{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36795/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36795","id":"gutenberg_36795","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36795","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Holyoake, George Jacob, 1817-1906","Social reformers -- Great Britain -- Biography","Working class -- Great Britain -- Biography"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBYGONES WORTH REMEMBERING\n\nBy George Jacob Holyoake\n\n\"The best prophet of the future is the past.\"\n\nLord Byron\n\nVolume I.\n\nNew York E. P. Dutton And Company\n\n31 West Twenty-Third Street 1905\n\n\n[Illustration: Holyoake]\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\nIf the preface of a book be a plea to the reader, its force must lie in\nthe aims of the author. In the following pages his main aim has been\nto be of service to somebody. That is a principle, which, amid the\nravelment, perplexity, and entanglements of the world, always finds a\npathway open. Such a principle is as an All-Seeing Eye, to which he who\nacknowledges it, is amenable, since it makes plain to him the devious,\ntime-serving byways he should avoid.\n\nThe writer has no interest, no taste, no trust, save in definite,\nverifiable ideas. His aim has been to keep clear of the Sin of\nPretension, which consists in declaring, or assuming to be true, that\nwhich the writer or speaker does not know to be true. What errors\nnegligence of this rule has bred! What misdirection it has perpetuated!\nInto how many labyrinths, where truth was not to be found, has it led\nmen! What can be more useful, or holier, than inciting the reader to\nbeware of pretension in speech, in morals, in politics, and in piety?\nTo keep as clear as possible of this universal sin may serve many and\nmislead none.\n\nProfessor Jowett has told us that \"where Inquiry is denied at the door,\nDoubt gets in at the window.\" This is the way it came to the writer\nof this preface, and accounts for a certain liberty of expression the\nreader may meet with, if he ventures further into these pages.\n\nA sentence of Mr. Allen Upward will sufficiently describe the spirit\nof this book: \"Let us try to tolerate each other instead of trying to\nconvert each other.\" The author disclaims belonging to that class who\nhave \"great expectations,\" which are as vain in literature as in life.\nThe utmost the author looks forward to is that semi-friendly applause\nwhich is accorded to a platform speaker, not so much for any merit in\nhis oration as for his unexpected consideration for the audience by\nconcluding.\n\nG. J. HOLYOAKE.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. CONCERNING BYGONES PREFATORY\n\nIt was a saying of Dryden that \"Anything, though ever so little, which\na man speaks of himself, in my opinion, is still too much.\" This depends\nupon what a writer says. No man is required to give an opinion of\nhimself. Others will do that much better, if he will wait But if a\nman may not speak of himself at all--reports of adventure, of personal\nendeavour, or of service, will be largely impossible. To relate is not\nto praise. The two things are quite distinct. Othello's imperishable\nnarrative of his love of Desdemona contained no eulogy of himself. A\nstory of observation, of experience, or of effort, or estimate of men\nor of opinions, I may venture upon--is written for the reader alone. The\nwriter will be an entirely negligible quantity.\n\nLord Rosebery, who can make proverbs as well as cite them, lately\nrecalled one which has had great vogue in its day, namely, \"Let bygones\nbe bygones.\" Life would be impossible or very unpleasant if every one\npersisted in remembering what had better be forgotten. Proverbs are like\nplants: they have a soil and climate under which alone they flourish.\nNoble maxims have their limitations. Few have universal applicability.\nIf, for instance, the advice to \"let bygones be bygones\" be taken as\nuniversally true, strange questions arise. Are mistakes never more to\nteach us what to avoid? Are the errors of others no more to be a warning\nto us? Is the Book of Experience to be closed? Is no more history to be\nwritten? If so philosophy could no longer teach wisdom by examples, for\nthere would no longer be any examples to go upon. If all the mistakes\nof mankind and all the miscalculations of circumstance be forgotten, the\nwarnings of the sages will die with them.\n\nHe who has debts, or loans not repaid, or promises not kept, or\ncontracts unfulfilled in his memory, had better keep them there until\nhe has made what reparation he can. The Bygone proverb does not apply to\nhim. There are other derelictions of greater gravity than fall under the\nhead of intellectual petty larceny, such as the conscious abandonment\nof principle, or desertion of a just cause, which had better be kept in\nmind for rectification.\n\nIf an admiral wrecked his ships, or a general lost his army, or a\nstatesman ruined his country, by flagrant want of judgment--ever so\nconscientiously--it is well such things should be borne in mind by those\nwho may renew, by fresh appointment, these opportunities of calamity.\nIt would be to encourage incapacity were such bygones consigned to\noblivion. It may be useless to dwell upon \"spilt milk,\" but further\nemployment of the spiller may not be prudent.\n\nSlaves of the saying, \"Let bygones perish,\" would construct mere\npolitical man-traps, which never act when depredators are about. In\nhuman affairs bygones have occurred worth remembering as guides for the\nfuture.\n\nIt is said that \"greatness is thrust upon a man\"--what is meant is a\nposition of greatness. Greatness lies in the quality of the individual,\nand cannot be \"thrust\" on any man. It is true that intrinsic greatness\nis often left unrecognised. It would be a crime against progress were\nthese cases, when known, consigned to forgetfulness. Noble thoughts as\nwell as noble acts are worth bearing in mind, however long ago they may\nhave occurred.\n\nMy friend Joseph Cowen, who from his youth had regarded me as a\nchartered disturber of the unreasoning torpidity of the public\nconscience, described me as an agitator. All the while I never was a\nPedlar of Opinions. I never asked people to adopt mine, but to reason\nout their own. I merely explained the nature of what I took to be\nerroneous in theological and public affairs. Neither did I find fault\nwith prevailing ideas, save where I could, or thought I could, suggest\nother principles of action more conducive to the welfare of all who\ndwell in cottages or lodgings--for whom I mainly care. I was for\nequal opportunities for all men, guaranteed by law, and for equitable\nparticipation in profit among all who, by toil of hand or brain,\ncontributed to the wealth of the State.\n\nYet, though I never obtruded my convictions, neither did I conceal them.\nNo public questioner ever went empty away,--if his inquiry was relevant\nand I had the knowledge he sought Sometimes, as at Cheltenham (in 1842),\nwhen an inquiry was malicious and the reply penal, the questioner got\nhis answer. My maxim was that of Professor Blackie:--\n\n     \"Wear thy heart not on thy sleeve,\n     But on just occasion\n     Let men know what you believe,\n     With breezy ventilation.\"\n\nThus, without intending it, I came to be counted an \"agitator.\"\n\nAs to the matter of the following pages, they relate, as all\nautobiographical reminiscences do, to events that are past. But whether\nthey relate to acts, or events, or opinions, to tragedy or gaiety, they\nare all meant to fulfil one condition--that of having instruction or\nguidance of some kind in them--which bring them within the class of\n\"bygones worth remembering.\"\n\nOne day as I was walking briskly along Fleet Street, a person in greater\nhaste than myself running down Johnson's Court collided with me, and\nboth of us fell to the ground. On rising, I said, \"If you knocked me\ndown, never mind; if I knocked you down, I beg your pardon.\" He did\nnot reciprocate my forgiveness, thinking I had run against him\nintentionally. Nevertheless, I say to any resenting reader who does\nme mischief, \"never mind.\" If I have done him any harm it has been\nunwittingly, and I tender him real apologies.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. PERSONAL INCIDENTS\n\nThese pages being autobiographic in their nature, something must be said\nunder this head. I was born April 13, 1817, which readers complained I\nomitted to state in a former work* of a similar kind to this, probably\nthinking it a \"Bygone\" of no importance.\n\n     * \"Sixty Years 01 an Agitator's Life,\" afterwards referred\n     to as \"Sixty Years.\"\n\n*****\n\nIt was in 1817 that Robert Owen informed mankind that \"all the religions\nin the world were in error,\" which was taken to mean that they were\nwrong throughout; whereas all the \"Prophet of the City of London Tavern\"\nsought to prove was that all faiths were in error so far as they rested\non the dogma that men can believe if they will--irrespective of evidence\nwhatever may be the force of it before them. Mr. Owen's now truistical\nstatement set the dry sticks of every church aflame for seventy years.\nIn many places the ashes smoulder still. By blending Theology with\nSociology, the Churches mixed two things better kept apart Confusion\nraged for years on a thousand platforms and pulpits. I mention this\nmatter because it was destined to colour and occupy a large portion of\nmy life.\n\n*****\n\nThe habit of my thoughts is to run into speeches, as the thoughts of a\npoet run into verse; but if there be a more intrinsic characteristic of\nmy mind it is accurately described in the words of Coleridge:--\n\n\"I am by the law of my nature a Reasoner. A person who should suppose\nI meant by that word, an arguer, would not only not understand me, but\nwould understand the contrary of my meaning. I can take no interest\nwhatever in hearing or saying anything merely as a fact--merely as\nhaving happened. I must refer to something within me before I can regard\nit with any curiosity or care. I require in everything a reason why the\nthing _is_ at all, and why it is _there_ or _then_ rather than elsewhere\nor at another time.\"\n\nThis may be why I entitled the first periodical edited in my name, _The\nReasoner_.\n\n*****\n\nMy firstborn child, Madeline, perished while I was in Gloucester\nPrison.* There is no other word which described what happened in 1842.\n\n     * See \"Last Trial for Atheism.\"\n\nIn 1895 (as I had always intended), I had a brass tablet cast bearing\nthe simple inscription--\n\n                                    \"Near this spot was buried\n\n                                             MADELINE,\n\n                          Daughter of George Jacob and Eleanor Holyoake,\n\n                                           WHO  PERISHED\n\n                                          October! 1842.\"\n\nThis tablet I had placed on the wall over the grave where the poor\nchild lay. The grave is close to the wall. The cemetery authorities\nhad objections to the word \"Perished.\" When I explained to them the\ncircumstances of Madeline's death, they permitted its erection, on my\npaying a cemetery fee of two guineas. The tablet will endure as long\nas the cemetery wall lasts. The tablet is on the left side of the main\nentrance to the cemetery, somewhat obscured by trees now.\n\n*****\n\nDr. Samuel Smiles published a book on Self-Help in 1859. In 1857, two\nyears earlier, I had used the same title \"Self-Help by the People.\" In a\nlater work, \"Self-Help, a Hundred Years Ago,\" the title was continued. I\nhad introduced it into Co-operation, where it became a watchword. I have\nwondered whether Dr. Smiles borrowed the name from me. He knew me\nin 1841, when he was editing the Leeds _Times_ to which I was a\ncontributor. He must have seen in Mill's \"Principles of Political\nEconomy,\" \"Self-Help by the People--History of Co-operation in\nRochdale,\" quoted in Mill's book (book iv. chap. viii.).\n\n*****\n\nThe phrase \"Science is the Providence of Life\" was an expression I had\nused in drawing up a statement of Secular Principles twenty-four years\nbefore I found it in the poem of Akenside's.\n\n*****\n\nTwo things of the past I may name as they indicate the age of opinions,\nby many supposed to be recent. Co-operators are considered as intending\nthe abolition of competition, but as what we call nature--human,\nanimal, and insect--is founded upon competition, nobody has the means of\nabolishing it. In the first number of the _Reasoner_, June 3, 1846, in\nthe first article, I stated that Mr. Owen and his friends proclaimed\nco-operation as the \"Corrector of the excesses of competition in social\nlife\"--a much more modest undertaking than superseding it.\n\n*****\n\nThe second thing I name that I wrote in the same number of the\n_Reasoner_ is a short paper on \"Moral Mathematics,\" setting forth that\nthere is a mathematics of morality as well as of lines and angles. There\nare problems in morality, the right solution of which contributes as\nmuch to mental discipline as any to be found in Euclid. These I thus set\nforth--\n\nProblem 1. Given--an angry man to answer without being angry yourself.\n\nProblem 2. Given--an opponent full of bitterness and unjust insinuations\nto reply to without asperity or stooping to counter insinuations.\n\nProblem 3. Given--your own favourite truths to state without dogmatism,\nand to praise without pride, adducing with fairness the objections to\nthem without disparaging the judgment of those who hold the objections.\n\nProblem 4. Given--an inconsistent and abusive opponent. It is required\nto reply to him by argument, convincing rather than retorting. All\nopportunities of \"thrashing\" him are to be passed by, all pain to be\nsaved him as far as possible, and no word set down whose object is not\nthe opponent's improvement.\n\nProblem 5. Given--the error of an adversary to annihilate with the same\nvigour with which you could annihilate him.\n\nProblem 6. Required--out of the usual materials to construct a public\nbody, who shall tolerate just censure and despise extravagant praise.\n\n*****\n\nOne day I found a piece of twisted paper which I picked up thinking I\nhad dropped it myself. I found in it a gold ring with a snake's head. It\nwas so modest and curious that I wore it. Four years after, on a visit\nto Mr. W. H. Duignan, at Rushall Hall, on the border of Cannock Chase,\nI lost it. Four days later I arrived by train at Rugby Station with five\nheavy-footed countrymen. I went to the refreshment room. On my return\nonly one man was in the carriage. The sun was shining brightly on\nthe carriage floor, and there in the middle, lay, all glittering and\nconspicuous, my lost ring unseen and untrodden. I picked it up with\nincredulity and astonishment. How it came there or could come there, or\nbeing there, how it could escape the heavy feet of the passengers\nwho went out, or the eyes of the one remaining, I cannot to this day\nconceive. After I had lost it, I had walked through Kidderminster,\nDudley Castle, and Birmingham, and searched for it several times. I\nhad dressed and undressed four times. I lost it finally during Lord\nBeaconsfield's last Government, at the great Drill Hall meeting at\nBlackheath,* in a Jingo crush made to prevent Mr. Gladstone entering to\nspeak there on the Eastern policy of that day. In future times should\nthe ground be excavated, the spot where I stood will be marked with\ngold--the only place so marked by me in this world.\n\n     * November 30, 1878.\n\n*****\n\nIt is probably vanity--though I disguise it under the name of\npride--that induces me to insert here certain incidents. Nevertheless\npride is the major motive. When I have been near unto death, and have\nasked myself what has been the consolation of this life, I found it in\ncherished memories of illustrious persons of thought and action,\nwhose friendship I had shared. There are other incidents--as Harriet\nMartineau's Letter to Lloyd Garrison, Tyndall's testimony, elsewhere\nquoted--which will never pass from my memory.\n\n*****\n\nThe first dedication to me was that of a poem by Allen Davenport,\n1843--an ardent Whitechapel artisan. The tribute had value in my eyes,\ncoming from one of the toiling class--and being a recognition on the\npart of working men of London, that I was one of their way of thinking\nand could be trusted to defend the interests of industry.\n\n*****\n\nThe next came from the theological world--a quite unexpected incident in\nthose days. The Rev. Henry Crosskey dedicated his \"Defence of Religion\"\nto me. He was of the priestly profession, but had a secular heart, and\non questions of freedom at home and abroad he could be counted upon,\nas though he was merely human. The dedication brought Mr. Crosskey into\ntrouble with Dr. Martineau. Unitarians were personally courteous to\nheretics in private, but they made no secret that they were disinclined\nto recognise them in public. Dr. Martineau shared that reservation.\n\nLetter from Dr. James Martineau to Rev. W. H. Crosskey:--\n\n\"It is very difficult to say precisely how far our respect for honest\nconviction, and indignation at a persecuting temper, should carry us in\nour demonstrations towards men unjustly denounced. I do confess that,\nwhile I would stoutly resist any ill-usage of such a man as Holyoake, or\nany attempt to gag him, I could hardly dedicate a book to him: this act\nseeming to imply a special sympathy and admiration directed upon that\nwhich distinctively characterises the man. Negative defence from injury\nis very different from positive homage. After all, Holyoake's principles\nare undeniably more subversive of the greatest truths and genuine basis\nof human life than the most unrelenting orthodoxy. However, it is a\ngenerous impulse to appear as the advocate of a man whom intolerance\nunjustly reviles.\"*\n\n     * From \"Life of W. H. Crosskey,\" p. 90.\n\nThus he gave the young minister to understand--that while there was\nnothing wrong in his having respect for me, he need not have made it\npublic. At that time it was chivalry in Mr. Crosskey to do what he did,\nfor which I respected him all his days.\n\n*****\n\nA third dedication I thought more of, and still value, came from the\npolitical world, and was the first literary testimony of my interest\nin it. It came from \"Mark Rutherford\" (William Hale White), who knew\neverything I knew, and a good deal more. He inscribed to me, 1866, a\nremarkable \"Argument for the Extension of the Franchise,\" which had all\nthe characteristics of statement, which have brought him renown in later\nyears. He said in his prefatory letter to me: \"If my argument does any\nservice for Reform, Reformers will have to thank you for it, as they\nhave to thank you for a good many other things.\" They were words to\nprize.