of his matured judgment. His skill in detecting the moment for buying or selling, his delicacy in feeling the pulse of the market, and his promptness in seizing every opportunity favourable to his purposes, were universally recognized. Among the many loans issued by Baron Lionel we may mention the Irish Famine loan, which he negotiated in 1847 for the English Government, for whom he also in 1854 raised a sum of £16,000,000. During more than twenty years he was the agent for the Russian Government. In the successful funding of the debt of the United States he took a prominent part, and in 1876 he advanced the English Government the sum of four millions sterling for the instant purchase of Suez Canal shares from the Khedive. By the latter transaction alone he cleared a profit of nearly £100,000. On the conclusion of the Franco- German war, Baron Lionel, at the head of a group of bankers and financiers, guaranteed to maintain the foreign exchanges, and so facilitated the payment of the French indemnity. The fact of this delicate and important business being confided to his management was a remarkable and flattering tribute paid to his great financial ability and unerring judgment. Whilst speaking of foreign loans, we may be allowed to recall an anecdote in connection with a Russian loan which Baron Lionel was asked to negotiate. He was a man of action, quick in coming to a decision, and prompt in carrying it out. On this occasion an unusual hesitation and irresolution overpowered him, and led to the loss of the loan. The cause of this unwonted irresolution was that he found himself placed in an awkward predicament in which he must either abandon a profitable business, or else damage himself in the eyes of the public. It was at the time when he was posing as the champion of freedom, and of the liberties of the subject; when he was fighting the House of Commons to obtain possession of the seat to which he had been elected. On the other hand, the loan was required by the Russian Government presumably to enable it to carry on its campaign against Poland, then in arms against the despotism and oppression of the great Russian autocrat.

Baron Lionel was in a dilemma. If he negotiated the loan, he would be publicly accused of having proved false to his spoken opinions, of having cast aside all his regard for the liberty of the subject as soon as his pocket was affected. In place of the public support and favour, he would at once bring down upon himself a shower of sneers and satire.

If he were once to estrange the public from him, if he were once covered with obloquy and contempt, he knew full well that all chance of bringing his struggle with the House of Commons to a successful issue would be gone. But he did not wish to lose the loan. Indeed, he was anxious to secure so profitable a business. The Russian Government, he was aware, had not limited its negotiations to himself, but had communicated with other and rival firms on the subject. Baron Lionel knew that a decision must be made promptly, but he was so assailed by opposing considerations, that he could not decide which to sacrifice: his political popularity, or his profit. When at length he had resolved to undertake the negotiation of the loan, he found that hia hesitation had lost him the business, as a more energetic competitor, unembarrassed by any such considerations, had succeeded in coming to an arrange-

ment with the representatives of the Russian Government. This was a lesson the Baron never forgot. Whilst the business life of Baron Lionel calls for no detailed narrative, it is different with his political career, owing to the remarkable and persistent efforts he made to procure the abolition of the civil and political disabilities with which the Jews were hampered. It is hardly necessary to say that Baron Lionel was never ashamed of the race from which he had sprung. His wealth did not, as in the case of Samson Gideon, lead him to turn apostate to the creed which his fathers and forefathers had professed and followed. In all that concerned the welfare of the Jewish community, of which he was the recognized head and leader, Baron Lionel took an active interest and was always foremost to do all that his influence and money could command to ameliorate the condition of his coreligionists. He was for many years president of the Great Synagogue, and was also, for some time, one of the council of the United Synagogue. In 1869 he laid the foundation stone of the Central Synagogue. At the time of his death, in 1879, he was a member of the Jewish Board of Deputies. In .common with all his co-religionists, Baron Lionel was placed under a ban in the eyes of the law, for, great as had been the services rendered by them to the nation in time of need, the Jews were still regarded as an outcast race, not worthy to be ranked on the same level as their Christian fellow citizens. When the law was passed emancipating the Roman Catholics from all the civil and political disadvantages they had suffered, and they were given equal rights with the Protestants, it occurred to some of the leading members of the Jewish community that the moment had arrived for them to make an effort to free themselves from the fetters which restrained their liberty. Conscious of being to the full as orderly and as good citizens as the Roman Catholics, they saw no reason why they likewise should not, in this land of freedom, enjoy the same political and civil privileges as Protestants and Catholics now possessed in common. They little imagined they would meet with a long and protracted opposition to their wishes, still less did they see in their demands any danger to the constitution. All this and much more did the enlightened Christians, professing liberal principles, perceive in the agitation for the removal of the Jewish disabilities. The Christians were undoubtedly influenced and blinded by prejudice, by the stigma which, has always been connected with the Jewish race. At the beginning of the present century no Jew could serve as a magistrate or hold office as sheriff in any of the municipalities, owing to the test of the sacrament and other obstacles in his way. Gradually these hindrances as far as regards municipal offices were abolished. In 1837 Sir David Salomons was elected Sheriff of London and Middlesex, but could not fill his office owing to the state of the law. Anxious to propitiate the City by conferring on its citizens a boon which the Ministry valued very lightly, Lord Campbell introduced and carried a bill which enabled Sir David Salomons to accept the shrievalty. But even this did not enable Sir David to serve as alderman, so Lord Lyndhurst was eventually compelled in ] 844 to alter the declaration which had barred him from that office. Although all impediments in the way to municipal offices were thus removed, the Jews found themselves still barred from entering upon a parliamentary career, owing to the Oath of Abjuration which every member was bound to take before being allowed to sit and vote in the House. This oath concluded with the words “on the true faith of a Christian,” which no Jew could conscientiously repeat. Owing to the powerful majority of the Tory party in both the Lords and the Commons, no move was made to procure the abolition of the Jewish disabilities for some years, as any agitation for that purpose would have been vain, owing to the great repugnance which the Tories displayed to all measures of reform. To have introduced a measure at that juncture would have been to court defeat, seeing that it was certain to be violently opposed and rejected.

