some clause as the best that could be proposed by man, some Liberals cried out, “Under the circumstances.”  “Under the circumstances,” said Mr. Chamberlain, with that strange, eloquent, deep swell in his voice, which adds so much to its effectiveness, and then he took the phrase, repeated it, and reiterated it, and turned it upside down, until even his bitterest enemy could not help enjoying the perfection of the skill with which he played upon it.

[Sidenote:  Joe smiles.]

Finally he came to the passage in which he drew an elaborate comparison between Mr. Gladstone and Herod.  I had no doubt at the time, and my impression has since been corroborated by words reported to have been used by Mr. Chamberlain himself—­that he used the word “Herod” in a moment of happy and almost impish inspiration with a view to provoking the retort which was so obvious.  There was a self-conscious smile on his face when he uttered the words, and he seemed to be quite prepared, and almost delighted by the retort which followed so promptly.  Furthermore, when several Tories rose to denounce the interruption he beckoned to them with his hand; there was a gratified smile on his face; and his whole air suggested that he was so delighted with the success of his little manoeuvre that he thought it a pity anybody should spoil it; and especially as the result was to create such a din as to prevent him from finishing his final sentence.  And he wanted very badly to finish that sentence; for over and over again, with an obstinacy that suggested the delighted author, he sought to get the sentence out; and no doubt he was very disappointed that the guillotine finally fell upon him with that sentence still unuttered.  And there is one other point about this moment which I see has been completely lost.  It is supposed that I and the others who shouted “Judas, Judas,” did so in pure provocation—­with deliberate intent to apply the word to Mr. Chamberlain personally and with fierce political and personal passion.  That was not my impression of what was meant; and that certainly was not what I meant.  I took Mr. Chamberlain’s mood as I think anybody looking at him could see that he meant it to be taken; that is to say, I did not regard his speech as in the least serious; and his allusion to Mr. Gladstone as “Herod” appeared to me a self-conscious joke, and not, as some earnest Liberals seemed to think, a gross, foul, and deliberate insult.  Indeed, I believed—­and subsequent events have confirmed that view—­that Joe was thinking a good deal more of himself as the centre of a dramatic and historic scene than of wounding Mr. Gladstone.  And, then, the use of the word “Judas” must be taken with the context.  Mr. Chamberlain was talking of the “days of Herod,” and when I called out “Judas,” what I really meant was why not select Judas, and not Herod, who was his contemporary, if you will refer to this particular epoch of human history.  I say all these things, not by way of extenuation; for really I regard the incident as closed; not by way of defending myself from rancour, for I felt none; but with a view to preventing an entirely incorrect view and impression of an historical evening from being stereotyped.