\n\n*****\n\nRecently a letter came from Professor Goldwin Smith, who was Cobden's\nadmiration and envy, as he once told me, for the power of expressing an\nargument or a career in a sentence. His letter to me was as follows:--\n\n\"You and I have lived together through many eventful and changeful\nyears. The world in these years has, I hope and believe, grown better\nthan it was when we came into it. In respect of freedom of opinion and\nindustrial justice, the two objects to which your life has been most\ndevoted, real progress has certainly been made.\"\n\nThe main objects of my life are here distinguished and expressed in six\nwords.\n\n*****\n\nReviewers of the autobiographic volumes preceding these, complained\nthat they contained too little about myself. If they read the last four\nparagraphs given here they will be of opinion that I have said enough\nnow.\n\n*****\n\nAt the Co-operative Congress held in Gloucester, 1879, a number of\ndelegates went down to see the gaol. When they arrived before it, Mr.\nAbraham Greenwood, of Rochdale, exclaimed, \"Take off your hats, lads!\nThat's where Holyoake was imprisoned.\" They did so. That incident--when\nit was related to me--impressed me more than anything else connected\nwith Co-operation. I did not suppose those tragical six months in that\ngaol were in the minds of co-operators, or that any one had respect for\nthem.\n\n*****\n\nThe chapter, \"Things which went as they Would,\" shows that serving\nco-operators had its inconveniences, but there were compensatory\nincidents which I recount with pleasure. One was their contribution to\nthe Annuity of 1876, which Mr. Hughes himself commended to them at\nthe London Congress. It was owing to Major Evans Bell and Mr. Walter\nMorrison that the project was successful.\n\n*****\n\nThe other occurred at the Doncaster Congress, 1903. In my absence a\nresolution had been passed thanking me for services I had rendered\nin Ten Letters in Defence of Co-operation. When I rose to make\nacknowledgment, all the large audience stood up. It was the first time\nI had ever been so received anywhere, showing that services which seemed\nun-noted at the time, lived in remembrance.\n\n*****\n\nHere I may cite a letter from Wendell Phillips. Of the great American\nAbolitionists, Phillips, with his fine presence and intrepid eloquence,\nwas regarded as the \"noblest Roman of them all.\" Theodore Parker, he\ndescribed to me as the Jupiter of the pulpit; and Russell Lowell has\ndrawn Lloyd Garrison, in the famous verse--\n\n     \"In a dark room, unfriended and unseen,\n     Toiled o'er his types, a poor unlearn'd young man.\n     The place was low, unfurnitured and mean,\n     But there the freedom of a race began.\"\n\nI corresponded with them in their heroic days. It is one of the letters\nof Phillips to me I quote here:--\n\n\"Boston,\n\n\"July 22, 1874.\n\n\"My dear Sir,--I ought long ago to have thanked you for sending\nme copies of your pamphlets on John Stuart Mill and the Rochdale\nPioneers--and with so kind and partial a recognition of my co-operation\nwith you in your great cause.\n\n\"That on Mill was due certainly to a just estimate of him, but how sad\nthat human jackals should make it necessary. That on Co-operation I read\nand read again, welcoming the light you throw on it, for it is one of\nmy most hopeful stepping-stones to a higher future. Thank you for\nthe lesson--it cleared one or two dark places--not the first by any\nmeans--for I've read everything of yours I could lay my hands on. There\nwas one small volume on Rhetoric--'Public Speaking and Debate,' methods\nof address, hints towards effective speech, etc.--which I studied\nfaithfully, until some one to whom I had praised and lent it, acting\nprobably on something like Coleridge's rule, that books belong to those\nwho most need them--never returned me my well-thumbed essay, to my keen\nregret. Probably you never knew that we had printed your book. This was\nan American reprint--wholly exhausted--proof that it did good service.\nWe reprinted, some ten years ago, one of your wisest tracts, the\n'Difficulties that obstruct Co-operation.' It did us yeoman service. But\nenough, I shall beg you to accept a volume of old speeches printed long\nago, because it includes my only attempt to criticise you--which you\nprobably never saw. In it I will put, when I mail it, the last and best\nphotograph of Sumner, and if you'll exchange, I'll add one of\n\n\"Yours faithfully, and ever,\n\n\"Wendell Phillips.\n\n\"Mr. G.J. Holyoake.\"\n\n*****\n\nWith Mr. Charles Bradlaugh I had personal relations all his life. I took\nthe chair for him at the first public lecture he delivered. I gave\nhim ready applause and support. At the time of what was called his\n\"Parliamentary struggle,\" I was entirely with him and ready to help him.\nIt was with great reluctance and only in defence of principle, to which\nI had long been committed, that I appeared as opposed to him. He claimed\nto represent Free Thought, with which I had been identified long before\nhis day. My conviction was that a Free Thinker should have as much\ncourage, consistency, and self-respect as any Apostle, or Jew, or\nCatholic, or Quaker. All had in turn refused to make a profession of\nopinion they did not hold, at the peril of death, or, as in the case of\nO'Connell and the Jews, at the certainty of exclusion from Parliament.\nThey had only to take an oath, to the terms of which they could not\nhonestly subscribe. Mr. Bradlaugh had no scruple about doing this. In\nthe House of Commons he openly kissed the Bible, in which he did not\nbelieve--a token of reverence he did not feel. He even administered to\nhimself the oath, which was contrary to his professed convictions. This\nseemed to be a reflection upon the honour of Free Thought. Had I not\ndissented from it, I should have been a sharer in the scandal, and Free\nThought--so far as I represented it--would have been regarded as below\nthe Christian or Pagan level.\n\nThe key to Mr. Bradlaugh's character, which unlocks the treasure-house\nof his excellences and defects, and enables the reader to estimate him\njustly, is the perception that his one over-riding motive and ceaseless\naim was the ascendancy of the right _through him_. It was this passion\nwhich inspired his best efforts, and also led to certain aberration of\naction. But what we have to remember now, and permanently, is that it\nwas ascendancy of the _right_ in political and theological affairs that\nhe mainly sought for, fought for, and vindicated. It is this which will\nlong cause his memory to be cherished.\n\nAt the time of his death I wrote honouring notices of his career in\nthe _Bradford Observer_ and elsewhere, which were reproduced in other\npapers. Otherwise, I found opportunity on platforms of showing my\nestimate of his character and public services. I had never forgotten\nan act of kindness he had, in an interval of goodwill, done me. When\ndisablement and blindness came in 1876, he collected from the readers\nof his journal L170 towards a proposed annuity for me. It was a great\npleasure to me to repay that kindness by devising means (which others\nneither thought of nor believed in) of adding thrice that sum to the\nprovision being made for his survivors. It was a merit in him that\ndevotion to pursuits of public usefulness did not, in his opinion,\nabsolve him from keeping a financial promise, as I knew, and have\nheard friends who aided him testify--a virtue not universal among\npropagandists. No wonder the coarse environments of his early life lent\nimperiousness to his manners. In later years, when he was in the society\nof equals, where masterfulness was less possible and less necessary,\nhe acquired courtesy and a certain dignity--the attribute of conscious\npower. He was the greatest agitator, within the limits of law, who\nappeared in my time among the working people. Of his own initiative he\nincurred no legal danger, and those who followed him were not led into\nit. He was a daring defender of public right, and not without genius\nin discovering methods for its attainment. One form of genius lies in\ndiscovering developments of a principle which no one else sees. Had he\nlived in the first French Revolution, he had ranked with Mirabeau and\nDanton. Had he been with Paine in America, he had spoken \"Common Sense\"\non platforms. He died before being able to show in Parliament the\nbest that was in him. Though he had no College training like Professor\nFawcett, Indian lawyers found that Mr. Bradlaugh had a quicker and\ngreater grasp of Indian questions than the Professor. It was no mean\ndistinction--it was, indeed, a distinction any man might be proud to\nhave won--that John Stuart Mill should have left on record, in one of\nhis latest works, his testimony to Mr. Bradlaugh's capacity, which he\ndiscerned when others did not. Like Cobbett, the soldiers' barracks\ndid not repress Bradlaugh's invincible passion for the distinction of a\npolitical career. In the House of Commons he took, both in argument and\ndebate, a high rank, and surpassed compeers there of a thousand times\nhis advantages of birth and education. That from so low a station he\nshould have risen so high, and, after reaching the very platform of\nhis splendid ambition, he should die in the hour of his opportunity\nof triumph, was one of the tragedies of public life, which touched the\nheart of the nation, in whose eyes Mr. Bradlaugh had become a commanding\nfigure.\n\n*****\n\nIt was in connection with the controversy concerning the Oath that I\nreceived a letter from John Stuart Mill, which when published in the\n_Daily News_, excited much surprise. Mr. Mill was of opinion, that the\noath, being made the condition of obtaining justice, ordinary persons\nmight take it. But one who was known to disbelieve the terms of it, and\nhad for years publicly written and spoken to that effect, had better\nnot take it. This was the well-known Utilitarian doctrine that the\nconsequences of an act are the justification of it. Francis Place\nhad explained to me that Bentham's doctrine was that the sacrifice\nof liberty or life was justifiable only on the ground that the public\ngained by it. A disciple should have very strong convictions who differs\nfrom his master, and I differ with diffidence from Mr. Mill as to\nthe propriety of carrying the Utilitarian doctrine into the domain of\nmorals. Truth is higher than utility, and goes before it. Truth is a\nmeasure of utility, and not utility the measure of truth. Conscience is\nhigher than consequence. We are bound first to consider what is right.\nThere may be in some cases, reasons which justify departure from the\nright. But these are exceptions. The general rule is--Truth has the\nfirst claim upon us.\n\nTo take an oath when you do not believe in an avenging Deity who will\nenforce it, is to lie and know that you lie. This surely requires\nexceptional justification. It is nothing to the purpose to allege that\nthe oath is binding upon you. The security of that are the terms of the\noath. The law knows no other. To admit the terms to be unnecessary is to\nabolish the oath.\n\n*****\n\nWhen a youth, attending lectures at the Mechanics' Institution, I soon\ndiscerned that the more eminent speakers were the clearer. They knew\ntheir subjects, were masters of the outlines, which by making bold and\nplain, we were instructed. Outline is the beginning of art and the charm\nof knowledge. Remembering this, I found no difficulty in teaching very\nlittle children to write in a week.\n\nIt is a great advantage to children to take care that their first\nnotions are true. The primary element of truth is simplicity--with\nchildren it is their first fascination. I had only to show them that the\nalphabet meant no more than a line and a circle. A little child can make\na \"straight stroke\" \"and a round O.\"\n\nThe alphabet is made up of fifteen straight line and dozen curved line\nletters. The root of the fifteen straight line letters is J placed in\nvarious ways. The root of the eleven curved line letters is O or parts\nof O and I joined together.\n\nA is made by two straight lines leaning against each other at the top,\nand a line across the middle.\n\nH is made of two upright lines with a straight line between them.\n\nV is made of two straight lines meeting at the bottom. If two upright\nlines are added to the V it becomes M.\n\nTwo V's put together make W. The letters L and T and X and Z make\nthemselves, so easy is it to place the straight lines which compose\nthem.\n\nO makes itself. A short line makes it into Q. If the side of O be left\nopen it is a C. If two half O's are joined together they make S. Half O\nand an upright line make D. An upright line and a half O make P. Another\nhalf added and B is made.\n\nAfter a second or third time a child will understand the whole alphabet.\n\nSuch is the innate faculty of imitation and construction in children\nthat they will put the letters together themselves when the method is\nmade plain to them, and within a week will compose their own name and\ntheir mother's. At the same time they learn to read as well as to\nwrite. What they are told they are apt to forget, what they write they\nremember.\n\nReason is the faculty of seeing what follows as a consequence from what\nis, but to define distinction well is a divine gift. My one aim was to\nmake things clear.\n\n*****\n\nOne of my suggestions to the young preachers, who had two sermons on\nSunday to prepare, was that they should give all their strength to the\nevening discourse and arrange with their congregation to deliver the\nother from one of the old divines of English or Continental renown,\nwhich would inform as well as delight hearers. It would be an attraction\nto the outside public. Few congregations know anything of the eloquence,\nthe happy and splendid illustrations and passages of thought to be found\nin the fathers of the Church of every denomination. Professor Francis\nWilliam Newman, whose wide knowledge and fertility of thought had few\nequals in his day, told me that he should shrink from the responsibility\nof having to deliver a proficient and worthy discourse fifty-two times\na year. Anyhow, for the average preacher, better one bright ruddy\ndiscourse, than two pale-faced sermons every Sunday.\n\n*****\n\nThose who remained true to Chartism till the end of it are recorded\nin the following paragraph under the title of the \"National Charter\nAssociation,\" which appeared in _Reynolds's Newspaper_, January 4,\n1852:--\n\n\"On Wednesday evening last, the scrutineers appointed by the\nmetropolitan localities attended at the office, 14, Southampton Street,\nStrand, and having inspected the votes received, gave the following as\nthe result, in favour of the following nine:--\n\n\"Ernest Jones (who received 900 votes), Feargus O'Connor, John Arnott,\nT. M. Wheeler, James Grassby, John Shaw, W. J. Linton, J. J. Bezer, G.\nJ. Holyoake.\n\n\"Messrs. J. B. O'Brien, Gerald Massey, and Arthur Trevelyan having\ndeclined to serve, the votes received on their behalf have not been\nrecognised.\n\n\"We, the undersigned, hereby declare the nine persons first named to be\nduly elected to form the Executive Committee for the ensuing year.\n\n\"John Washington, City Locality.\n\n\"Edwd. John Loomes, Finsbury Locality.\n\n\"December 31, 1851.\"\n\n*****\n\nAfter I became an octogenarian, I was asked whether my years might be\nascribed to my habits. I could only explain what my habits were. In the\nfirst half of my life I ate whatever came to hand, and as not enough\ncame I easily observed moderation. But then I was disposed to be\nmoderate on principle, having read in the _Penny Magazine_, about\n1830, that Dr. Abernethy told a lady \"she might eat anything eatable\nin moderation.\" In the second and later half of my life I gave heed to\nCarnaro, and sought to limit each meal to the least quantity necessary\nfor health. The limitation of quantity included liquids as well as\nsolids, decreasing the amount of both \"in relation to age and activity,\"\nas Sir Henry Thompson advised. Not thinking much of meat, I limited that\nto a small amount, and cereals to those that grow above ground. A tepid\nbath for the eye (on the recommendation of the Rev. Dr. Molesworth, of\nRochdale) and a soap bath for the body every morning ends the catalogue\nof my habits.\n\nMy general mode of mind has been to avoid excess in food, in pleasure,\nin work, and in expectation. By not expecting much, I have been saved\nfrom worry if nothing came. When anything desirable did arrive, I had\nthe double delight of satisfaction and surprise. Shakespeare's counsel--\n\n     \"Be not troubled with the tide which bears\n     O'er thy contents its strong necessities,\n     But let determined things to destiny\n     Hold, unbewailed their way\"--\n\nought to be part of every code of health.\n\nThe conduciveness of my habits to longevity may be seen in this. More\nthan forty of my colleagues, all far more likely to live than myself,\nhave long been dead. Had I been as strong as they, I also should have\ndied as they did. Lacking their power of hastening to the end, I have\nlingered behind.\n\n*****\n\nFor the rest--\n\n     \"From my window is a glimpse of sea\n          Enough for me,\n     And every evening through the window bars\n          Peer in the friendly stars.\"\n\nThe principles and aims of earlier years are confirmed by experience at\n88. Principles are like plants and flowers. They suit only those whom\nthey nourish. Nothing is adapted to everybody.\n\n*****\n\nGoethe said: \"When I was a youth I planted a cherry-tree, and watched\nits growth with delight. Spring frost killed the blossoms, and I had\nto wait another year before the cherries were ripe--then the birds ate\nthem--another year the caterpillars ate them--another year a\ngreedy neighbour stole them--another year the blight withered them.\nNevertheless, when I have a garden again, I shall plant another\ncherry-tree.\" My years now are \"dwindling to their shortest span \"; if\nI should have my days over again, I shall plant my trees again--certain\nthat if they do grow they will yield verdure and fruit in some of the\nbarren places of this world.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. OTHER INSTANCES\n\nMy first public discussion in London was with Mr. Passmore\nEdwards--personally, the handsomest adversary I ever met. A mass of wavy\nblack hair and pleasant expression made him picturesque. He was slim,\nalert, and fervid. The subject of debate was the famous delineation of\nthe Bottle, by George Cruikshank, which I regarded as a libel on the\nwholesome virtue of Temperance. Exaggerations which inform and do not\ndeceive, as American humour, or Swift's Lilliputians, Aztecs, and\ngiants of Brobdingnag, have instruction and amusement. The exaggeration\nintended to deride and intimidate those who observe moderation is a\nhurtful and misleading extreme. Mr. Edwards took the opposite view.\nCruikshank could not be moderate, and he did right to adopt the rule of\nabsolute abstinence. It was his only salvation. To every man or woman of\nthe Cruikshank tendency I would preach the same doctrine. To all others\nI, as fervently, commend the habit of use without abuse. Without that\npower no man would live a month. Had Mr. Edwards been of this way of\nthinking, there had been no debate between us.