When, however, Baron Lionel was elected in 1847 a member for the City of London, with Lord John Russell as his colleague, appearances seemed more favourable to the attempt. Accordingly his Lordship, who was then Premier, took an early opportunity of moving a resolution: “That the House do resolve itself into a committee to consider the propriety of the removal of the civil and political disabilities now affecting Her Majesty's Jewish subjects.” In his speech supporting this resolution, the noble lord stated that the question concerned the rights, political and religious, of a commuuity numbering more than forty thousand souls, distinguished by their love of order and their industry, who were neither inclined nor able to instigate a public agitation in support of their rights, nor to threaten the security and peace of the empire if those rights were withheld. He showed that historically the Oath of Abjuration had no reference to the Jews, and pointed out that it was mere prejudice which led the Government of 1753, after passing an Act for their naturalization, to repeal it hurriedly and without due consideration the next session. Having carried the resolution successfully, his lordship announced his intention of introducing at an early date a bill dealing with the subject. The debates on this resolution were remarkable for the support given to the Whigs by Mr Gladstone, who with Sir Robert Inglis at that time represented the University of Oxford in the Tory interest. His support was all the more noteworthy as his colleague was one of the most bitter and vigorous opponents of the proposed reform. On previous occasions Mr Gladstone had objected to the removal of the Jewish disabilities, but having once acknowledged the Jews meritorious citizens, worthy to fill magisterial and municipal offices, he confessed it would be illogical and inconsistent to prevent them from entering parliament. Mr Disraeli, then the Tory member for Buckingham, also supported the resolution, making an earnest appeal to the House to perform a great act of national justice, and to discard the superstitions of the Dark Ages which influenced them in their opposition. The bill embodying this resolution was introduced early the next year, and the debates to which it gave rise remind one forcibly of the Bradlaugh scenes. In both cases the agitation turned upon religion and prejudice. There was, however, one noteworthy difference in these two agitations. The House of Commons recognized the justice of the claims of Baron Lionel and the Jews, whereas they were strongly opposed to the admission of Brad- laugh and his co^irreligionists. The arguments were very similar in both cases. The opponents to the admission of the Jews asserted that the latter sneered at Christianity, and were consequently unfit persons to sit in the House. On the other side, it was argued that, even if this were true, it was notorious that many prominent members of the House had openly sneered at and ridiculed Christians and Christianity. Gibbon, a rank Deist, was admitted to Parliament, and allowed to take the Oath of Abjuration unopposed, although he openly expressed his disbelief in the doctrines it was supposed to involve. No objection either was raised to the admission of Hume, who was certainly far from being a Christian, and whose works were calculated to damage Christianity much more than the voice of any Jew. Moreover, it was argued that the clause “on the true faith of a Christian/' to which the believers in the Mosaic dispensation chiefly objected, had been introduced only during the reign of James I., and that another formula had been previously uaed. In addition to all these arguments, it was urged that, as the Jews already possessed the franchise—a far more important privilege to the community than that one of its members should be chosen a representative of the electors in Parliament—and could” send the makers of Acts of Parliament to Parliament," it was illogical and weak to curtail their right and to debar them from the House. After a lengthy discussion, a division was taken, and it was found that the Bill had been carried by a respectable majority; when, however, it was submitted to the Lords, it was thrown out by thirty-five votes. In consequence of its rejection Baron Rothschild at once resigned his seat. Not that he meant to allow the matter to end so quietly as that; he was of too determined a disposition to abandon a struggle at the first reverse, when he felt that justice was on his side.