\n\nMr. Edwards had much reason on his side. Mankind are historically\nregarded as possessing insufficiency of brains, and it is bad economics\nto put an incorrigible thief into their mouths to steal away what brains\nthey have.\n\nI had respect for Mr. Edwards' side of the argument. For when a man\nmakes a fool of himself, or fails to keep an engagement, or departs, in\nhis behaviour from his best manner--through drink--he should take the\nnext train to the safe and serene land of Abstinence.\n\nThe first person who mentioned to me the idea of a halfpenny newspaper\nwas Mr. Passmore Edwards. One night as we were walking down Fleet Street\nfrom Temple Bar, when the Bar stood where the Griffin now stands,\nMr. Edwards asked me, as I had had experience in the publishing trade\nwhether I thought a halfpenny newspaper would pay, which evidently had\nfor some time occupied his mind. The chief difficulty I foresaw was,\nwould newsagents give it a chance? It afterwards cost the house of\nCassells'--the first to make the experiment--many thousands. The\n_Workman_, in which I had a department, was intended, I was told, to be\na forerunner of the halfpenny paper. But that title would never do, as I\nventured to predict. Workmen, as a rule with no partnership in\nprofits, had enough of work without buying a paper about it. Tradesmen,\nmiddle-class and others, did not want to be taken for workmen, and the\n_Workman_ was discontinued. But, strange to say, the same paper issued\nunder the title of _Work_ became successful Everybody was interested in\nwork but not in being workmen. Such are the subtleties of titles! Their\nright choice--is it art or instinct? The _Echo_ was the name fixed\nupon for the first halfpenny paper. Echo of what? was not indicated. It\nexcluded expectations of originality. Probably curiosity was the charm.\nIt committed no one to any side. There were always more noises about\nthan any one could listen to, and many were glad to hear the most\narticulate. I wrote articles in the earliest numbers under the\neditorship of Sir Arthur Arnold.\n\n*****\n\nThe House of Allsop, as known to the world of progress in the last\ncentury, is ended. The first who gave it public interest was Thomas\nAIlsop, who assisted Robert Owen in 1832 in the Gray's Inn Lane Labour\nExchanges. He was a watchful assistant of those who contributed to the\npublic service without expecting or receiving requital. His admiration\nof genius always took the form of a gift--a rare but encouraging form\nof applause. Serjeant Talfourd somewhere bears testimony to the generous\nassistance Mr. AIlsop rendered to Hazlitt, Lamb, and Coleridge. To Lamb,\nhe continually sent gifts, and Coleridge dined at his table every Sunday\nfor nineteen years. Landor, who had always nobility of character, and\nwas an impulsive writer--represented Mr. Allsop's interest in European\nfreedom as proceeding from \"vanity,\" forgetful of his own letter to\nJessie Meriton White, offering L100 to any assassin of Napoleon III.;\nand John Forster preserves Landor's remark upon Mr. Allsop, but does\nnot, so far as I remember, give Landor's Assassin Letter. The fact was,\nno man less sought publicity or disliked it more than Mr. Allsop. When\nFeargus O'Connor was elected member for Nottingham, Mr. Allsop qualified\nhim by conferring upon him lands bringing an income of L300. He divided\nhis Lincoln estate into allotments for working men, but he never\nmentioned these things himself. His son Robert held his father's\nintellectual views. His eldest son Thomas, who was class-mate with Mr.\nDixon Galpin at Queenwood, a considerable landowner in British Columbia,\nwas the philosopher of the family, and like Archbishop Whately, had a\npower of stating them with ever apt and ready illustrations.\n\nThey were like Mr. Owen, Conservative in politics; but in social and\nmental matters they were intrepid in welcoming new truth. It was at\nThomas's suggestion that I omitted his father's name altogether in my\nchapter, \"Mr. Secretary Walpole and the Jacobin's Friend.\"* Landor was\nquite wrong, there was no \"vanity\" in the Allsop family. Were Thomas\nAllsop the younger now living I should not write these paragraphs. As it\nis, I may say that I owed to his generosity an annuity of L100. He\ncommenced it by a subscription of L200, and by Mr. Robert Applegarth's\nfriendly secretaryship, which had devotion and inspiration in it, a\ncommittee to which the Rev. Dr. Joseph Parker, with his intrepid\ntolerance, gave his name, was formed, and an annuity of L100 was\npurchased for me.\n\n     * \"Sixty Years,\" chap. lxx. p. 72.\n\n[Illustration: Parker]\n\n*****\n\nWhen the Taxes on Knowledge were repealed, Mr. Collet and I attempted\nto procure the repeal of the Passenger Tax on Railways. For forty years\nafter the imposition of the tax of Lord Halford, 1832, the workman was\ntaxed who went in search of an employer. When a poor sailor, arriving in\nLondon after a long voyage, desired to visit his poor mother in Glasgow,\nthe Government added to his fare a tax of three shillings, to encourage\nhim in filial affection. In the interests of locomotion and trade, two\nor three associations had attempted to get this pernicious tax repealed,\nwithout success. It was remarked in Parliament in 1877 that no\ncommittee representing the working class asked for the repeal of this\ndiscreditable impost, which most concerned them. This was the reason of\nthe formation of the Travelling Tax Abolition Committee, of which Mr.\nCollet became secretary and I the chairman. We were assisted by an\ninfluential committee of civic and industrial leaders. After six years'\nagitation we were mainly instrumental (that was in Mr. Gladstone's\ndays) in obtaining the repeal of the penny a mile tax on all third-class\nfares, effected by Mr. Childers in 1883, which ever since has put into\nthe pocket of working-class travellers L400,000 a year, besides the\nimproved carriages and improved service the repeal has enabled railway\ncompanies to give. We continued the committee many years longer in the\nhope of freeing the railways wholly from taxation, which still hampers\nthe directors and is obstructive of commerce. I was chairman for\ntwenty-four years, during which time twenty-two of the committee died.\nOur memorials, interviews with ministers, correspondence with officials,\npetitions to Parliament, public meetings and various publications,\ninvolved a large and incessant amount of work without payment of any\nkind. Subsequently a committee of publicists, journalists and members of\nParliament, for whom Mr. Applegarth was the secretary, caused L80 to be\ngiven to me, in recognition of my services. Though it represented less\nthan L4 a year as the salary of the chairman, it was valuable in my\neyes from the persons who gave it, as they were not the persons much\nbenefited by the work done, and who really taxed themselves on behalf\nof others. A subscription of a halfpenny each from the working-class\ntravellers who had profited by the repeal would have amounted to a\nhandsome acknowledgment. But from them it was impossible to collect\nit. Testimonials, I believe, are often given by persons who generously\nsubscribe for others upon whom the obligation of making it more properly\nrests.\n\n*****\n\nIt would seem insensibility or ingratitude not to record, that on\nmy eightieth birthday--now eight years ago--I was entertained at a\nnumerously attended dinner party in the National Liberal Club, at which\nto my gratification, Mr. Walter Morrison presided. The speakers, and\ndistinction of many in the assembly, were a surprise, transcending all\nI had foreseen. The words of Mr. Morrison's speech, to use Tennyson's\nwords, were like\n\n     \"Jewels\n     That on the stretch'd forefinger of all time\n     Sparkle forever\"\n\nin my memory.\n\nOn my eighty-sixth birthday a reception was given me by the Ethical\nSociety of South Place Chapel, Finsbury--the oldest Free Thought temple\nin London, where the _duty_ of free inquiry was first proclaimed by W.\nJ. Fox. The place was filled with faces familiar and unfamiliar, from\nnear and far, of artists, poets, publicists, journalists, philosophers,\nas at the National Liberal Club, but in greater numbers. Lady Florence\nDixie purchased a large and costly oil painting,* and sent it for me to\npresent to the Library of the Rationalist Press Association. Among the\nletters sent was one, the last sent to a public meeting, by Herbert\nSpencer. The reader will pardon the pride I have in quoting it.\n\n     * By my nephew, Roland Holyoake.\n\nWriting from 5, Percival Terrace, Brighton, March 28, 1903, Mr. Spencer\nsaid: \"I have not been out of doors since last August, and as Mr.\nHolyoake knows, it is impossible for me to join in the Reception to\nbe given to him on the occasion of his eighty-sixth birthday. I can do\nnothing more than express my warm feeling of concurrence. Not dwelling\nupon his intellectual capacity, which is high, I would emphasise my\nappreciation of his courage, sincerity, truthfulness, philanthropy, and\nunwearied perseverance. Such a combination of these qualities, it will,\nI think, be difficult to find.\"\n\n*****\n\nFor a period I had the opportunity accorded me of editing a daily\nnewspaper--_The Sun_. The Rev. Dr. Joseph Parker had been my\npredecessor. I was left at liberty to say whatever I pleased, and I did.\nIn one week I wrote twenty-nine articles.\n\nBut opulent opportunity of working was afforded me. As I was paid ten\ntimes as much as I had received before, I thought myself in a paradise\nof journalism.\n\n*****\n\nIn the correspondence of Robert Owen, now in possession of the\nCo-operative Union Memorial Committee, Manchester, is the following\nletter from his customary legal adviser, who then resided at Hornsey.\n\n     \"6,  Old Jewry,  London,\n\n     \"February 17, 1853. \"R. Owen, Esq.,\n\n     \"Dear Sir,--I am glad to see your handwriting upon an\n     envelope conveying to me a pamphlet of yours.\n\n     \"Holyoake I expect will breakfast with me on Sunday morning.\n     He comes down by the railway to Hornsey, which leaves London\n     at nine o'clock precisely.\n\n     \"I am afraid it is too cold for you, and that the walk from\n     the railway to our house, which is three quarters of a mile,\n     may not be agreeable.\n\n     \"Yours truly,\n\n     \"W. H. Ashurst.\n\n     \"H. will return about 12 or 1.\"\n\nAfter breakfast Mr. Owen walked briskly with me into town. He was then\neighty-two. On his way he explained to me that, when walking as\noften had done from Birmingham to Worcester, or from Huddersfield to\nSheffield--to lecture, I should find it an advantage to use the horse\nroad, as on the footpath there is more unevenness and necessity of\ndeviation to allow persons to pass, which increases the fatigue of a day\non foot. So thoughtful and practical was the reputed visionary.\n\n*****\n\nOf letters on public affairs I confine myself to three instances.\nWhen the South Kensington Exhibitions were in force, more than twenty\nthousand visitors a day thronged the Exhibition Road. Mothers with their\nchildren had to cross the wide Museum Road, where policemen, stationed\nto protect the passengers, had enough to do to keep their own toes on\ntheir feet, in the undivided traffic of cabs. I wrote to the _Times_\nsuggesting that a lamp should be erected in the middle of the wide road\nserving as a light, a retreat, and a division of traffic. All the cabmen\nwho could write protested against the danger, or the necessity, and\npossibility of the proposal. But it was done, to the great joy of\nmothers and advantage to the public.\n\n*****\n\nAfter the fall of the French Assassin at Sedan when Marshal Bazaine\nwas hanging about Europe in obscurity and ignominy, Mr. Arthur Arnold\nproposed that he should be invited to a banquet in London. Seeing that\nthe citizens of Paris went out at night in bands of twenty or thirty\nheroically to help to raise the siege--on what ground could we offer to\nhonour Bazaine, who with 192,000 soldiers under his command, was afraid\nto attempt it? I asked the question in the Press, and the proposal,\nwhich had a sentiment of chivalry in it to a fallen general, and was\ncommanding some concurrence--went out--like the Marshal--into outer\ndarkness. *****\n\nWhen public opinion was in the balance respecting the South American\nWar, Mr. Reverdy Johnson and a Copperhead colleague arrived in London\nand began to do a respectable business in public mystification. From\ninformation supplied to me I wrote letters explaining the real nature\nof that sinister mission, in consequence of which the two emissaries of\nslavery made tracks for New York.\n\nBut of instances, as of other things, there must be an end.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. FIRST STEPS IN LITERATURE\n\nSurely environment is the sister of heredity? Mr. Gladstone once said to\nme that \"The longer he lived the more he thought of heredity.\" Next to\nheredity is environment--the moulder of mankind. My first passion was to\nbe a prize-fighter. Nature, however, had not made me that way. I had\nno animosity of mind, and that form of contest was not to my taste. But\nprize-fighting was part of the miasma the Napoleonic war had diffused in\nEngland. It was in the air; it was the talk of the street \"Hammer\" Lane,\nso called from the iron blow he could deliver, was the local hero of the\nRing in the Midlands in my youth. He was a courtier of my eldest sister,\nand created in me a craving for fistic prowess. I fought one small\nbattle, but found that a lame wrist, which has remained permanent, cut\nme off from any prospect of renown in that pursuit Next, to be a circus\njester seemed to me the very king of careers. My idea was to leap into\nthe arena exclaiming:--\n\n\"Well, I never! Did you ever? I never did.\"\n\n\"Never did what?\" the clown was to ask me, when my reply was to be:--\n\n\"I could only disclose that before a Royal Commission\"--alluding to a\npolitical artifice then coming into vogue in Parliament When a Minister\ndid not know what to say to a popular demand, or found it inconvenient\nto say it if he did know, he would suggest a Commission to inquire into\nit, as is done to this day.\n\nThen the clown would demand, \"What is the good of a Royal Commission?\"\nwhen the answer would be: \"Every good in the world to a Ministry, for\nbefore the Commission agreed as to the answer to be given, the public\nwould forget what the question was.\" Under this diversion of the\naudience, no one noticed that no answer was given to the original\nquestion put to the jester. Whether I could have succeeded in this\nwalk was never decided. It was found that I lacked the loud, radiant,\nexplosive voice necessary for circus effects, and I ceased to dream of\ndistinction there.\n\nI suppose, like many others who could not well write anything, I thought\npoetry might be my latent--very latent--faculty. So I began. For all I\nknew, my genius, if I had any, might lie that way. To \"body forth things\nunknown,\" which I was told poets did, must be delightful. To \"build\ncastles in the air\"--as my means did not enable me to pay ground\nrent--was at least an economical project. So I began with a question, as\nnew Members of Parliament do, until they discover something to say. My\nfirst production, which I hoped would be mistaken for a poem, was in the\nform of a \"Question to a Pedestrian\":--\n\n     \"Saw you my Lilian pass this way?\n     You would know her by the ray\n     Of light which doth attend her.\n\n     Her eye such fire of passion hath,\n     That none who meet her ever pass,\n     But they some message send her.\"\n\nThe critics said to me, as they said to Keats, to whom I bore no other\nresemblance, \"This sort of thing will never do. It is an imitation\nof Shenstone, or of one of the Shepherd and Shepherdess School of the\nElizabethan era\"--of whom I knew nothing. So I was lost to the Muses,\nwho, however, never missed me.\n\nBut my career was not ended. I was told there might be an opening for me\nin criticism, especially of poetry, as there were many persons great in\nthe critical line, who could not write a verse themselves--and yet lived\nto become a terror to all who could. My first effort in this direction\nwas upon the book of a young poet whom I knew personally. Not venturing\nupon longer pieces at first, I selected two sonnets--as the author,\nEmslie Duncan, called them. The opening was very striking, and was thus\nexpressed:--\n\n     \"Great God: What is it that I see?\n     A figure shrimping in the sea.\"\n\nHow natural is the exclamation, I began. The poet invokes the Deity on\nthe threshold of a great surprise. Luther did the same in his famous\nhymn beginning--\n\n     \"Great God! What do mine eyes behold!\"\n\nOur sonneteer may be said to have borrowed the exclamation from Luther.*\nBut we have no doubt the exclamation of our poet is purely original.\nHe next demands an interpretation of his vision. It is early morning,\nthough the poet does not mention it (great poets are suggestive, and\nstoop not to detail). An evasive grey mist spreads everywhere, like the\nnew fiscal policy of the Bentinckian type (then in the air), obscuring\nthe landmarks of long-time safety. Still there is one object visible.\nThe poet's eye in \"fine frenzy rolling\" sees something. He is not sure\nof the personality that confronts him, and with agnostic precaution\nworthy of Huxley, he declines to say what it is--until he knows--and so\ncontents himself with telling the reader it is a \"figure\" out shrimping.\nThe scene is most impressive. As amateurs say, when they do not\nunderstand a picture they are praising, \"It grows upon you.\" So this\nmarvellous sonnet grows upon the\n\n     * The opening of Luther's fine hymn:--\n\n          \"Great God! What do mine eyes behold!\n          The end of things created\"--\n\n     which long imposed on my imagination and does so still.\n\nreader. If there be not imagination and profundity here, we do not know\nwhere to look for it.\n\nNext our poet returns to town, and in White-chapel meets with the statue\nof a lady attired only in a blouse. Notwithstanding his astonishment he\nvaries his abjuration, and exclaims--\n\n     \"Judge ye gods, of my surprise,\n     A lady naked in her chemise!\"\n\nThis is unquestionably very fine. True, there is some contradiction in\nnudity and attire; but splendid contradiction is an eternal element of\npoetry. What would Milton's \"Paradise Lost\" be without it? The reader\ncannot tell whether the surprise of the poet is at the lady or her\ndrapery. There is no use in asking a great poet what he meant in writing\nhis brilliant lines. If as candid as Browning, he would answer as\nBrowning did, that \"he had not the slightest idea what he meant.\"\nNothing remains for us but to congratulate the public on the advent of a\nnew poet who is equally great on subjects of land or sea.\n\nThere is a good deal of reviewing done on this principle, and\nreputations made by this sort of writing as fully without foundation,\nand I looked forward to further employment.\n\nThe editor to whom I sent these primal specimens of my new vocation\nseemed undecided what to do with them--throw them into his waste-paper\nbasket or submit them to his readers. I assured him I had seen a number\nof criticisms less restrained than mine, on performances quite as\nslender as the sonnets I had described. With kindly consideration, lest\nhe might be repressing a rising genius in me, he asked me to give my\nopinion upon a charming little poem by Longfellow--to commend, as he\nhoped I could, as a new edition in which he was interested was about to\nbe published.\n\nThe object of the poet, I found, was to awaken certain young ladies,\nwhose only fault consisted in getting up late in the morning. The lines\naddressed to them, if I rightly remember, began thus:--\n\n     \"Awake! Arise! and greet the day.\n     Angels are knocking at the door.\n     They are in haste and may not stay,\n     And once departed come no more.\"\n\nThis verse reminds the readers of Omar Khayyam. Two ideas in it are his,\nand the terms used are his; but I resisted this temptation to imitate\nthose popular critics, whose aim is not to discover the graces of a new\npoet, but his plagiarisms, and to show that everybody reproduces the\nideas of everybody else, and prove that--\n\n     \"Nothing is, and all things seem\n     And we the shadows of a dream\"--\n\nand of old, antediluvian dreams. Disdaining this royal road to critical\nrenown, I commenced by praising the enchanting invocation of the poet,\nwho when the ladies heard it would leap out of bed and dress. I observed\nthat to the reader who did not look below the surface--did not \"read\nbetween the lines,\" is the favourite phrase--the poem presented some\nmysteries of diction. Instead of appearing as the angel in Leigh Hunt's\n\"Abou Ben Adhem\" did, who diffused himself in the room like a vision,\nthese peripatetic visitants presented themselves like celestial postmen\n\"knocking at the door.\" Then why were they out so early themselves?\nHad they more calls to make than they could well accomplish in the time\nallowed them? Why were they \"in haste\"? No wonder mankind lack repose\nif angels are in a hurry. The Kingdom of the Blest is supposed to be\nthe land of rest Manifestly these morning angels had to be back by a\nstipulated time, and like a tax-collector could make no second call.\nApparently Longfellow's angels are like Mr. Stead's favourite spirit\nJulia. They are harassed with appointments, commissions, and cares.\nIt is of no use being a spirit if you cannot move about with regal\nleisureliness, such as was displayed by the first Shah of Persia who\nvisited us. The writer has seen nothing like it in any European monarch.\nWhile in the lines now in question supernatural misgivings of angelic\nperturbation are awakened. But as an example of poetry, irrespective of\nits meaning and suggestions, every reader will covet a new edition of\nthe American poet, and no library could be complete without a copy upon\nits shelves.\n\nI had visited the poet at his Cambridge home, and was proud of the\nopportunity of adding ever so small an addition to the pyramid of regard\nraised to his memory.\n\nThe editor looked dubious on reading this review, and said the higher\ncriticism might be entertaining in theology, but the higher criticism\nof poetry, which dealt with its meaning, was a different thing and\nmight not be well taken. In vain I suggested that a poet ought to mean\nsomething, as Byron did, whose fascination is still real, and there was\npathos and beauty, tragedy, tenderness and courtesy enough in the\nworld to employ more poets than we have on hand. I received no more\ncommissions in the way of criticisms, and had to think of some other\nvocation.\n\nSome of the happiest evenings of younger days were spent in the rooms of\nuniversity students. It was pleasant to be near persons who dwelt in the\nkingdom of knowledge, who could wander at will on the mountain tops\nof science and literature, and have glimpses of unknown lands of light\nwhich I might never see. Who has seen London under the reign of the sun,\nafter a sullen, fitful season, knows how wondrous is the transformation.\nLike the sheen of the gods the glittering rays descend, dispelling and\nabsorbing the sombre clouds. A radiance rests on turret and roof. Then\nhidden creatures that crawl or fly come forth and put on golden tints.\nThe cheerless poor emerge from their fireless chambers with the grateful\nemotions of sun worshippers.\n\nHow like is all this to the change which comes over the realm of\nignorance! Light does not change vegetation more than the light of\nknowledge changes the realm of the mind. The thirsty crevices of thought\ndrink in, as it were, the refreshing beams. Once conscious of the\nliberty and power which comes of knowing--ignorance itself becomes\neager, impatient--covetous of information. Faculties unsuspected\ndisclose themselves. Qualities undreamed-of appear. So it came to be my\nchoice to enter the field of instruction. It seemed to me a great\nthing to endow any, however few, in any way, however humble, with the\ncheeriness and strength of ideas. True, I began to teach what I did not\nknow--or knew but partially--yet not without personal advantage, since\nno one knows anything well until he has tried to teach it to another.\nThe dullest pupil will make his master sensible of defects in his own\nexplanation. Formerly, the dulness of a learner was supposed to discover\nthe necessity of a cane, whereas all it proved was incapacity or\nunwillingness to take trouble--on the part of the teacher. The result\nwas that I wrote several elementary books of instruction. All owed their\nexistence, or whatever success attended them, to the experience of the\nclass-room.\n\nAll things have an end, as many observant people know, and before long\nI turned my attention to journalism. I had read somewhere a saying of\nAristotle--\"Now I mean to speak conformably to the truth.\" That seems\nevery man's duty--if he speaks at all. Anyhow, Aristotle's words\nappeared to constitute a good rule for a journalist I had never heard or\nnever heeded the injunction of Byron:--\n\n     \"Let him who speaks beware\n     Of whom, of what, and when, and where.\"\n\nThe Aristotelian rule I had adopted soon brought me into difficulties,\nprobably from want of skill in applying it. It was in propagandist\njournalism that I had ventured, which I mention for the purpose of\nsaying that it is not, as many suppose, a profitable profession. It is\nexcellent discipline, but it is not thought much of by your banker. Its\nsecurities are never saleable on the Stock Exchange. Nevertheless, the\nPress has its undying attraction. It is the fame-maker. Without it noble\nwords, as well as noble deeds, would die. Day by day there descend from\nthe Press ideas in fertilising showers, falling on the parched and\narid plains of life, which in due season become verdant and variegated.\nDifficulties try men's souls, but true ideas expand them. And they have\ndone so. Literature is a much brighter thing than it was when I first\nbegan to meddle or \"muddle\" in it, as Lord Salisbury would say.\n\nNothing was thought classical then that was not dull No definition of\nimportance was found to be utterly unintelligible until a University man\nhad explained it. All is different now--let us hope.\n\nInstances of the progress of literary opinion are perhaps more\ninstructive and better worth remembering. In 1850, when George Henry\nLewes and Thornton Hunt included my name in their published list of\ncontributors to the _Leader_, it cost the proprietors, I had reason to\nknow, L2,000. It set the Rev. Dr. Jelf, of King's College, on fire,\nand caused an orthodox spasm of a serious kind in Charles Kingsley and\nProfessor Maurice, as witness their letters of that day.\n\nOne journal projected by me in 1850 is still v issued--_Public Opinion_.\nMr. W. H. Ashurst asked me to devise a paper I thought the most needed.\nAs Peel had said, \"England was governed by opinion,\" I suggested that\nthis opinion should be collected. I wrote the prospectus of the new\njournal, specifying that each article quoted should be prefixed by a\nfew words, within brackets, setting forth what principles, party, or\ninterest it represented--whether English or foreign. Mr. Ashurst put the\nprospectus into the hands of Robert Buchanan, father of the late Robert\nBuchanan, and the earlier issues followed the plan I had defined. The\nobject was to collect intelligent and responsible opinion.\n\nIn 1866 the _Contemporary Review_ announced that it would \"represent\nthe best minds of the time on all contemporary questions, free from\nnarrowness, bigotry, and sectarianism.\" It professed \"to represent those\nwho are not afraid of modern thought, in its varied aspects and demands,\nand scorn to defend their faith by mere reticence, or by the artifices\ncommonly acquiesced in.\" This manifesto of 1866 far surpassed in\nliberality any profession then known in the evangelical world. It was at\nthe time a bold pronouncement. When it is considered that Samuel Morley\nwas the most influential of the supporters of the _Contemporary_,\nit shows that intellectual Nonconformity was abreast of the age--as\nNonconformity never was before.\n\nIn 1877 I was taken by Thomas Woolner, the sculptor, to dine at Mr.\nAlfred Tennyson's (Lord Tennyson later). I believe my invitation was\nowing to Mrs. Tennyson's desire to make inquiries of me concerning\nthe advantages of Co-operation in rural districts, in which, like the\nCountess of Warwick, she was interested. The Poet Laureate gave me a\nglass of sack, the royal beverage of poets, of more exquisite flavour\nthan I had tasted before. I did not wonder that it was conducive to\nnoble verse--where the faculty of it was present Mr. Knowles, now Sir\nJames, founder of the _Nineteenth Century and After_, was of the party,\nand the new review--then projected--being mentioned, it came to pass\nthat my name was put down among possible contributors. The _Nineteenth\nCentury_ proposed to go further, and include a still wider range\nof subjects, with free discussion on personal responsibility. Its\nprospectus said \"it would go on lines absolutely impartial and\nunsectarian.\" The Prefatory Poem, written by Tennyson twenty-seven\nyears ago, which may not be in the memory of many now, was this:--\n\n     \"Those that of late had fleeted far and fast,\n     To touch all shores, now leaving to the skill\n     Of others their old craft, seaworthy still,\n     Have chartered this; where, mindful of the past,\n     Our true co-mates regather round the mast;\n     Of diverse tongues, but with a common will,\n     Here in this roaming moor of daffodil\n     And crocus, to put forth and brave the blast.\n     For some, descending from the sacred peak\n     Of hoar, high-templed Faith, have leagued again\n     Their lot with ours to rove the world about,\n     And some are wilder comrades, sworn to seek\n     If any golden harbour be for men\n     In seas of Death and sunless gulfs of Doubt.\"\n\nTennyson, with all his genius, never quite emerged from the theologic\ncaves of the conventicle. The sea of pure reason he took to be \"the sea\nof Death.\" Doubt was a \"sunless gulf.\" He did not know that \"Doubt\" is\na translucent valley, where the light of Truth first reveals the\ndeformities of error--hidden by theological mists. The line containing\nthe words \"wilder comrades\" was understood to include me. Out of the\n\"One Hundred Contributors,\" whose names were published in the\n_Athenaeum_ (February 10, 1877), there were only-six:--Professor Huxley,\nProfessor Tyndall, Professor Clifford, George Henry Lewes, myself,\nand possibly Frederic Harrison, to whom the phrase could apply. If the\nremaining ninety-four had any insurgency of opinion in them, it was\nnot then apparent to the public, who are prone to prefer a vacuum to\nan insurgent idea. New ideas of moment have always been on hand in the\n_Nineteenth_ if not of the \"wilder\" kind.\n\nAfter issuing fifty volumes of the _Nineteenth Century Review_, the\neditor published a list of all his contributors, with the titles of\nthe articles written by them, introduced by these brief but memorable\nwords:--\n\n\"More than a quarter of a century's experience has sufficiently tested\nthe practical efficacy of the principle upon which the _Nineteenth\nCentury_ was founded, of free public discussion by writers invariably\nsigning their own names.\n\n\"The success which has attended and continues to attend the faithful\nadherence to this principle, proves that it is not only right but\nacceptable, and warrants the hope that it may extend its influence\nover periodical literature, until unsigned contributions become quite\nexceptional.\n\n\"No man can make an anonymous speech with his tongue, and no brave man\nshould desire to make one with his pen, but, having the courage of his\nopinions, should be ready to face personally all the consequences of all\nhis utterances. Anonymous letters are everywhere justly discredited in\nprivate life, and the tone of public life would be raised in proportion\nto the disappearance of their equivalent--anonymous articles--from\npublic controversy.\"\n\nThan the foregoing, I know of no more admirable argument against\nanonymity in literature. There is nothing more unfair in controversy\nthan permitting writers, wearing a mask, to attack or make replies to\nthose who give their names--being thereby enabled to be accusative or\nimputative without responsibility. There is, of course another side to\nthis question. Persons of superior and relevant information, unwilling\nto appear personally, are thereby excluded from a hearing--which is so\nfar a public loss.\n\nBut this evil is small compared with the vividness and care which would\nbe exercised if every writer felt that his reputation went with the\nwork which bore his name. Besides, how much slovenly thinking, which is\nslovenly expressed--vexing the public ear and depraving the taste and\nunderstanding of the reader--would never appear if the writer had to\nappend his signature to his production? Of course, there is good writing\ndone anonymously, but power and originality, if present, are never\nrewarded by fame, and no one knows who to thank for the light and\npleasure nameless writers have given. The example of the _Nineteenth\nCentury and After_ is a public advantage.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. GEORGE ELIOT AND GEORGE HENRY LEWES\n\n[Illustration: Lewes]\n\nMore than acquaintanceship, I had affectionate regard for George Henry\nLewes and George Eliot. Lewes included me in the public list of writers\nand contributors to the _Leader_--the first recognition of the kind I\nreceived, and being accorded when I had only an outcast name, both in\nlaw and literature, I have never ceased to prize it.\n\nGeorge Eliot's friendship, on other grounds I have had reason to value,\nand when I found a vacant place at the head of their graves which lie\nside by side, I bought it, that my ashes should repose there, should I\ndie in England.\n\nOn occasions which arose, I had vindicated both, as I knew well\nthe personal circumstances of their lives. When in America I found\nstatements made concerning them which no editor of honour should have\npublished without knowledge of the facts upon which they purported to be\nfounded, nor should he have given publicity to dishonouring statements\nwithout the signature of a known and responsible person. On the first\nopportunity I spoke with Lewes's eldest son, and asked authority to\ncontradict them. He thought the calumnies beneath contempt, that they\nsprang up in theological soil and that they would wither of themselves,\nif not fertilised by disturbance. I know of no instance of purity and\ngenerosity greater than that displayed by George Eliot in her relation\nwith Mr. Lewes. Edgar Allan Poe was subject to graver defamation, widely\nbelieved for years, which was afterwards shown to be entirely devoid of\ntruth. George Eliot's personal reputation will hereafter be seen to be\njust and luminous.\n\nFor myself, I never could see what conventional opinion had to do with a\npersonal union founded in affection, by which nobody was wronged, nobody\ndistressed, and in which protection was accorded and generous provision\nmade for the present and future interest of every one concerned.\nConventional opinion, not even in its ethical aspects, could establish\nhigher relations than existed in their case. There are thousands of\nmarriages tolerated conventionally and ecclesiastically approved, in\nevery way less estimable and less honourable than the distinguished\nunion, upon which society without justification affected to frown.\n\nInterest in social and political liberty was an abiding feature in\nGeorge Eliot's mind. When Garibaldi was at the Crystal Palace, she asked\nme to sit by her and elucidate incidents which arose.\n\nOn the publication of my first volume of the History of Co-operation, I\nreceived the following letter from Mr. Lewes:--\n\n     \"The Elms, Rickmansworth,\n\n     \"Aug. 15, 1875.\n\n     \"My   dear   Holyoake,--Mrs.   Lewes   wishes me to thank\n     you for sending her your book, which she is reading aloud to\n     me every evening, much to our pleasure and profit.    The\n     light firm touch and quiet   epigram   would   make   the\n     dullest  subject readable; and this subject is _not_ dull.\n     We only regret   that   you  did   not   enter more fully\n     into working details.    Perhaps they will come in the next\n     volume.\n\n     \"Ever yours truly,\n\n     \"G. H. Lewes.\"\n\nThe second volume of the work mentioned supplied to her the details she\nwished.\n\nIn 1877 I visited New Lanark and saw the stately rooms built by Robert\nOwen, of which I sent an account to the Times. The most complete\nappliances of instruction known in Europe down to 1820 are all there,\nas in Mr. Owen's days. A description of them may be read in the second\nvolume of the \"History of Co-operation\" referred to. When George Eliot\nsaw the letter she said, \"the thought of the Ruins of Education there\ndescribed filled her with sadness.\" I made an offer to buy the neglected\nand decaying relics, which was declined. I wrote to Lord Playfair, whose\ninfluence might procure the purchase. I endeavoured to induce the\nSouth Kensington Museum authorities to secure them for the benefit of\neducationists, but they had no funds to use for that purpose.\n\nSome women, not distinguished for personal beauty when young, become\nhandsome and queenly later in life. This was so with Harriet Martineau.\nGeorge Eliot did not come up to Herbert Spencer's conception of personal\ncharm. One day when she was living at Godstone, she drove to the station\nto meet Mr. Lewes. He and I were travelling together at the time, and he\ncaused the train to be delayed a few minutes that I might go down into\nthe valley to meet his wife. I had not seen George Eliot for some years,\nand was astonished at the stately grace she had acquired.\n\nOne who knew how to state a principle describes the characteristic\nconviction of George Eliot, from which she never departed, and which had\nabiding interest for me.