He offered himself for re-election, and was once more returned a member for the City by some seven thousand votes. Great indignation and discontent prevailing among the prominent City politicians at their representative's being kept out of his seat, pressure was brought to bear on the Ministry to provide a remedy for the evil. Lord John Russell, as another member for the City, was almost bound to move in the matter owing to the forcible representations made to him by his constituents. He had indeed pledged his word to see the matter brought if possible to a satisfactory conclusion, and a second Bill was accordingly introduced and read for the first time on the 30th May, 1850. The Ministry being apparently very lukewarm in supporting the measure, and not too desirous of pressing it on to the Lords, the citizens summoned a large meeting in the City, at which it was decided that the Baron, who had hitherto studiously avoided asserting his rights in the House, wishing to have his claims recognized peacefully and amicably, should present himself before the Speaker and have some decision as to his right of admission. Accordingly, on the 26th July, 1850, Baron Rothschild walked up to the table of the House of Commons, and demanded to be sworn as one of the members for the City of London. When asked by the clerk whether he wished to take the Protestant or the Catholic oath, he replied: “I desire to be sworn on the Old Testament.” The attention of the Speaker being called to the subject, Baron 'Rothschild was forthwith requested to withdraw, which he did. A fierce discussion, opened by Sir Robert Inglis, at once took place, and was brought to a close by the Attorney-General, who proposed that the Baron should be heard at the bar of the House, either by himself, or by his counsel or agent, with reference to his claim to sit and vote in the House after having been sworn on the Old Testament. This proposition was violently opposed, and, when the debate had been adjourned several times, it was finally resolved on the 5th August, “That the Baron Lionel de Rothschild is not entitled to sit in this House, or to vote in this House during any debate, until he shall take the Oath of Abjuration in the form appointed by law.” This forced the Government to redeem its promise to effect some alteration in the statute, so that Jews should no longer be kept out of their seats. Even if no such promise had been made, some action must have been taken, as matters were fast approaching a crisis. In 1851 Sir David Salomons was returned a member for Greenwich, and, in defiance of the rules of the House, sat and voted without having previously taken the oath. For his contempt of Parliament he was fined five hundred pounds by Baron Alder- son. But this incident, combined with the active agitation conducted by Sir Isaac Lyon Goldsmid and his son, Sir Francis Goldsmid, Q.C., rendered some action on the part of the Government necessary and unavoidable. Early in April, 1851, a new Abjuration Oath (Jews) Bill was submitted to Parliament, and rapidly passed through the Commons, only to be again rejected when it reached the Lords. The complications with Russia and the outbreak of the Crimean war distracted attention from domestic politics for a while, but, although the Jewish question was momentarily shelved, it was by no means forgotten. In 1852 Baron Lionel was once more elected, and, when the question was re-introduced to Parliament in 1853, a fresh Bill was presented and passed by a larger majority than ever. Once again the Lords showed their opposition, but on this occasion the majority against the Bill was much smaller than on previous occasions. Matters had now reached a climax, for, the faithful citizens showing once again in 1857 their firm resolution to see their chosen representative admitted to take his seat, it became clear that a solution of the difficulty must be soon found. A fresh Bill was introduced, but, although Lord John Russell urged that some recognition of the persistency and determination of the electors should be made, the Lords refused to listen to his counsel, and rejected the Bill as they had done all ita predecessors. It was, however, their last effort. Day by day it became more evident that the claims of the electors must be recognized, and the Lords at length managed to save their dignity, and yet yield to the pressure brought upon them, by rejecting the Bill presented by the Commons and passing a measure of their own, with practically the same enactments for the removal of the Jewish disabilities. This Bill received the Royal Assent on the 23rd July, 1858. On the 26th of the same month Baron Lionel presented himself to be sworn, and, on being offered the form of oath prescribed in the Bill just passed, declared in the words of the clause intended to meet his case, “Sir, I beg to state that, being a person professing the Jewish religion, I entertain a conscientious objection to take the oath which by an Act passed in the present session has been substituted for the oaths of supremacy, allegiance, and abjuration, in the form therein required.” The attention of the Speaker being called to this circumstance, Baron Lionel was requested to withdraw. Lord Russell then moved a resolution that the words: “on the true faith of a Christian” should be omitted from the oath, and, this being carried unanimously, Baron Lionel was re-admitted. He then was sworn on the Old Testament, signed the oath, and at last was allowed after nearly ten years' contest to take his seat. In commemoration of the successful issue of this hard struggle, he endowed the City of London School with its most valuable scholarship, and it was no doubt most gratifying to his feelings to see this scholarship carried off in 1866 by a scholar of the Jewish persuasion. He continued to represent the City almost without a break until 1874, when he suffered in the general Liberal defeat. He had never taken a prominent part in politics; indeed, he is not known to have spoken in the House on a single occasion. It was not his ambition to shine in the political arena, although in his quiet unobtrusive way he exerted considerable influence on the Ministry. For many years he had been unable to walk owing to the rheumatic gout, from which he suffered severely, and, as this prevented him from making an active canvass, his failure to secure re-election is not surprising. His colleague, Mr Goschen, declared publicly that Baron Lionel from his desk in New Court exerted far greater influence than a much more active representative could exercise; but this, though true, would not satisfy the City electors. Besides, Baron Lionel himself contributed largely to his defeat by a bold and unpopular proposal he made. He pointed out that Mr Gladstone's scheme to abolish the income tax would cause a large deficiency in the budget, and he suggested that this deficiency should be met by the creation of fresh taxes. When his audience shouted “No” and “Economy,” he replied that economy would not enable us to save four and a half millions a year. The great objection against the income tax arose from its inquisitorial character, and Baron Lionel thought that new taxes should be on property. He therefore suggested the introduction of licence duties, such as were paid by commercial men in Austria. This self-denying ordinance was not, however, approved by the City.

The Baron was, as we have said, a great sufferer from rheumatic gout, brought on by exposure in the hunting-field. He was for many years before his death unable to take any exercise whatever; he wheeled himself about his office in a chair made specially for him, and had to be carried to his carriage. The consequences of such a painful infirmity could hardly fail to be prejudicial to the temper of the most passive and resigned of mortals, and its influence on the manners of the Baron was unmistakable. The worry and anxiety attendant upon the management of his vast business were of themselves calculated to affect his nerves and spirits, independently of the painful malady with which he was afflicted, so that if he was peevish and harsh in temper, giving way at times to violent bursts of passion, there was much to be said in excuse of his conduct. However fractious and irritable he may have appeared, it is certain that his natural disposition was reaily a kind and benevolent one. Those who knew him well will bear us out when we say that under his rough and forbidding exterior there beat a warm heart. He would never withhold from anyone whom he knew to be deserving and honest a helping hand or a kind word. In his paroxysms of pain he could not always control his temper, and none regretted his immoderation more than he himself did afterwards. He had great administrative abilities, and always insisted on superintending personally all the details of his vast business. Nothing irritated him more than to learn that any of his clerks had had the audacity to give an answer on any business or to come to a decision without having first asked his advice. This practice naturally entailed upon him much worry and annoyance which he might well have spared himself, though on the other hand it kept the whole of the machinery in first-class order. To particularize the philanthropic actions of Baron Lionel would be impossible, seeing that they were frequently unknown to his most intimate friends. Many of his donations were given on the strict understanding that they should not be published, and whenever his sons attended a charity festival there were always large anonymous subscriptions, the origin of which it is not difficult to guess, although there is nothing to confirm the justice of the conjecture. Large acknowledged

Q

donations were given with munificent liberality to the charities of all creeds and nations, and it is said that, enormous as was the Baron's income, he distributed more than a tithe of it in the relief of suffering and distress. If the distress to be relieved was abroad he was the first to send remittances direct through his agents, besides subscribing afterwards to the funds that were organized. His exertions in organizing the Irish Famine Fund were acknowledged by the “Times” in the following words: *'It was in Baron Lionel's own room in New Court, in December, 1846, that the ' British Relief Association' was organized, Messrs. N. M. Roth- schild and Sons subscribing with others the munificent sum of £1,000. This led to the formation of a committee, consisting of the most eminent merchants and bankers of the City of London, of which Mr Samuel Jones Loyd, afterwards Lord Over- stone, was subsequently elected chairman, and the collection of a fund amounting in the aggregate to upwards of £500,000, for the relief of the starving peasantry of the sister kingdom. Throughout the period of extreme pressure Baron Lionel was indefatigable in his exertions."

Bound to his seat as he was by physical suffering which made his manner varying and sometimes harsh, so that his temper grew to be something watched like the weather for its influence on the Stock Exchange, Baron Rothschild found his relaxation in giving, and his eyes glistened when he heard that his alms had been beneficially bestowed. Great, however, as was his charity, he was perhaps outdone in sympathy with the suffering and the distressed by his estimable Wife. This worthy lady devoted the whole of her time to philanthropic deeds; her delight and pleasure seemed to be in works of love. She was indeed the almoner of the family, and was particular in ascertaining that the objects of her sympathy were deserving of it. She would not rely on reports or hearsay evidence, but was in the habit of personally visiting her pensioners, said to number nearly two thousand. Many a struggling artist or student was indebted to her quiet but substantial aid, accompanied by kind words of encouragement, for his subsequent success. This estimable lady died in 1884, leaving by her will to charities in which she was interested donations to the extent of £120,000.

In 1857 society was set agog by the marriage of Baron Lionel's eldest daughter, Leonora, with her cousin Alphonse, the eldest son of Baron James de Rothschild, and now the head of the Paris house. It is needless to say that the wedding was one of the most magnificent of the season, and was attended by the most distinguished and noble members of all ranks of fashion and society. At the banquet after the marriage ceremony, Count Per- signy, the French Ambassador, proposed the health of the bride and the bridegroom. He was followed by Mr Disraeli, whose duty it was to propose the health of the bride's parents. His speech on this happy occasion is said to have been one of the best social addresses he ever delivered, which is not strange, for he is known to have been for many years one of the most intimate friends of the family, and of Baron Lionel in particular. In the course of his speech he made a remark worth reproducing:—“Under this roof are the heads of the name and family of Rothschild—a name famous in every capital in Europe and every division of the globe—a family not more regarded for its riches than esteemed for its honour, virtues, integrity, and public spirit.” Eight years later another festive gathering brought the family together. On June 7th, 1865, the youngest daughter, Evelina, was married to Baron Ferdinand, the eldest son of Baron Salomon, of Vienna. Unhappily, these joyful festivities were followed by a mournful conclusion, as the bride, who had been at all times so charming for her sweetness of disposition and gracious manners, died the next year in giving birth to her first child. The shock was a severe one to both Baron Lionel and his amiable wife, for both had been fondly and tenderly attached to their daughter. They neither of them ever recovered from the blow, rendered all the more painful by the death of the child, which did not survive its mother. The Evelina Hospital in Southwark was built by Baron Ferdinand in memory of the wife he so fcndly loved, and so early lost.