\n\n\"She held as a solemn conviction--the result of a lifetime of\nobservation--that in proportion as the thoughts of men and women are\nremoved from the earth on which they live, are diverted from their\nown mutual relations and responsibilities, of which they alone know\nanything, to an invisible world, which can alone be apprehended by\nbelief, they are led to neglect their duty to each other, to squander\ntheir strength in vain speculations, which can result in no profit to\nthemselves or their fellow-creatures, which diminish their capacity for\nstrenuous and worthy action during a span of life, brief, indeed, but\nwhose consequences will extend to remote posterity.\"*\n\n     * _Congregationalist_ April, 1881, p. 297.\n       Bray's Autobiography.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. WHEN BIRMINGHAM WAS A TOWN\n\nWhen Birmingham was a town it had a national reputation for Liberalism.\nAt present I prefer to call myself a \"townsman\" rather than a \"citizen.\"\nThe old pride of owning to being a Birmingham man is merged into the\nadmission of being born in Warwickshire. Some of the political scenes in\nits town days may be instructive to its present-day citizens.\n\nThe famous Birmingham Political Union of 1832 was \"hung up like a clean\ngun\" on G. F. Muntz's suggestion and never taken down. Many years later\na new Union was projected. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was in the chair. I\nwas on the platform, and the only person present who was a member of the\nformer Union. I had no opportunity of speaking--nor indeed had anybody,\nsave movers and seconders of motions. There was nothing radical\nabout the proceedings. Nobody's opinion was asked. No opportunity of\ndiscussion was given. The meeting was a mere instrument for registering\nthe business of the chair. The impression that afternoon made upon me\nhas never left me. Nothing afterwards surprised me in the performances\nof the \"quick-change artiste\" of the Parliamentary music-hall.\n\nMr. John Morley wrote an article in the _Fortnightly_ on Mr.\nChamberlain, which first gave him a position before the public. Not even\nin Birmingham could any one see adequate justification for it. But Mr.\nMorley proved right, and had discerned a capacity which had not then\nunfolded itself.\n\nAbout that time Mr. Chamberlain made some remark on Mr. Disraeli in the\nBirmingham Town Council, which did not amount to much. Mr. Disraeli did\nthe municipal speaker the honour to call him to account. Had any one in\nlike case called Mr. Disraeli to account he would have said in his airy\nand evasive way: \"Every public speaker is liable to the misconstruction\nof unheeding and ill-hearing reporters, and he could not be expected to\nanswer for them.\" Mr. Chamberlain gave no sign of any such adroitness\nwhich was ready to his hand, but wrote what read like an abject apology.\nHe did not dare to say to Mr. Disraeli \"What I have said I have said.\"\n\nMr. Jesse Collings was one of the minor merchants of Birmingham. He came\noriginally from Exeter, and was held in great respect for his earnest\nLiberalism, and for promoting the education of the people--though he was\nhimself a sectarian pure and simple, with little, if any, secularity\nin him. When he came to be Mayor, the Tories of Birmingham--who had not\nthen and never had any man of mark or genius among them--were capable of\noutrage. It was the only art they knew. When Mr. Collings presided one\nday at a public meeting in the town hall, they drew an ass's head on a\nlarge sheet of pasteboard, and hung it over the clock in front of the\nchair labelled--the \"Portrait of the Mayor.\" For two hours they made all\nbusiness impossible by shouting \"Mr. Mayor, look at your portrait.\" At\nlength the Mayor took courage and ordered the Chief Constable--Major\nBond--to remove the picture placard and the ringleader of the\ndisturbance. This was construed as an insult, which Mr. Kynersley, the\nprincipal Tory magistrate, supported. I was one who urged Mr. Collings\nto apply to the bench for a case, that it might be determined in the\nhigher courts whether a mayor had legal power to preserve order at a\npublic meeting. The case was refused by Mr. Kynersley. This was the\ntreatment of the Right Honourable Jesse Collings for being a Liberal. Is\nthere a stranger sight in England than seeing this Liberal mayor dressed\nin Tory livery, fetching and carrying in Parliament for the intolerant\nparty which treated him with such ostentatious indignity? What must be\nhis sense of humiliation under his new convictions? Equally tragic and\nunforeseen must be the humiliation of the Tory party in Parliament who\nused to boast of their pride, their dignity, and self-respect at having\nto accept as a leader the great \"caucus-monger,\" as they called Mr.\nChamberlain, who was the object of their epithets and hatred during so\nmany sessions. The tragedy of political convictions can no further go.\nFar be it from me to deny that Mr. Collings and Mr. Chamberlain have not\nhonest reasons for their strange professions, though I do not\nunderstand them. Like gravitation, I admit the fact, though its cause\nis inscrutable. In politics motives are as though they were not. They\ncannot be taken into account. If alleged, they admit of no proof.\nResentment rages among the partisans of the accused and the tendency\nof their principles, which it is alone instructive to discuss, is lost\nsight of. It is common for partisans to disparage those who have left\ntheir ranks--forgetting that conviction depends upon evidence. Those who\nleave a party may be as honest as those who remain. Whoever has rendered\naid to liberty and gone over to the other side should be honoured\nfor what he has done. He who has once stood upon the side of humanity\ndeserves more respectful treatment than he who never took the part of\nthe right. Mr. Collings and Mr. Chamberlain rendered important service\nto the cause of public progress, and their abandonment of it was a loss.\nFor the rest, the career of Joseph Chamberlain, like that of Joseph\nCowen, has its explanation in the passion for paramountcy.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. THE TENTH OF APRIL, 1848--ITS INCREDIBILITIES\n\nIt is not easy to determine which of many historic incidents of interest\nshould take precedence. The 10th of April, known as the day of Chartist\nTerror--still spoken of in hysterical accents--will do, as it shows the\nwild way with which sober, staid men can write history. I was out that\nday with the Chartists, and well know how different the facts were from\nwhat is believed to be the peril of the metropolis on that day. I have\nlong regarded it as one of the \"bygones\" having instruction in them.\n\nThe French have their 9th Thermidor (July 27, 1794), when the Reign\nof Terror ended, and their 18th Brumaire (November 9, 1799), when the\nNapoleonic Terror began, and the English have their 10th of April, 1848,\nwhen a million special constables were out staff in hand, to prevent a\nNational Petition of the people being presented to the House of Commons.\nYet no conspiracy existed--nor even had the police fabricated a plot (as\nthey often did in those days)--no disorder had been threatened, not a\nman was armed; the only imaginable enemy was the Chartist Convention\nof less than two hundred persons. The most distinguished of the Special\nConstables was Louis Napoleon, who four years later became known as the\nassassin of French liberty, and whose career is one of the infamies of\nImperialism.\n\nThe 10th of April, 1848, has for more than half a century held a place\nin public memory. The extraordinary hallucination concerning it has\nbecome historic, and passes as authentic. Canon Charles Kingsley was the\nchief illusionist in this matter. He wrote: \"On the 10th of April,\nthe Government _had_ to fill London with troops, and put the Duke of\nWellington in command, who barricaded the bridges and Downing Street,\nand other public buildings.\"* Nobody \"had\" to do what Kings-ley relates.\nNine years had elapsed since any one had taken the field against the\nGovernment, and that was in a Welsh town 147 miles away. John Frost and\nhis tiny band of followers were the insurgents. All were put down\nin twenty minutes by a few soldiers. Frost came to London in 1839 to\nconsult James Watson, Henry Hetherington, Richard Moore, William Lovett,\nand other responsible Chartists, whom he most trusted. They besought\nFrost to abandon his idea of an attack upon Newport, as no one would\nsupport him. There were no arms in London on April, 1848, no persons\nwere drilled, no war organisation existed, and no intention of rising\nanywhere. The Government knew it, for they had spies everywhere. They\nknew it as well or better in 1848 than in 1839. For nine years John\nFrost had then been in penal servitude, and no one had attempted to\nimitate him. Nor had he any followers in London in 1848. At his trial\nno noblemen, no aristocratic ladies, crowded the court to cheer him by\ntheir sympathy, or mitigate his sentence by their influence--as they did\nwhen Dr. Jameson and others were on trial for their wanton and murderous\nraid on the Government of South Africa. Such is the difference between\nthe insurgency of poverty seeking redress, and the insurgency of wealthy\ninsolence seeking its further aggrandisement There was absolutely\nnothing in the field against the Duke of Wellington in London but a\nwaggon, on which a monster petition was piled.\n\n     * Introduction to \"Alton Locke,\" by Thomas Hughes.\n\nPolitically speaking, London has seen no tamer day than the 10th of\nApril, 1848. There was less ground for alarm than when a Lord Mayor s\nprocession passes through the city. The procession of actual Chartists,\nable to leave their work to join it, could never have amounted to four\nthousand. There was not a single weapon among them, nor any intention of\nusing it had they possessed it. There was only one weapon known to be in\nLondon, in the hands of the Chartists, and that was a Colonel Macerone's\nspear, fabricated in 1830, to assist in carrying the first Reform Bill.\nThat was hidden up a chimney in 3, Queen's Head Passage, Paternoster\nRow. It came into my possession, and I have often shown it to members of\nthe Government to convince them what risks Society ran in Wellington's\ndays--and are exposed to still.\n\nThe Chartists had held a Convention in London the week before the 10th,\nand were unable to obtain any place of meeting except a small social\ninstitution in John Street, Tottenham Court Road, which could not seat\n150 persons at the Convention table. The hall was lent to them by the\nmost pacific body of politicians in London--the followers of Robert\nOwen. Yet Mr. Thomas Hughes adopted and authenticated Kingsley's\nincredible belief, that the country was in danger of these earnest but\nentirely impotent Chartist petitioners; and Mr. Hughes actually quotes\nbelievingly in his introduction to \"Alton Locke\" a statement that: \"The\nDuke of Wellington declared in the House of Lords that no great society\nhad ever suffered as London had during the proceeding, while the Home\nSecretary telegraphed to all the chief magistrates of the kingdom the\njoyful news that the peace had been kept in London.\"*\n\n     * Prefatory Memoir of Kingsley's Works, by Thomas Hughes,\n       p. 13.\n\nNever did the craziest despotic Government in Europe engage in such a\npolitical imposture. It was pitiable that the Duke of Wellington should\nhave had no more self-respect than to compromise his great career\nby fortifying London against an imaginary enemy. The Government had\nplentiful information and must have known the truth--the contrary of\nwhat they alleged.\n\nIt may be said in extenuation of these affected Ministerial terrors,\nthat the Parisian revolution of that year had communicated unrest to\nthe people of England. It had inspired them with pleasure, but not with\ninsurgency, for which they were as uninclined as they were unprepared,\nand none knew this better than the Duke of Wellington. The Parisian\npopulation had seen military service. They understood the use of arms,\nhad them, and knew how to settle their differences at the barricade.\nLondon had never seen a barricade. The people were all unused to arms,\nand were without the means or the knowledge to storm a police station.\nYet, according to Canon Kingsley, Wellington told the Government \"that\nno capital had gone through such days as England had on the 10th of\nApril,\" when no man was struck--no man was killed--no riot took\nplace anywhere. It would seem that ignorance, rashness, wildness, and\nirresponsible language are by no means peculiar to the working classes.\nWe must cease to wonder at the Duke of Wellington when an accredited\npublicist like Judge Thomas Hughes, who was educated at Rugby, could\ntell the world himself that \"It is only by an effort that one can\nrealise the strain to which the nation was subjected.\"\n\nOn that awful day, nobody was reported as found looking into a shop\nwindow with a predatory glare in his eyes, and no account came up from\nthe provinces that a single Chartist was observed to peep over a hedge\nin a menacing manner.\n\nI was out on the 10th of April. On Sunday, the night before, I was the\nlecturer at John Street The audience was composed largely of delegates\nto the dreadful Convention that so perturbed the \"Iron Duke.\"\n\nMy advice to them, published at the time, was to \"Beware of the police,\"\nand not to strike again if they were struck. Many of them, I knew, were\nwilling to die for their country, if that would save it. They would\nserve it much better by dying without resistance, than dying with it. If\nany were killed whilst walking in the procession their comrades should\nmove quietly on. Nothing would tell more strongly on public opinion than\nsuch heroic observance of order. Hetherington, one of the bravest who\nwalked in the ranks, told me he would do it. The Government, by their\nostentatious provocation, in garrisoning the Bank with soldiers,\ncrowding Somerset House with them, parading troops on Clerkenwell Green,\nhad brought, it is computed, more than two millions of persons into the\nstreets. The conclusion to which the Chartist leaders came, was that\nthe Government wanted to create a conflict, shoot down a number of the\npeople, and then proclaim to Europe that they had \"saved Society,\"\nby murder, as one of their chief special constables did soon after in\nParis.\n\nAs I had been personally associated with all the chief Chartists, in\nprison and out, from the beginning of the movement, I can speak with\nsome knowledge of them on that day.\n\nOn the morning of the 10th of April, Mr. C. D. Collet, the well-informed\nSecretary of the People's Charter Union, myself, Richard Moore, and\nothers, organised a band of forty persons, who were to distribute\nthemselves over London, note-book and pencil in hand, in the character\nof reporters. The police took kindly to us, and gave us good positions\nof advantage, where we could see everything that took place thereabouts,\nand even protected us from being incommoded. We were there to watch the\npolice, not the people, as the disorder, if there were any, would come\nfrom them. My station was in Bridge Street, Blackfriars, where a row\nof constables was drawn up. I found a coarse, plethoric alderman, going\nfrom man to man, saying only three words: \"Strike hard to-day.\"\n\nThe people behaved admirably. Not a blow was struck which gave a\ncolourable ground for outrage on the part of the police. In justice to\nthe police, it ought to be said, neither did they incite disorder.\n\nAt night the Home Secretary spent the money of the State, in\ntelegraphing to all the mayors in the land \"the day had passed off\nquietly,\" thus creating a false terror everywhere that London had been\nin danger--danger of the Government's creating.\n\nThe Bull Ring Riots in Birmingham in 1839, when I was resident there,\nwere created entirely by the magistrates, who introduced a hundred\nLondon policemen into the town, which led to the loss of life and\nproperty.\n\nI and others on the deputation to Mr. Walpole told him at the time, when\nthe railings were broken down in Hyde Park, that if he made a show of\nsoldiers and policemen, people were sure to be killed. At the peril\nof his own reputation, he kept them out of sight, and no disorder took\nplace, though violent members of the Government tried to destroy\nMr. Walpole for his wise and noble forbearance. Dean Stubbs, in his\ninteresting book on Charles Kingsley, says (p. 97): \"On the 10th\nof April, 1848, a revolution was threatened in England. One hundred\nthousand _armed men_ were to meet on Kennington Common and thence\nto march on Westminster, and there to compel, by physical force, if\nnecessary, the acceptance of the People's Charter by the Houses of\nParliament.\" Could such a lunatical statement be written by any one,\nand his friends not procure a magistrate's order for his removal to the\nnearest asylum? How were the \"hundred thousand\" to get the arms into\nLondon--if they had them. Whence were they to procure them? Where could\nthey store them, seeing that at that time there was not a single place\nof Chartist meeting that was not known to be in debt, unless its rent\nwas paid by the charity of some well-to-do sympathiser? What were\nmuskets or pikes to do against the stone walls of the Houses of\nParliament or the Bank? How were cannon to be drawn from the centre\nof London to Kennington Common with ample service of powder and shot?\nMarvellous is the history which Churchmen can write!\n\nThe utterly groundless and incredible representations of the \"10th\nApril,\" which Charles Kingsley and Thomas Hughes published, as we have\nseen, were to my amazement resuscitated as late as 1902 for the historic\ninstruction of the students of the Working Mens College in Great Ormond\nStreet, London, by Mr. R. P. Lichfield, vice-principal of the college,\nwho for forty-seven years has rendered it important service, for which\nall friends of education for workmen are grateful. Yet in his address to\nthe students (October 1, 1902), he tells them that in 1848 \"the wave\nof democracy which swept over Europe gave fresh impetus to the Chartist\nagitation. On the memorable 10th of April it looked as if we were to\nhave a revolutionary outbreak on the Parisian pattern. This we were\nsaved from, partly by an army of volunteers, special constables, partly\nby the Duke of Wellington's discreet placing of his troops.... The\nattempt to overawe Parliament by a 'physical force' demonstration was a\nfiasco.\" The world knows a good deal of historians who draw upon their\nimagination for their facts, but here is a responsible teacher, drawing\nupon his terrors of fifty years ago, for statements which nobody\nbelieves now or believed then, who knew the facts. The Duke of\nWellington's great name in war imposed upon amateur politicians. The\nDuke--contrary to his reputation for military veracity--readily lent\nhimself to the Government of that day, that they might figure before the\ncountry as the deliverers of England, from the nation-shaking assault\nof a miscellaneous crowd of penniless and unarmed combatants, who had\nneither cannon nor commissariat. Everybody was aware that the knowledge\nof the Iron Duke, outside war, was very limited, and his political\ncredulity was unbounded. At the end of the Peninsular War he wrote to\nthe Government of that day, informing them \"the bankers of Paris were\nfurnishing large sums to Revolutionists in England.