The town residence of Baron Lionel was the well- known mansion adjoining Apsley House, a magnificent building some six storeys high, fitted up with every modern luxury and improvement. It is said that when Baron Lionel determined on building this palatial mansion he was anxious to secure the next house, belonging to Sir Edmund Antrobus, and throw it into his own, but his brother banker, although asked to state his own terms, would not, like Esau, sell his birthright, and declined all overtares. He was indeed so fired with rivalry, that he even had an additional storey built to his own house to make it overtop that of Baron Lionel—a peculiarity that may be at once noticed. Here it was that Baron Lionel was wont to give his sumptuous dinners—the wonder and the talk of society.

The following graphic description of one of these dinners will convey to the reader a very good idea of the luxury and comfort by which Baron Lionel was surrounded:—

'' My daughter and myself left Paris and reached our hotel in time to fulfil an engagement to dine with the Baroness Lionel de Rothschild, to meet Lord and Lady Lyndhurst, for whom the dinner was given. Nothing could exceed the splendour of the banquet. Silver and gold plate shone on the table and buffets; exquisite flowers delighted the eye; while the retinue of servants in full dress, so well trained that not a footfall told of their presence, and the ease and repose that prevailed, the result of perfect training, were forgotten in the distinction of the company. Another still more splendid and prolonged fete in Lord Lyndhurst's honour, to which we were also bidden, was given by the Baroness Mayer Rothschild at her Venetian villa at Mentmore—rather palace than villa, however. The Baroness had sent early in the week to have the house and grounds put in perfect order. Such pictures, such furniture, such park scenery, racehorses and hounds! Such a breakfast and lunch al fresco, afterwards a dinner at Baron Anthony's, as words cannot describe."

Baron Lionel was not by nature a society man, and he was further prevented from participating in fashionable gaities by his physical infirmities. The true representatives of the family in society were his two brothers Anthony and Mayer, who had little inclination for business, and were far more inclined to pleasure and sport in all their forms. The only relaxation from the worry and trammels of business that Baron Lionel knew was derived from his pictures and flowers. A writer intimately acquainted with the Baron stated that “when, after many hours of absorbing transactions, he left the precincts of his City establishment and entered his home, he found himself at once transferred into an atmosphere of beauty which freed and raised the mind and restored it to its harmony and equipoise. For to him works of art were no mere decorative ornaments. That remarkable soundness of judgment which he displayed in all practical concerns of life guided him no less safely in matters of taste; and the pictures he had acquired comprised examples of the finest works from the brushes of the principal masters. These treasures were not his pride but his joy; they proved to him an unfailing source of regeneration. In such genial surroundings the mind spontaneously opened itself to a simple and healthy cheerfulness, which now took pleasure in the sallies of wit, and now followed with interest some of the graver questions of the present or the past.”

That there was a vein of humour running in Baron Lionel's disposition the following anecdote will show. He was dining at a friend's house and chanced to sit next to a lady who had an only son whom she was anxious to bring up in business rather than in a profession. Like most fond mothers she was extremely anxious to do the best for the youth in whom all her hopes were centred. She determined to utilize to the utmost the favourable opportunity she had of consulting a man so well qualified by his vast mercantile experience and sound judgment to advise her on so important a question. Accordingly she plied the Baron with 'questions, and extracted all the information she could, but, when the vital question was asked: *' What he would consider the best business for her son to adopt,“she found her neighbour become suddenly reserved and uncommunicative. The truth was the Baron strongly objected to giving advice, to which a certain responsibility was always attached. Again and again the lady returned to the attack, but the Baron was always on the alert, and turned the conversation adroitly to other subjects. At length, finding that she would not be denied, he replied,” Well, madam, in my opinion, selling matches is a very good business, if there is enough .of it." A trite and pithy remark, displaying much common sense and wisdom.

Baron Lionel continued to manage and superintend the affairs of his firm up to the very eve of his death, which happened with painful suddenness on the 3rd June, 1879. He had for twenty years been a sufferer from rheumatic gout, but this did not prevent his attending at his office up to the very last. His death occurred quite unexpectedly— without the slightest warning. On Friday the 30th May, 1879, he held his usual business levee at New Court, and those who from time to time brought him reports of the various markets, or went to him for the purpose of obtaining subscriptions to charities, perceived no indication that they then for the last time saw proof of the well-stored mind, the tenacious memory, and the sound decision which were known throughout Europe. The Baron was in the habit of driving daily to Gunnersbury Park, the favourite residence of the Baroness, the gardens of which are famous in horticulture, and situated in the midst of a wide domain of land belonging to the family. He passed some time there as usual, and returned to Piccadilly on Sunday afternoon. He then complained of feeling unwell and appeared to be forgetful. The symptoms were declared by the doctors to be those of gout, which need give rise to no alarm or anxiety; but on Monday, about noon, he was seized with an attack of an epileptic character from which he never rallied. He died early next morning. His brothers, Baron Mayer, or (as the name was afterwards spelt) Meyer, and Sir Anthony de Rothschild, had both died some years before; Baron Meyer on the 6th February, 1874, and Sir Anthony on the 3rd January, 1876. Both were highly popular in society owing to their amiable dispositions and agreeable manners. The banquets and receptions they gave were of the most brilliant and dazzling description, whilst their mansions were embellished by the choicest works of art which money could procure. They were both patrons of the turf, not so much on account of the excitement attending horse-racing as from a laudable ambition to see the Rothschild colours take the foremost place in sport as in everything else. In chronicling the death of Baron Meyer—to the public the real '' Baron Rothschild “owing to his great popularity—the” Times “paid a very flattering but well merited tribute to his memory. It ran as follows:—” Baron Meyer was the youngest surviving son of the distinguished founder of the London house of Rothschild, and his death is in every respect premature. He was only fifty-five, and in the enjoyment of the interests and pursuits to which he had devoted himself. He held a seat in the late Parliament at the time of its dissolution, but it was well understood that he would not stand again. It is not in Parliament, however, that he will be chiefly missed. Like all his house, he was a steady adherent of the Liberal party, but, like them also, he was a silent member. It is the world of Art and Sport which will suffer by his loss, and he will there leave a vacant place that will not easily be filled. His splendid hospitalities at Mentmore, his numberless charities, his munificent patronage of art, his unstinted support of the highest kinds of sport, formed a rare combination which we co.uld have wished to preserve among us for many more years. Rich men'are not uncommon in England, and the world is seldom observant enough to notice distinctions in the use generally made of wealth. For such a man to surround himself with everything beautiful and agreeable in houses, estates, pictures, sculptures, and all the pleasures of the field has in it at first sight nothing to attract attention. It may seem, and may be, nothing more than a lavish expenditure of money on not unworthy objects. But men are not apt to suspect nor ready to admit that there may be an opportunity in such a life for the exercise of the finer qualities. It does not seem like the career of a man of business, or a politician, or a financier. But there is a great error in such a hasty estimate, and Baron Rothschild set an example which should tend to correct it. The ancient world had a conception, which we have in great measure lost, of there being a distinct excellence to be aimed at in the expenditure of great wealth. The common idea among ourselves is simply that a great man should do good with his money, but we do not go beyond the moral virtue of benevolence and just management. The ancient conception we think once prevailed in England and perhaps, like most other sentiments connected with the finer tastes, it was trampled out by the Puritans, or corrupted by the Cavaliers. But the Greeks at all events recognized that magnificent expenditure had a virtue of its own, distinct from mere liberality or unselfishness. It was the art of using great wealth appropriately as distinguished from that of using moderate wealth rightly. There are some developments of human genius and civilization which men of great resources can encourage, and which cannot be, or ought not to be, encouraged by any one else. The highest art in such matters as painting, or sculpture, or in animal culture, would never be pursued for the sake of the demand which men of ordinary means could maintain. Great literary works can be multiplied, and the literary artist can consequently appeal to so wide a circle as to be independent of individual support. But it is otherwise where the product of genius or skill is something of which the charm or excellence is incapable of indefinite multiplication. Rich men can foster the labours of genius in such, matters, and it is one of their functions to do so. It is their function, moreover, to do it well and thoughtfully. It is easy, of course, for a great man to get rid of his superfluous money by lavish orders to architects, painters, sculptors, and musicians. But a man may foster bad as well as good art by such means, and both patron and artist lose in dignity and in the artistic capacity, which is associated with it, by indulging the mere extravagance of luxury. It is possible to be frugal and conscientious in dealing with millions not less than to be lavish and thoughtless in dealing with hundreds. It was Baron Rothschild's merit to understand this function and to discharge it thoughtfully. A passion for art of all kinds engrossed his life to the last; but he indulged it under a control and with an orderliness similar to the qualities which in business have made the fortunes of his house. He spared no money for his purposes; but he had a purpose in all his expenditure. It was easy for him to make Mentmore a palace, supplied with every form of modern luxury; but he made it much more. It was a Museum, adorned with all that is beautiful. In such an expenditure of vast wealth there was felt to be nothing inappropriate or out of place, because the sense of waste could never be felt. Great resources had been bestowed to produce a great result, and the result waa something which had an aesthetic value of its own.

“Baron Rothschild's career on the turf was marked by similar qualities, and if his example were more generally followed this national sport might yet be saved from the degradation which threatens it. The professed object of racing is to improve the breed of horses, and no doubt if rich men would pursue it with this single object they would do what cannot otherwise be done. To Baron Rothschild, accordingly, a fine racehorse was an animal worth producing for its own sake, and he applied himself systematically to breeding racehorses. He never squandered money in speculative purchases, but kept a stud which he diligently and patiently improved, and it was by the qualities of a thorough man of business that he at length achieved a conspicuous success. When he won, two years ago, the Derby, the Oaks, and the St Leger, all the world felt that a piece of good and useful work had been justly rewarded, and they rejoiced at the evidence thus shown that the Turf was capable of reinvigoration. We cannot afford in these respects to forget his example. This is an age of great fortunes and, though few can be compared with those of a Rothschild, there are many who have similar opportunities, and it cannot be said that these are at present turned to the best account. . . . Baron Rothschild pursued a career that will always have attractions for men of wealth, but he pursued it in a manner which enabled him to render real services to the community. His friends will always bear in mind his kindness and generosity, and he will be personally regretted among a large circle. But the public will also feel that they have lost a man who had a rare capacity for making a really magnificent use of great wealth.”