\" Only old residents\nin Bedlam would believe that. There were no leaders of Revolutionists in\nEngland, to whom the money could be assigned or consigned, and bankers\nwere the last persons in the world to subscribe money for a wild,\nspeculative, and uncertain enterprise. No spy of Pitt, or Sid-mouth,\nwould have sent home so insane a report, from fear of instant dismissal\nfrom their sinister employment.\n\nThis is but a sample of the airy, false, and fictionary foundation on\nwhich the Legend of the Tenth of April was built. These incidents of\nhistoric perversion, though bygones of half a century ago, are worth\nremembering.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. THE CHARTISTS OF FICTION\n\nThe Chartists have made as much noise in the world as they knew how--yet\nto the generation of to-day they are ambiguous. They have had no\nhistorian. Carlyle went to look at them in prison, and defamed them with\nthat bitterness and contempt he had for partisans who lacked the sense\nof submission to the dictates of those superior persons who knew what\nwas best for everybody, of whose aspirations they knew nothing, and for\nwhose needs they had no sympathy. Chartism, however, has won conspicuous\ntreatment in fiction. What it was in fact, is a very different thing.\nThere is the Church Chartist by Canon Kingsley, and the Positivist\nChartist by George Eliot, drawn by two famous artists. The pictures are\nhung upon the line in the great gallery of literature. So brilliant\nis the work of Kingsley that it has imposed on so accomplished a\nconnoisseur as Dean Stubbs, who, in his life of the fervid Rector of\nEversley, has taken it for a painting from real life. I present the\nChurch Chartist first.\n\nIn my time I have seen much good done by Christians with a view to\nextend their faith. Some few, like Samuel Morley, who excelled all\nlay Dissenters I have known in the manly sense of the dignity and\nindependence of Nonconformity, would do generous things from the\nhumaneness of their own minds alone. Some Quakers and Unitarians have\nhad this quality. Others, Churchmen, Roman Catholics, and orthodox\nChristians, I have known to mitigate privation for the \"Lord's sake,\"\nnot for humanity's sake. This was to some extent the case of the Rev.\nFrederick Denison Maurice, Canon Kingsley, and their noble colleagues,\nEdward Vansittart Neale, Judge Thomas Hughes, and J. M. Ludlow.\nThey became Christian Socialists not so much because they cared for\nSocialism, as Maurice owned his \"object was not to Socialise society,\nbut to Christianise Socialism.\" Startled by the dislike and even\nresentment against Christianity expressed by men of poverty and\nintelligence at being asked to adopt a belief which brought them no\nrelief, Maurice, Kingsley, and their associates concluded that privation\nwas the cause of alienation from the Church. In like manner Dissenters\nthought that it was the bad condition of industrial life which\nkept working people from chapel. None realised that alienation from\nChristianity had its seat in the understanding--in intellectual\ndissatisfaction with the tenets of Theology. The absentees from church\nand chapel alleged that no relief came of belief, and never had since\nthe days when manna fell in the Jewish wilderness, and loaves and fishes\nwere miraculously plentiful on the hills of Galilee. There was no sense\nor profit in adopting a faith which had been unproductive for nearly\n2,000 years. It had taken the slave, the serf, and the hired worker\na long time to see this. But at last experience had told upon the\nthoughtful. But the theologians neither in the dominant, nor dominated\ncamps perceived it.\n\nVery generous is Kingsley's sympathy, in \"Alton Locke,\" with the lot of\nworking people, but he believed that when the rebellious shoemaker fully\nrealises that good priests would mitigate the lot of those who labour\nin workshops or in fields and mines, he will become reconciled to the\nThirty-nine Articles. Alton Locke is a Church Chartist--not one of the\nChartists of real life whom I knew, who were current in Kingsley's days,\nwho signed the famous document which Place drew and Roebuck revised.\nThey had principles. They did not seek paternal government of friendly\nChurchmen, nor of Positivists, nor that nobly organised kind of\npassive competence which Mr. Ruskin meditated for the people. The real\nChartists--like the Co-operators--sought self-government for the people\nby the people. The alienation of the people from church and chapel was\nnot founded on lack of spiritual patronage, or thirst for it, but from\nintellectual dissatisfaction with theological tenets.\n\nChristians, from the Vatican to the Primitive Methodist conventicle,\nare all so persuaded of the infallibility of their interpretation of the\nScriptures, and are so convinced of the perfect sufficiency of their\ntenets for the needs of all the world, that they regard difference of\nopinion as springing from wilful misunderstanding, or from the \"evil\nheart at enmity with God\"--a mad doctrine beneath the notice of the\naverage lunatic. Natural variety of intellect, the infinite hosts of\npersonal views, and the infinitude of individual experience--which\nsilently create new convictions--are not taken into account, and\nconscientious dissent seems to the antediluvian theologian an\nimpossibility. Even the most liberal of eminent Unitarians in England,\nW. J. Fox, regarded, what we now know as the Agnostic--hesitation to\ndeclare as true that which the declarer does not know to be so--as a\nspecies of mental disease.\n\nThat Kingsley lived in a refracting medium, in which the straightest\nfacts appeared bent when placed in it, was evident when he wrote:\n\"Heaven defend us from the Manchester School, for of all narrow,\nconceited, hypocritical, and atheistic schemes of the universe the\nCobden and Bright one is exactly the worst.\" There was no reason why\nKingsley should be a Chartist, since he had all he wanted secured, and\nhad contempt in his heart for Chartist tenets. He wrote: \"The Bible\ngives the dawn of the glorious future, such as no universal suffrage,\nfree trade, communism, organisation of labour, or any other Morrison\npill measure can give.\" He exulted in the existence of the forces which\nmade against the people. He exclaimed: \"As long as the Throne, the House\nof Lords, and the Press are what I thank God they are!\" he was grateful.\nThe state of things which existed, it was the object of Chartism to\nchange.\n\nThese rampant ideas of Kingsley were far from being Chartist sentiments.\nAt a meeting in Castle Street, London, the Rev. Charles Kingsley and Mr.\nThomas Hughes were present, working men comprising the audience, an old\ngrey-headed Chartist, of a Republican way of thinking, whose experience\nof monarchy was limited to his share of taxation for its support,\nhissed at the introduction of the Queen's name. Mr. Hughes, then a young\nathlete, turned upon the old Six Points politician and said: \"Any one\nwho hissed at the Queen's name would have to reckon with him\"--meaning\nthat he would knock him down, or put him out of the meeting. If, at a\nChartist meeting, one athletic leader had similarly threatened an old\ngrey-headed Royalist who hissed some Republican name, it would have been\ndescribed, in all respectable papers, as \"a ruffianly proceeding.\" The\nHughes incident showed Christian Socialist sympathy with Chartism was\nnot of an enthusiastic character. At other times Mr. Hughes had nobler\nmoods, but he, like Kingsley, had few qualifications for delineating\nChartists.\n\nJudge Hughes, like Canon Kingsley and his Christian Socialist\ncolleagues, saw everything in the light of Theology. He saw nothing else\nby itself. He relates \"the appearance of a little grey, shrivelled man\nat the grave of Mr. Maurice at the cemetery at Hampstead, one of the\nstaff of the leading Chartist newspaper,\" as a proof of his conversion.\nThis was gratitude, not conversion. Had I not been at the Bolton\nCo-operative Congress at the time, I should have been at the same grave.\nWhen the news came of Maurice's death, it did not occur to his friend,\nMr. Neale, that the Congress would pass a resolution in honour of\nMaurice. I suggested it to him, and he said to me, \"You had better draw\nup the resolution,\" which I did, and moved it. It was unanimously and\ngratefully passed. Though I was foremost to express the respect of\nworking men, and the sense of obligation they were under, for Maurice's\ngreat services to Co-operation, and his establishment of the Working\nMen's College, it did not imply that I had come to accept the\nThirty-nine Articles. Relevant appreciation, real gratitude, and\nadmiration, do not imply coincidence of opinion on other and alien\nquestions.\n\nHow little the creator of Alton Locke was a Chartist, or a sympathiser\nwith Chartism, was seen when he described \"Mr. Julian Harney and Feargus\nO'Connor and the rest of the smoke of the pit.\" Kingsley said \"his only\nquarrel with the Charter was that it did not go far enough.\" All his\nmeaning was that it should have comprised social, instead of political\nreform, which was what all who were opposed to political freedom said.\nThis only meant that he wanted Chartists to take up social, and drop\npolitical reform. This appears in the passage in which he said, \"The\nCharter disappointed me bitterly when I read it. It seemed a harmless\ncry enough, but a poor, bald, constitution-mongering cry as ever I\nheard. The French cry of organisation of labour is worth a thousand of\nit.\"* Organisation of labour is a great thing, but it is not political\nequality or liberty. Kingsley's Chartist had no political soul.\n\nThere is noble sympathy with labour, and there are passages which should\nalways be read with honour in \"Alton Locke.\" But the book is written in\nderision of Chartism and Liberal politics. Alton Locke himself was like\nhis creator. Kingsley's acts were the acts of a friend, his arguments\nthe arguments of an enemy; and Alton Locke, despite the noble personal\nqualities with which he is endowed, was a confused political traitor,\nwho bartered the Kingdom of Man for the Kingdom of Heaven, when he might\nhave stood by both.\n\n     * Prefatory Memoir, by T. Hughes, p. 16.\n\nSo much for the Church Chartist. Now turn to the Positivist Chartist,\nand see whether there be any backbone of political emancipation in\nhim, or whether his vertebra is of jelly, like Alton Locke's. To the\nPositivist Chartist is given the stronger name of \"Radical.\"\n\nOne of the remarkable volumes George Eliot gave to the world bears the\nname of \"Felix Holt, the Radical.\" But when she comes to delineate the\nRadical, he turns out to be a Positivist--of good quality of his kind,\nbut still not a Radical.\n\nAs Canon Kingsley drew the Church Chartist, so George Eliot drew the\nPositivist Radical. Neither drew the selected hero as he was, but as\neach thought he ought to be.\n\nA Radical is one who goes to the root of things. He deals with evils\nhaving a political origin, which he intends to remove by political\nmeans. Radicals were far older than the Chartists. Radicalism was a\nforce in reform before Chartism began. The Radical more or less evolves\nhis creed by observation of the condition of things surrounding him; the\nChartist had his creed ready made for him. The Chartist may be said to\nbegin with political effects, the Radical with political causes. Anyhow,\nthe Radical was always supposed to know what he was, and why he was\nwhat he was. Felix Holt was not built that way. George Eliot had greater\npower of penetrating into character than Kingsley, but she made the same\nmistake in Felix Holt that Kingsley made in Alton Locke. Felix Holt is\na revolutionist from indignation. His social insurgency is based on\nresentment at injustice. Very noble is that form of dissatisfaction,\nbut political independence is not his inspiration. Freedom, equality\nof public rights, are not in his mind. His disquiet is not owing to\nthe political inability of his fellows to control their own fortunes.\nContent comes to Felix when the compassion of others ameliorates or\nextinguishes the social evils from which his fellows suffer. He is\nthe Chartist of Positivism without a throb of indignation at political\nsubjection. That may be Positivism, but it is not Radicalism.\n\nFelix Holt discloses his character in his remark that \"the Radical\nquestion was how to give every man a man's share in life. But I think\nthat is to expect voting to do more towards it than I do.\"\n\n\"A man's share in life\" was the Baboeuf doctrine of Communism, which\nEnglish Radicals never had. Holt's depreciation of the power of voting\nwas the argument of the benevolent but beguiling Tory. It was part\nof the Carlylean contempt of a ten-thousandth part of a voice in the\n\"national palava.\" This meant distrust, not only of the suffrage, but of\nParliament itself. When both are gone, despotism becomes supreme. When\nFelix Holt talked so, he had ceased to be a Radical--if he ever was one.\n\nThe power of voting has changed the status and dignity of working\nmen--not much yet, but more will come. Hampered and incomplete as the\nsuffrage is, it has put the workers on the way to obtain what they want,\nthough they are a little puzzled which turning to take now they are on\nthe road.\n\nFelix Holt continues: \"I want the working men to have power.... and I\ncan see plainly enough that our all having power will do little towards\nit at present.... If we have false expectations about men's characters,\nwe are very much like the idiot who thinks he can carry milk in a can\nwithout a bottom. In my opinion the notions about what mere voting will\ndo, are very much that sort\" Felix declares that all the \"scheme about\nvoting and districts and annual parliaments [all points of the Charter]\nwill not give working men what they want.\"*\n\n     * See \"Felix Holt, the Radical,\" vol i. pp. 265-266,\n     Blackwood's edition of George Eliot\n\nFelix has much more to say in disparagement of political aspiration\nwhich is like reading one of Lord Salisbury's speeches when he was Lord\nCranborne, but without the bitterness and contempt by which we knew the\ngenuine Salisbury mind. The Eliot spirit is better--the argument more\nsympathetic, but the purport is the same. It means: \"Leave politics\nalone. You will find all the redress that is good for you elsewhere.\"\n\nThis, if true, is not Radicalism which sought to help itself, and not\nrise by compassion. Radicals may have expected too much from political\nreform--they may have thought political power to be an end instead of a\nmeans whereby better public conditions can be obtained, by which social\neffort could better be compassed, and its projects carried out. It\nis true that social condition can be improved by men of purpose and\ncharacter under despotism, but this does not prove that despotism is\ndesirable, since it can make itself at will an effectual obstacle\nto progress, and as a rule does so. The policy of seeking the best\npolitical condition in which social progress can be made, is Radicalism.\nThe policy of contentment with things as they are, seeking social\ncondition apart from politics, is Socialism, as it has been understood\nin England. \"Felix Holt,\" like \"Alton Locke,\" abounds in noble\nsentiments, exalts the character of working men, vindicates their social\nclaims with eloquence. But Felix Holt was no more a Radical than Alton\nLocke was a Chartist. Alton Locke is against Chartism. Felix Holt is\nagainst Radicalism. Sir Leslie Stephen has written the most fascinating\nestimate of the writings and genius of George Eliot that has been\nproduced. He has interesting things to say of Felix Holt, but it does\nnot occur to him to say what he was so well able to say, whether he\nwas a Radical or not--or if one, of what species. Therefore it has been\nnecessary to place before the reader the evidence which will enable him\nto decide the question for himself.\n\nIn reference to this chapter, Mr. J. M. Ludlow wrote to me, saying:\n\n[\"That you above all men should find fault with Kingsley or any one else\nfor setting social above political reform, I own, amazes me. But it is\nnot true in any sense of the words that Kingsley wanted Chartists to\n'take up social and drop political reform.' In his first letter to\nThomas Cooper (Life, vol. i. p. 182), he expressly says: 'I would shed\nthe last drop of my blood for the social and _political_ emancipation\nof the people.' [The italics are mine.] Again, you misquote General\nMaurice's (not Mr. Maurice's) words, when you say that 'Maurice owned\nthat his object was not to socialise society, but to Christianise\nSocialism.' General Maurice's words are: 'Beyond all doubt he dreaded\nbecoming the head of a _party_ of Christian Socialists. His great wish\nwas to Christianise Socialism, not to Christian-socialise the universe'\n(Life, vol. ii. p. 47).\n\n\"Your story about the 'old grey-headed Chartist' and T. Hughes does not\ntally altogether with the statement in Mr. Maurice's Life (vol. ii. p.\n13), but as I do not recollect being present (nor, I believe, were you)\non the occasion, I cannot say which is right. I should have thought that\nan 'old greyheaded Chartist' would have had more courtesy as well as\nmore sense than to hiss the Queen.\"\n\nMr. Ludlow's letter throws a flood of light on the mistakes of Canon\nKingsley and his colleagues. Mr. Ludlow \"is amazed that I above all men\nshould blame any man for setting social above political reform.\" It is\nnow some fifty years since Mr. Ludlow first did me the honour to notice\nwhat I wrote or said. Yet I think he never knew me to subordinate\npolitical to social reform. I always thought it base to teach men to\nbarter political freedom for social benefits. The leaders of early\nco-operation in the days before Mr. Ludlow knew it--being like Robert\nOwen, mostly of a Tory way of thinking--deprecated political reform,\nand thought its pursuit unnecessary, as their social remedy would do\neverything for the people. I always dissented from this doctrine and\nresented it, as the politician, if you do not watch him, will come some\nday and throw the savings of a century into a sea of imperial blood. Mr.\nLudlow quotes a letter from Kingsley to Thomas Cooper, in which he says\nhe \"would shed the last drop of his blood for the social and political\nemancipation of the people.\" What! for the \"smoke of the pit\"? as he\ndescribed the agitation for the Charter. What! \"shed his blood\" for a\n\"Morrison pill measure\"--shed the last drop of his blood\" for a poor,\nbald, constitution-mongering cry as ever he heard\"? I agree that this is\nextraordinary political enthusiasm. Still it was no proof that Kingsley\nwas a Chartist, and that was my point. General Maurice's version of his\nfather's saying that \"his object was not to socialise society,\" shows\nthat Maurice cared no more for Socialism (which at that time meant\nco-operative communism) than Kingsley cared for Chartism. Both meant\nwell to the people in a theological--not a political way. The old\ngrey-headed Chartist hissed the Queen's office, not herself. Republicans\never made that distinction.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. THE OLD POSTILLION\n\nBesides Church Chartists and Positivist Chartists, there were Tory\nChartists, of whom I add an account, and a list of those among them who\nwere paid in the days of their hired activity. But the business of this\nchapter is with the Old Postillion, the founder of the real Chartists,\nwho taught them and who knew them all.\n\nOf course I mean Francis Place, who was always ready to mount and drive\nthe coach of the leaders of the people. Though he took that modest and\nuseful position, it was he who determined the route, made the map of\nthe country, and fixed the destination of the journey. Joseph Parkes\nhimself, known as \"The People's Attorney-General,\" first addressed Place\nas the \"Old Postillion.\"* James Watson, a working-class politician (whom\nPlace could always trust), wrote of him at his death as the \"English\nFranklin,\"** a very good title, having regard to the strength of the\ncommon-sense characteristics of Place.\n\n     *Wallas's \"Life of Place,\" p. 346. Longmans, Green & Co., 1898.\n\n     **Reasoner, No. 409, vol. xvi., March 28 1854.\n\nOne advantage (there were not many) of my imprisonment which I have\nnever ceased to value, was that it led to my acquaintance with Place.\nFrom him I learned many things of great use to me in after life.\nOne thing he said to me was: \"A man who is always running after his\ncharacter seldom has a character worth the chase.\" Some far-seeing\nqualification was generally present in what he said. For a man who is\n\"always\" vindicating himself becomes tiresome and ineffectual. Yet\nnow and then, sooner or later, and often better later then sooner, a\npersonal explanation may be useful. Printed actionable imputations\nwere made against Cobbett of which no notice was taken--so far as I\nknew--which created in many minds an ineffaceable personal prejudice\nagainst him.\n\nOnce imputations were published concerning me which justified\ncontradiction. It came to pass that they were certified as true by\na person of mark. Then I proposed to show that the allegations were\nuntrue. Whereupon I was assured it would be to my disadvantage with\nmany with whom I stood well, which meant that should I prove I was not\na rascal I should lose many of my best friends, which shows the curious\nperplexities of personal explanation. Nevertheless, I made it.* Mr.\nPlace told me that in the course of his career as defender of the\npeople, \"he had been charged with every crime known to the Newgate\nCalendar save wilful murder.\" A needless reservation, for that would\nhave been believed. He let them pass, merely keeping a record of the\naccusations to see if their variety included any originality. There was\none charge brought against him which to this day prejudices many against\nhim. The one thought to be most overwhelming was that he was a \"tailor\"\nat Charing Cross. After that, argument against the principles he\nmaintained was deemed superfluous; as though following a trade of\nutility disqualified a man's opinions on public affairs; while one who\ndid nothing, and whose life and ideas were useless to mankind, might be\nlistened to with deference.\n\n     *\"Warpath of Opinion.\"\n\nIn 1849 _Chambers's Journal_ published an article on the \"Reaction of\nPhilanthropy,\" against which I made vehement objection in an article in\nthe _Spirit of the Age_, of which _Chambers's Journal_ took, for them,\nthe unusual course of replying. The _Spirit of the Age_ coming under\nPlace's notice, he sent me the following letter, which I cite exactly as\nit was expressed, in his quaint, vigorous and candid way:--\n\n\"Brompton Square,\n\n\"March 3, 1849.\n\n\"Master Holyoake,--I have read your paper of observations on a paper\nwritten by Chambers, and dislike it very much. You assume an evil\ndisposition in Chambers, and have laid yourself open to the same\nimputation. This dispute now consists of three of us, you and I and\nChambers--all three of us, in vulgar parlance, being philanthropists. I\nhave not read Chambers, but expect to find, from what you have said and\nquoted, that he, like yourself, has been led by his feelings, and not by\nhis understanding, and has therefore written a mischievous paper. I will\nread this paper and decide for myself. Knowledge is not wisdom. The most\nconspicuous proof of this is the conduct of Lord Brougham. He knows\nmany things, more, indeed, than most men, but is altogether incapable\nof combining all that relates to any one case, i.e., understanding it\nthoroughly, and he therefore never exhausts any subject, as a man of a\nmore enlarged understanding would do. This, too, is your case. I think I\nmay say that not any one of your reasonings is as perfect as it ought to\nbe, and if I were in a condition to do so, I would make this quite plain\nto you by carrying out your defective _notions_--reasonings, if you like\nthe term better.\n\n\"It will, I am sure, be admitted, at least as far as your thinking can\ngo, that neither yourself, nor Chambers, nor myself, would intentionally\nwrite a word for the purpose of misleading, much less injuring the\nworking people; yet your paper must, as far as it may be known to them,\nnot only have that tendency, but a much worse one; that of depraving\nthem, by teaching them, in their public capacity, to seek revenge, to\nan extent which, could it pervade the whole mass, must lead to slaughter\namong the human race--the beasts of prey called mankind; for such they\nhave ever been since they have had existence, and such as they must\nremain for an indefinite time, if not for ever. Their ever being\nanything else is with me a forlorn hope, while yet, as I can do no\nbetter, I continue in my course of life to act as if I really had a\nstrong hope of immense improvement for the good of all.--Yours, really\nand truly,\n\n\"Francis Place.\"\n\nThere was value in Mr. Place's friendship. He was able to measure the\nminds of those with whom he came in contact, and for those for whom he\ncared he would do the service of showing to them the limits within which\nthey were working. It was thus he took trouble to be useful to those who\ncould never requite him, by putting strong, wise thoughts before them.\n\nElsewhere* I have related how Place on one occasion--when all London was\nexcited, and the Duke of Wellington indignant and repellant--went on a\ndeputation to him, and was dismissed with the ominous words:\n\n    *\"Sixty Years,\" vol. i. chap. 40.\n\n\"You seem to have heads on your shoulders; take care you keep them\nthere.\" The courage of seeking this interview, at which Place was the\nchief speaker, is well shown in the experience of George Petrie, who\nwas known to Place. Petrie was an intelligent soldier, who served\nunder Wellington in the Peninsular War, and was wounded in several\nengagements. It often happened that the commissary was in arrears to the\ntroops with their rations, but when the supply arrived the arrears were\nfaithfully served out to the soldiers. On one of these occasions, when\nsome days' rations were due, Corporal Petrie was absent on duty when the\nrations were served out, and on his return he found himself without his\narrears. To a half-starved soldier this was a serious disappointment,\nand Petrie applied to the quartermaster, to the adjutant, and to the\ncaptain of his company, but without effect, until he arrived at the\ncommanding officer of his regiment Being as unsuccessful as he had been\nwith the other officers, and becoming hungrier by delay, he requested\npermission to make his complaint to the Commander-in-Chief (Lord\nWellington), which was granted. Upon being introduced he found his\nlordship seated at a table perusing some documents. \"Well,\" said the\nCommander, without raising his eyes from the papers before him, \"what\ndoes this man want?\" \"He is come to appeal to your lordship about\nhis rations,\" replied the officer in attendance; whereupon the\nCommander-in-Chief, without asking or permitting a single word of\nexplanation from the injured soldier, without discovering (as he ought\nin common justice to have done) whether the soldier had a real grievance\nfor the redress of which he had sought the protection of the head of the\narmy, Wellington hurriedly exclaimed, \"Take the fellow away and give him\na d----d good flogging!\" Petrie, naturally indignant and a determined\nman, lay in wait two nights to shoot Wellington, who escaped by taking\none night a different route, and on another being closely accompanied by\nhis staff. The facts were published in 1836. Petrie's appeal shows\nthat the Duke was not a pleasant person for Mr. Place to call upon. No\nbiography or book about Wellington has anything to say of his sympathy\nwith men who died in making his fame. He took the same care of his men,\nand no more, that he did of his muskets, which it must be owned is more\nthan many employers do, who take more care of their machinery than of\nthe workers. Wellington kept his men dry, but he had no more feeling for\nthem than he had for their carbines. Petrie's story will be instructive\nto men who shout for war without knowing what the soldier's fate is.\nThey were told by Tennyson \"not to ask the reason why.\" Their business\nis to die without inquiring whether they are murderers or patriots, or\nwhat treatment will befall them in the ranks. If they do they may expect\nsome form of the Petrie treatment.\n\nTo Place, the experience of social reformers was as valuable as that\nof politicians. Social life gives its character to public life, and the\npolitician is most to be valued whose measures tend to exalt the\ndaily life of the people. Near the end of his days Place addressed\nthe following (his last) letter to Robert Owen, with whom he had been\nacquainted since 1813:--\n\n\"21, Brompton Square,\n\n\"March 26, 1847.\n\n\"Dear Owen,--It is some years since you and I had a conversation, and it\nis time we had one. Will you call upon me, or shall I call upon you? I\ngo out but little, having an asthmatic complaint, which at times treats\nme sadly, and from which I am never wholly free. Worst of all, I have\nan affection of the brain, which will not permit me either to read or\nwrite, and when these two complaints co-operate I am something worse\nthan good for nothing. You are, I conclude, in a much better state than\nI am, although you are not much younger, yet the doctors tell me that\nafter having lived through seventy years without illness, I have\nnothing to complain of in the usual circumstances of old age now that I\napproximate to eighty.--\n\n\"Yours truly,\n\n\"Francis Place.\"\n\n\nFrom a condition of absolute penuriousness, he raised himself to the\nposition of master tailor, from which, at the age of forty-five, he\nwas able to retire upon an income of L1,1000. Shrewd, hard-headed,\npainstaking, vigilant and prudent as he was, he found, when more than\nsixty, that L650 of his income was irrevocably lost He had put a large\npart of his capital into house property, and left the investment of\nit to an incompetent or dishonest solicitor.* The fate befel him which\nafterwards befel Cobden, Thomas Bayley Potter, and some others.\n\nWhy did Place let his prudence sleep? Why, in his walks with Jeremy\nBentham,** did he not turn his steps to the sites of his investments,\nand judge for himself their value? His absorbed interest in public\naffairs is the only explanation. Yet he had often warned others that\nsuch engrossment, however honourable, should be limited, and not\nsuffered to endanger necessary personal security.\n\nOn the death of Place in 1854, at the age of eighty-two, the _Spectator_\nand the _Reasoner_ expressed a hope that a life of Place would be\nwritten as one of supreme utility to the great class which he had served\nso conspicuously.\n\nHappily this was done, forty-four years after, in 1898,*** by Mr. Graham\nWallas. When he mentioned to me his intention of writing a biography\nof Place, I told him where, in the Manuscript Department of the British\nMuseum, he would find virgin material in Place's own compact and\nclear hand. By research there and elsewhere, Mr. Wallas has produced\na valuable and remarkable book, of which there is no similar one so\ninstructive to a working-class politician.\n\n     * See Wallas's \"Life of Place,\" p. 329.\n\n     ** See \"Sixty Years,\" vol. i. p. 215.\n\n     *** \"Life of Francis Place,\" by Graham Wallas, M.A.\n     Longmans, Green & Co.\n\nThe most notable of all the insurgent publicists Place inspired and\ncounselled, Richard Carlile, an impassable defender of a Free Press,\nwhom pitiless power in the darkest days of its supremacy could not\nsubdue, thus wrote of Place: \"Though by circumstances (meaning those of\nnine years' imprisonment) separated from the immediate acquaintance of\nMr. Place for several years past, I can, by experience of eighteen\nand the well-founded report of forty years, pronounce him a prodigy\nof useful, resolute, consistent political exertion and indefatigable\nlabour, which evidently continues unabated to this day.... Francis\nPlace, by his assistant labours and advice given to the members of the\nHouse of Commons, has produced more effect in that House than any man\nwho was ever a member.\"*\n\n     * See article on the \"Real Nobility of the Human Character,\"\n     by A. P. (i.e., Richard Carlile) in the _Monthly Magazine_,\n     May 1835. p. 454.\n\nThis testimony from one who bore the heat and burden of the day with\nPlace, agrees with all recorded of him. Carlile wrote in 1835, and the\npublic work Place was engaged in then he continued until his death in\n1854, at which time he was chairman of the Committee for Repealing Taxes\non Knowledge. The Old Postillion was on the saddle to the last.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X. MEETING BREAKERS--LIST OF THOSE PAID FOR DOING IT\n\nThe enfranchisement of the working class, for which Place worked\nso unceasingly, could not come--in the ordinary course of things\nEnglish--until the middle class had succeeded in their contest with\ntheir feudal masters. By the possession of the vote in 1832, the middle\nclass became a rival power to the aristocracy; and that power would be\ngreatly augmented if the middle class should favour the extension of the\nfranchise to the working class, as many of them were naturally inclined\nto do. The Tory policy then was to sow animosity between the middle and\nthe working classes, which might prevent them acting together. Their\nmethod was to suggest that the middle class, having obtained what they\nwanted, cared nothing for the people, notwithstanding that Hume, Leader,\nRoebuck, Grote, Mill, Cobden, and Bright, were the great champions of\nthe franchise for the people, who incurred labour, peril, and obloquy\nfor them.\n\nTemple Leader said: \"Do not be too sure workmen will not turn against\nyou, do what you may for them. If sheep had votes they would give them\nall to the butcher\"--as we have seen them do in this generation. The\nTories had spite against the Whigs, who gave the people the first Reform\nBill. Disraeli began to denounce the Whigs, and he soon found ostensible\nleaders of the people to help. Chartist speakers were bribed to take up\nthe cry. The Irish in England, who thought their chances lay in English\ndifficulty, willingly preached distrust of the middle class, and their\neloquent tongues gave them ascendency among the Chartists, many of\nwhom honestly believed that spite was a mode of progress, and under the\nimpression that passion was patriotism, they took money to express it.\nThe Liberal portion of the middle class had long contributed to the\nsupport of workmen's political societies. But when they found their own\nmeetings broken up by Chartists, and their Tory adversaries aided at\nelections, their subscriptions decreased, and a new charge of hostility\nto the working class was founded on that.\n\nThis chapter is a statement, not a plea. Considering the superior\ninformation and means of the middle class, they have not shown\nthemselves so solicitous for the political claims of Labour as they\nought--having regard to their own interests alone. Nor have the Labour\nclass shown that regard for the rights of the middle class, by which\nLabour could have furthered its own advantages. Friendliness between\nthem is the interest of both.\n\nWho would have thought that if you scratched a Chartist you would find\na Tory agent under his skin? Yet so it proved with many of them. George\nJulian Harney was a Republican. In early Chartist days he wore on\nWinlaton platforms a Red Cap of Liberty, after the manner of Marat,\nand called himself \"L'Ami du Peuple,\" after Marat's famous \"Journal of\nBlood.\" Yet he was not the Friend of the People, in the sense we all\nthought. He went to America with the reputation of a fiery patriot. It\nprocured for him a welcome from the Liberals of Boston, and he was given\na clerkship in the State House soon after his arrival. He might have\ngrown grey in England before a place would have been given him in any\nGovernment department here.* To my astonishment Harney soon began to\nwrite home disparagements of the American people and their Government,\nsuch as we were familiar with from aristocratic pens. When the Bulgarian\nmassacres were stirring the indignation of English Liberals, he sent\nme a pamphlet he had written, in the spirit of Disraeli's \"Coffee House\nBabble\" speech. I wrote to him, saying \"it read like the production of\na full-blown Tory.\" He resented the imputation--when all the time it was\ntrue. He had cast off his Liberal garments, and was naked, and ashamed.\nAfterwards he cast off the shame. When I was in Boston, in 1879,\nAmerican Liberals expressed to me their disappointment that Mr. Harney\nneither associated with them nor lent them any assistance in their\nsocieties, such as they had expected when they welcomed him to their\nshores. Yet to the end of his days I remained his personal friend, in\nconsideration of services in agitations in which we had worked together.\nI had helped him when he issued _The Republic_ and had written words in\nhonour of his first wife, a Mauchline beauty of the Amazon type, whose\nheroism was notable. In times of danger she would say to her husband,\n\"Do what you think to be your duty, and never mind me.\"\n\n     * Sam Bamford, who wrote the \"Pass of Death,\" when Canning\n     died, was old before we accorded him a seat in a cellar in\n     Somerset House, copying papers at a few shillings a week. It\n     was all his Parliamentary friends could procure for him.\n\nI first knew Harney at the time of the Bull Ring Riots in Birmingham in\n1839. He was \"wanted\" by the authorities. I alone knew where he lodged.\nHe knew he was safe in my hands, and we never ceased to trust each\nother. I never change my friendship for a colleague because he changes\nhis opinions; but I never carry my friendship so far as to change my\nconvictions for his.