The destinies of the firm, since the death of Baron Lionel, have rested in the hands of his three sons, Sir Nathaniel (Lord Rothschild), Leopold, and Alfred de Rothschild. Sir Nathaniel, who came into the baronetcy on the death of his uncle, Sir Anthony, is in reality the ruler of the fortunes of the London firm. He is heart and soul a man of business. All his thoughts are centred upon the welfare and prosperity of the firm; he allows

LORD ROTHSCHILD. {From a Photograph by Messrs. Russell & Sons.)

neither the pleasures of society nor the excitement of the racecourse to withdraw his attention from his duties as the head of the family in England. He is a great reader, and what little relaxation he can snatch from the worry and toil of business he finds either in the company of his books, or in quiet rambles through the open fields. Conscious of his greater abilities and more thorough devotion to the interests of the firm, his two brothers are content to leave the control and management in his hands. Not that we wish to say that either of the two brothers is in the least indifferent to its interests. Both attend regularly at New Court to participate in the conduct of affairs, but, as they cannot boast of such an intimate acquaintance with the smallest details as Sir Nathaniel possesses, their duties partake largely of a mechanical nature. They are both shrewd, quick-sighted men of business, and, if they were to study the welfare of the firm as closely as does their eldest brother, they would soon rival him in ability and business knowledge. Much, however, of their time is devoted to other objects. Mr Alfred is as essentially a man of pleasure as Sir Nathaniel is a man of business. The balls and dinner parties given at Seamore Place are the talk of London society. They are arranged in the most sumptuous and luxurious style. Art and wealth are called into requsition to satisfy the most varied and exacting tastes, so that it is scarcely surprising that the elite of society throng together at these receptions. There one may safely reckon on meeting the most distinguished personages in the diplomatic and political world, with the probability of discovering that royalty is likewise represented. But the pleasures of society do not monopolize the whole of Mr Alfred de Rothschild's attention. He is a munificent patron of the arts. He delights to encourage talent, whether it be found in the ranks of sculptors, painters, or actors. Many a man who has acquired distinction in his profession owes his success to the liberal support and patronage so readily accorded by Mr Alfred to struggling talent. Different from his brother Alfred, Mr Leopold de Kothschild is seldom seen in London society. A country life, with its hunting and horse-racing, has irresistible charms for him. When free from New Court, he hastens down either to his stud at Newmarket, or to his hounds at the same place. Eacing, or rather the breeding of racehorses, absorbs the

greater part of his time. Nothing so disappoints or discourages him as for his horses to prove failures on the turf. Following racing as a hobby, and betting very little, it annoys him greatly to find that his efforts at improving the speed and stamina of the English racer meet with very poor success. The disappointments and disgust which many of his favourite horses cause constitute perhaps the greatest trials in life he has to endure. Individually, Mr Leopold de Rothschild is good-nature personified. His charity and benevolence are unlimited. He is as pleased and as ready to relieve distress as the recipients of his bounty are glad to receive the welcome and much-wanted aid. He cannot, in fact, refuse aid to a suppliant without doing violence to his inclinations. A playfully ironical, but accurate, description of the three brothers was given in a book recently published, entitled: “Society in London,” which attracted much attention. This description we cannot do better than reproduce here:—

" It is, so far as the Rothschilds themselves are concerned, a species of trinity, the first person of which is Sir Nathaniel (now Lord Rothschild), the second Mr Alfred, and the third Mr Leopold de Rothschild. The baronet is the supreme head of the establishment, occupying the first place at the family tribunal, receiving visitors, and treated with a marked deference by his two brothers. You will find him, at first, a gentleman of curious manner. He is so pre-occupied by the cares of business, he is so habituated to the exercise of authority, that he can spare little thought for the amenities of life, and he is not so much intolerant of contradiction by others as fond of contradicting others himself. But this is merely one of the superficial idiosyncrasies of the man. A contradiction with him means no more than an interrogation with you. It is only the way in which he puts a question. Instead of asking on what evidence your assertion rests that the day is fine or wet, he considers it the more effectual to meet your statement that it is wet or fine with a pointblank denial. In this fashion he hopes to elicit your reasons, to put you on your mettle, to compel you to retract your declaration, if it is hasty and ill-considered, or to demonstrate that it is based upon testimony entitled to respect. People who make f NattyV acquaintance for the first time may be forgiven if they conceive the idea that he is disposed to be imperious, overbearing, and harsh. There could be no greater mistake. He is not any one of these things. He is, on the contrary, when his interest or regard is enlisted, a generous and loyal friend.

" His two brothers discharge, respectively, parts essential to the economy of New Court. The youngest, Leopold, is occupied with the mechanical minutiaa of the business. In the City his vocation appears humble, and he himself little more than a drudge. Outside the City he is a person of importance, a man of sport and pleasure, a member of the Jockey Club, an owner of racehorses and of a modest establishment in Buckinghamshire. The second of the three Rothschild brothers has functions, as he has a physiognomy, altogether unlike either of his two brothers. He is light of complexion, while they are dark, with tawny hair and drooping moustache of the same colour and cut known as the Dundreary. He bestows much attention on the graces of manner. His hospitalities in London and in the country are upon an elaborate scale. The Prince of Wales is frequently amongst his visitors, and no opportunity is wanting to enable him to form an accurate idea of the opinion held by the privileged or official classes in English Society. Add to this that the Rothschilds in London have at their disposal a little army of brokers and touts in the City, a choice detachment of politicians and financiers, whether they do or do not belong to the public service, at the West End; bear in mind, too, that they receive early information from their kinsmen and correspondents in every part of the earth of what is happening or is likely to happen, and you will not be surprised to know that New Court is the abode of power.''

Last year the Queen was pleased to raise Sir Nathaniel to the peerage under the title of Lord Rothschild. None will dare assert that the honour was unmerited. Few who have gained this coveted distinction can show a better claim than that which Lord Rothschild possesses in the record of the services rendered by his family to the English Government during the last fifty years and more. During that period the nation has on more than one occasion benefited by the counsel and aid tendered by the great financial firm. Lord Rothschild may well be proud of his title which, though tardily conferred, has been won by merit alone, and is no sign of royal favouritism. The honour is the greater as Lord Rothschild is the first avowed Jew who has entered the House of Lords. Samson Gideon founded the family of Eardley, but he, during his lifetime, abandoned the Jewish Creed. In thus raising Lord Rothschild to the peerage, the Queen has done honour to the whole Jewish race, and taken a step which cannot fail to remove the great barrier of distrust and prejudice which has so long separated Jews from Christians.

As they have scarcely emerged from their business teens, since their father died only in 1879, it is as yet too early to form a judgment of the business qualities possessed by the three brothers. Short as the period is they have yet been able, between 1879 and 1885, to undertake and carry out successfully several large loans, such as those for the Hungarian, Brazilian, and Chilian Governments. The most important business they have transacted has, how^ver, been in connection with the Egyptian Government. While the European Powers were quarrelling about their rights in Egypt, bankruptcy slowly threatened the future of that country. This disaster was happily averted by advances made by the Rothschilds, on their own responsibility, and against security little better than waste paper. Sir M. Hicks-Beach, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, testified in Parliament to the immense services conferred on Egypt by the liberality of the Rothschilds in the following words:—“The late Prime Minister has stated that Egypt was in imminent danger of bankruptcy. In fact it was saved only by monthly advances made by Messrs Rothschild upon no legal security, but simply on the security of a private note from the late Foreign Secretary. The greatest dangers might have occurred if the issue of the loan had been any longer delayed.” This proves beyond question that the risks run by the Rothschilds in advancing a million sterling to the Egyptian Government were by no means visionary, as some would assert, but real and serious. Those who envy the Rothschilds the profit accruing from the loan of nine millions issued in 1885, should not overlook the sacrifices which they made, and which gave them a good title to all they earned. The success of the loan was remarkable: the scene in St Swithin's Lane on the morning the loan was issued was one not easily to be forgotten. New Court and its approaches were thronged with a huge, eager, struggling crowd, all anxious to obtain allotments. The stream of applicants poured in so fast that the whole loan was subscribed for soon after the doors were opened. The list was closed an hour or two before the appointed time, a proceeding which gave rise to loud expressions of disapproval and disappointment among the many persons who were thereby prevented from obtaining any portion of the loan.

The successful manner in which these loan operations have been conducted demonstrates, beyond dispute, that the present heads of the firm are by no means deficient in financial skill; but still, without any disparagement, we think they cannot claim to inherit the marvellous powers or the shrewd far- seeing judgment of their father. This they would, if questioned, we think, readily acknowledge. Baron Lionel was a man of uncommon ability; his intellect was of the highest order, enabling him to grapple with and master the most difficult questions. To expect his sons to be as highly gifted as he was would be expecting too much, for it is very rare to find equal talent in two generations of the same family; nor, after all, are such extraordinary powers of mind required by the present heads of the firm; their business is established on so firm a basis, and their wealth is already so immense, that their chief solicitude and care must be to discover safe and reliable investments by which their money may accumulate automatically, rather than to increase it by leaps and bounds through speculative and risky enterprises. This, to all appearances, is the opinion they hold, as all their movements are distinguished by great caution and prudence, qualities which can hardly fail to render their career prosperous and worthy the traditions of their family. It is difficult, nay, impossible, to foresee to what extent their fortunes and repute may even yet grow, if the advice of old Mayer Amschel is followed as faithfully in the future as it has been in the past. Of late years the family seems inclined to break through the rule that its different members should seek to tighten still further the bonds of union by intermarriage. Against this innovation we see no objection—indeed, it is, we think, to be approved. Had the Rothschilds, however, adhered strictly to the intermarriage-system, there is no knowing how wealthy they would have become in the course of time, by thus confining their riches within such narrow limits. Under present circumstances, and always excepting carelessness and want of caution, they cannot help growing richer and richer, as the cream of business invariably falls to them. Large and lucrative undertakings are submitted daily to them, and constantly declined, as they very properly refuse to entertain, or embark in any enterprises which do not come within the well-defined and strictly recognized sphere of their business. Many houses would greedily snap at the proposals the Rothschilds unhesitatingly decline. The great requisites in the heads of the firm at the present time are caution and prudence—qualities which they seem determined to foster. If these are diligently cultivated, the firm must eventually become a dynasty, whose widespread power and all puissant influence— though recognized by no constitution—will far exceed those of any ruling family in Europe.