\n\nHappily it is now thought a scandal to say that Chartist politicians\ntook money from Tories to break up Liberal meetings. This shows there\nis a feeling against it. But they did take it Thomas Cooper, as well\nas Ernest Jones, the two poets of Chartism, were themselves in this\ndisastrous business.\n\nWhen Thomas Cooper came to London he went, as most Chartists of note\ndid, to see Francis Place. After some conversation Place asked, \"Why\ndid you take money to prevent Liberal meetings being held?\" Cooper\nvehemently denied it. Place then showed him a cheque which Sir Thomas\nEasthope, the banker, had cashed for him. Place said, \"You had L109,\nso much in gold, so much in silver, and so much in copper, for the\nconvenience of paying minor patriots.\" Years after Cooper in his Life\nexpressed regret that he had denied receiving Tory money.\n\nMr. Bright, in the House of Commons, June 5th, 1846, told the honourable\nmember, Mr. Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, that those parties with whom he\nwas found at public meetings out of doors had been the greatest enemies\nof the repeal of the Corn Laws. (Cries of \"Name!\")\n\nIn answer to the cries of \"Name\" (says a leading article of the _League_\nnewspaper), we will mention a few only of the most prominent and active\nof these:--Feargus O'Connor, Leach, McDowall, Pitkeithly, Nightingale,\nO'Brien, Marsden, Bairstow, Cooper, Harney--some of whom, to our\nknowledge, and as we are ready to prove, were well paid for their\nopposition to the Free Traders. Nor would it be difficult to show\nwhere the money came from. Let one fact suffice. In June, 1841, on\nthe occasion of a great open-air Anti-Corn Law meeting being held in\nStevenson Square, Manchester (in answer to the taunt of the Duke of\nRichmond that no public meeting could be held against the Corn Laws),\nthe monopolists made a great effort to upset the meeting. Every Chartist\nleader of any notoriety was brought to Manchester from places as distant\nas Leicester and Sunderland. The most prominent leader and fugleman of\nthe opposition was Mr. Charles Wilkins, Dr. Sleigh and he moving and\nseconding the amendment to the Free Trade resolution. On that very\nmorning Mr. Wilkins cashed a cheque for L150, drawn by the Duke of\nBuckingham at Jones and Lloyd's Bank. At that meeting of 10,000 working\nmen the Chartists were driven off the ground. Blows being exchanged\nand blood spilt in the fray, the aim of the Chartist party to create\nconfusion was so far gained; and the moral effect of the demonstration\nwas effectually marred. For more than three years at the beginning\nof the agitation every public meeting called by the Free Traders was\nsubjected to outrages of a similar kind by the followers of O'Connor.*\n\n     * The _League_ newspaper, No. 142, vol. iii. p. 625.\n\nA short time ago Mr. Chamberlain made a point of declaring that the\nworking classes were against Free Trade in Cobden's days. The only\nportion of the working class known to oppose Free Trade were the\nChartists. Why they did so, Mr. Chamberlain ought to know. If he does\nnot, he may learn the reason in these pages. The list of the payments\nmade to them was published, when it could have been contradicted if\nuntrue. But no disproof was ever attempted. Even \"Honest Tom Duncombe,\"\nas the Chartists affectionately called him, was known to be in the pay\nof the French Emperor, of sinister renown, as documents found in the\nTuileries showed. The Chartists, who became the hired agents of Tory\nhostility, did more to delay and discredit the Charter and to create\ndistrust of the cause of Labour than all outside enemies put together.\n\nThose who censure the middle class for indifference to the Parliamentary\nclaims of Labour, should bear in mind the provocation they received.\nTheir meetings were frustrated for years after the Anti-Corn Law\nagitation was ended.\n\nIn the light of what we know it seems hypocrisy in the Tories to speak\nof Chartists with the horror and disdain which they displayed, when all\nthe while the Chartists were doing their work. It seems also ingratitude\nthat when questions were raised in Parliament of mitigating the\ncondition of Chartist prisoners, the Tories never raised a single voice\nin their favour.\n\nWe know there were Tory Chartists, because they took money from the\nTories to promote their interests. We know it also by the sign that\nwhile they denounced the Whigs they were always silent about the Tories.\nNow the Whigs are practically dropped and Liberals are denounced, there\nis the same tell-tale silence as to the Tories. Now we see a party\narise so virtuous, philosophic and impartial that no party suits their\nfastidious taste, and they will have nothing to do with Liberals or\nTories. When they speak, Liberals are referred to as very unsatisfactory\npersons, but no objections are made to Tories. The reticence is still\ninstructive.\n\nSo be it. In art, every man to his taste; in politics, every man\naccording to his conscience. I only describe species. There is a science\nof political horticulture, and it is only by knowing the nature of the\nplant that any one can tell what flower or fruit to expect. Yet\nthere are politicians who go mooning about looking for nectarines on\ncrab-apple trees. The Old Postillion made no such mistake.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI. TROUBLE WITH HER MAJESTY\n\n\nI.\n\nReferences are continually made in the Press to certain events recorded\nin this chapter founded upon statements made by myself, but lacking\ndetails and without the official substantiating documents. The original\nsummonses and other legal instruments were preserved, and copies of\nthem are given herein. Reports only would be incredible to the new\ngeneration, and it is necessary to publish them to give authenticity to\nthe narrative of what really took place.\n\nIt seems better to say \"Trouble with Her Majesty\" than Trouble with\nthe Queen, \"Majesty\" being more official than personal. The three\nindictments to be recorded in this narrative all took place in the\nVictorian reign. It seems a disadvantage of the monarchical system that\nthe name of the head of the reigning House should be attached to all\nproceedings, great or petty, noble or mean, honourable or infamous. It\nassumes the personal cognisance and interference in everything by the\noccupant of the Throne. It is the same in the theological system, where\nthe Deity is assumed to personally cause or permit whatever takes place\nin this inexplicable universe. If the glory of the mountain be his, the\ndevastation of the inhabitants of the valley by a volcano is also his\nact. The Church is beginning, not too soon, to discourage this theory.\nThe curate rescued from a wreck who reported to Archbishop Whately that\nhe had been \"providentially\" saved, was asked by the logical prelate,\n\"Do you intend to say that the lost have been 'providentially' drowned?\"\nThus blasphemy is made one of the wings of religion--just as sedition\nbecomes a wing of loyalty, when discreditable incidents are represented\nas the personal acts of the Crown. Lawyers know that the King or\nQueen is not directly answerable, but by acute legal fiction, odious\nresponsibility is transferred to others. But the people always think\nthat he or she, in whose name a thing is done, is answerable for it,\nand theologians all teach that everything, even rascality, occurs by the\nwill of God.\n\nReferences to my indebtedness to the Exchequer of L600,000 of fines\nincurred by publishing unstamped newspapers, seem to readers of to-day a\nfactless tradition. This is not so, as will appear from the warrants and\nnotices of prosecution which follow, copied from the original documents\nin my possession, which have never until now been published.\n\nEarly in 1855, I received the following message from Her Majesty, in the\n18th year of her reign:--\n\n\"Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain\nand Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, to George Jacob Holyoake,\ngreeting. We command and strictly injoin you that (all excuses apart)\nyou appear before the Barons of our Exchequer at Westminster, on the\nthirty-first day of January instant, To answer us concerning certain\nArticles then and there on our behalf to be objected against you. And\nthis in no wise omit under the penalty of One Hundred Pounds, which we\nshall cause to be levied to our use upon your Goods and Chattels, Lands\nand Tenements, if you neglect this our present command. Witness, Sir\nFrederick Pollock, Knight, at Westminster, the eleventh day of January,\nin the eighteenth Year of our Reign.\n\n\"By the Barons.\n\n\"H. W. Vincent, Q.R.\"\n\nMr. George Jacob Holyoake,--You are served with this Process to the\nintent that you may by your Attorney, according to the practice of the\nCourt, appear in Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer, at the return thereof\nin order to your defence in this prosecution.\n\n\"Mr. George Jacob Holyoake.\n\n\"At the suit of Her Majesty's Attorney-General,\n\n\"By Information.\n\n\"Folio 9--1855.\n\n\"Joseph Timm,\" Solicitor of the Inland Revenue,\n\n\"Somerset House, London.\n\n\"Folio 9--55-\n\n\"Inland Revenue, Somerset House.\n\n\"Solicitors' Department.\n\n\"The Attorney-General against George Jacob Holyoake.\n\n\"The penalties sought to be recovered by this prosecution are several of\nL20 each, which the defendant has incurred by publishing certain\nnewspapers called _War Chronicle_ and _The War Fly Sheet_ on unstamped\npaper.\"\n\n\nAs I had published 30,000 copies, the penalties incurred were L600,000.\n\nThese alarming documents were accompanied by intimation as to the\nquestion at issue, and the penalties to be recovered. My solicitors,\nMessrs. Ashurst, Waller and Morris, No. 6, Old Jewry, put in an\nappearance for me, but on the repeal of the duty shortly after,\na hearing was never entered upon, and the penalties have not been\ncollected. How they came to be incurred in respect of the _War\nChronicles_ the reader may see in \"Sixty Years,\" vol. i. p. 287.\n\nNo intimation was ever given to me--there is no courtesy, I believe, in\nlaw--that these intimidating summonses were withdrawn. I had no defence\nagainst the charge. I could not deny, nor did I intend to deny, that I\nhad knowingly and wilfully published the said papers. In justification\nI could only allege that I had acted, as I believed, in the public\ninterest, which, I was told, was no legal answer. The law, which ought\nto be clear and plain, was, I knew, full of quirks and surprises; and,\nfor all I knew, or know to this day, the payment of the fines incurred\nmight be demanded of me. It was communicated to the then Chancellor of\nthe Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone) that in case of the full demand being made\nupon me, I should be under the necessity of asking him to take it in\nweekly instalments, as I had not the whole amount by me.\n\nThe position of an \"unstamped\" debtor was not, in those days, a light\none. My house in Fleet Street could be entered by officers of the Inland\nRevenue; every person in it, printers, assistants in the shop, and any\none found upon the premises could be arrested. The stock of books could\nbe seized, and blacksmiths set to break up all presses and destroy all\ntype, as was done to Henry Hetherington; and for many weeks I made\ndaily preparations for arrest.\n\nThe _St. James's Gazette_ (April 13, 1901) referred to the fines of\nL600,000 incurred by me. What I really owed was a much larger sum,\nhad the Government been exacting. Previously to the _War Chronicle_\nliability, I had published the _Reasoner_ twelve years, of which the\naverage number issued may have exceeded 2,000 weekly, or 104,000 a\nyear--every copy of which, containing news and being unstamped, rendered\nme liable to a fine of L20 each copy. Now 104,000 x 12 x L20 exceeded\nmore millions of indebtedness than I like to set down. Any arithmetical\nreader can ascertain the amount for himself. A friend in the Inland\nRevenue Office first made the calculation for me, which astonished me\nvery much, as it did him. Had the whole sum been recoverable it might\nhave saved the Budget of a Chancellor of the Exchequer struggling with a\ndeficit.\n\nThe Government were frequently asked to prosecute me. It was not from\nany tenderness to me that they did not. It was their reluctance to give\npublicity to the _Reasoner_ that caused them to refrain. It was the\nadvocacy of unusual opinion which gave me this immunity.\n\nThe _St. James's Gazette_ asked me: \"Is it justifiable for a good\ncitizen to break a law because he believes it to be wrong?\" I answered\n\"No! unless the public good seems to require it, and that he who breaks\nthe law is prepared to take the consequences.\" I never evaded the\nconsequences, nor complained of them when they came.\n\nIf every one who breaks a law first satisfies himself that public\ninterest justifies it, and he is ready to meet the penalty, only bad\nlaws would be broken. It is also the duty of a citizen to find out\nwhether there is any practical way open for procuring the repeal of\na bad law before breaking it. Respect for law, under representative\ngovernment, in which the law-breaker has a share, is a cardinal duty of\na citizen.\n\nOn my violation of the law in the matter of the _War Chronicles_ Mr.\nGladstone (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said to a deputation, that\nhe knew \"my object was not to break the law, but to try the law.\"\n\nThe impulsive and the ambitious of repute may overlook this\nconsideration, but as I sought neither distinction nor martyrdom, I\nacted as I did because no other course was open, and no other person\nwould take this.\n\n\nII.\n\nIn the year following the prosecution in the Court of Exchequer, Her\nMajesty gave me further trouble in discharge of the odious duty imposed\nupon her as collector of debts for the Church. As few know to-day how\nhateful this impost was, it will be informing to see how the clerical\ncase was officially stated to me. It began as follows:--\n\n\"Mr. George Jacob Holyoake,--Take Notice that in and by certain Rates or\nAssessments made by virtue of and for the purposes mentioned in the Act\nof Parliament passed in the 4th Year of the Reign of her late Majesty\nQueen Ann, Cap. 27, intituled, 'An Act for settling the Impropriate\nTythes of the Parish of Saint Bridgett, alias Bride's, London,' You are\nassessed in respect of the Houses, Shops, Warehouses, Cellars, Stables,\nTofts, Grounds, or other Tenements or Hereditaments, within the said\nParish occupied by you, in four several Sums amounting to One pound four\nshillings and eightpence for four several Quarters of a Year commencing\nat the Feast of The Birth of our Lord Christ, 1854, and ending at the\nsame Feast in the Year 1855, and that such assessments are made on a\nRental of L74. Dated this 22nd day of May, 1856.\n\n\"John William Thomas,\n\n\"Collector of the said Rates.\"\n\n\nThese ecclesiastical cormorants took a hungry survey of every place\ncontaining property on which they could lay hands. After the Rathcormac\nmassacre, where two sons of the widow Ryan were shot by the soldiers,\nemployed by the Church in collecting its rates--how appropriate and\nconsoling it must be to a bereaved mother to read that the rates\ncommenced to be due at \"The Feast of the Birth of our Lord Christ!\" Yet\nthere are people who go about promoting prosecutions for blasphemy, and\nwith a holy partiality leave untouched outrages like these. The summons\nsent to me speaks of the \"late Queen Ann,\" who had been dead 140 years.\nHer name being spelt \"Ann\" shows that she had been dead long enough to\nlose the final \"e\" of her name. The rent of the Fleet Street house was\nL74, L400 having been paid for the lease. Each time there came on\nthe scene the local agent of the Church, who delivered an interesting\nintimation as follows:--\n\n\"Mr. George Jacob Holyoake,--I do hereby demand payment of One pound\nfour shillings and eightpence, due from you for Rates made in pursuance\nof the Act of Parliament passed in the 4th Year of the Reign of her\nlate Majesty Queen Ann, Cap. 17, intituled, 'An Act for settling the\nImpropriate Tythes of the Parish of Saint Bridgett, alias Brides,\nLondon.' And take notice that unless the same be paid to me within Four\nDays next after the demand thereof hereby made, I shall Distrain your\nGoods and Chattels, and sell and dispose thereof, and out of the Monies\narising thereby pay the said Sum of Money, and the Costs allowed by the\nActs of Parliament in that case made and provided.\n\n\"Dated this 22nd day of May, 1856.\n\n\"John William Thomas,\n\n\"Collector of the said Rates.\"\n\n\nThe predatory Vicar of St. Bride's, for whose advantage the contemplated\nseizure was being made, remained in the background, praying for my soul\nwhile he picked my pocket, as I regarded his action.\n\nAfter two or three seizures of property, I sent to the vicar payment\n\"in kind\"--the form in which the payment of tithe was originally\ncontributed. The chief produce of my farm in Fleet Street consisted\nin volumes of the _Reasoner_. I sent the vicar three volumes, which\nexceeded in value his demand. He troubled me no more.\n\nThe last citation relates to a trial in which Lord Chief Justice\nColeridge was concerned, and Henry Thomas Buckle made a splendid defence\nof a poor well-sinker who was afraid of killing the world.\n\n\nIII.\n\n\nIn a Cornish village in 1857 small patch advertisements broke out like\nsmall-pox, of which the following is a copy:--\n\n\"BLASPHEMY.\n\n\"Any person who has seen a man writing Blasphemous sentences\non Gates or other places in the neighbourhood of Liskeard, is requested\nto communicate immediately with Messrs. Pedler and Grylls, Liskeard, or\nwith the Rev. R. Hobhouse, St. Ive Rectory.\"\n\nWhether the perturbed Rector of St Ive found out anything, or whether\nashamed, as he might well be, at being mixed up in so miserable a\nbusiness, he retired from it, and the Rev. Paul Bush appeared in his\nplace as a spiritual detective on the pounce, and a poor, eccentric\nwell-sinker, one Thomas Pooley, was accused of writing in chalk\nincoherent words in a hand only intelligible to the all-construing eyes\nof the policeman of the Church, who caused to be issued the following\nponderous summons in her Majesty's name:--\n\n\"To Thomas Pooley, of the Borough of Liskeard in the County of Cornwall,\nLabourer.\n\n\"Cornwall to wit, Whereas Information and Complaint (a) hath this day\nbeen laid before the undersigned, one of Her Majesty's Justices of the\nPeace in and (b) for the said County of Cornwall by The Reverend Paul\nBush of the Parish of Duloe, in the said County, for that you the said\nThomas Pooley on the twenty-second of May last at the Parish of Duloe,\nin the said County, did unlawfully and wilfully compose, write and\npublish a certain scandalous, impious, blasphemous and profane Libel of\nand concerning the Holy Scriptures and the Christian Religion, and for\nhaving blasphemously spoken against God and profanely scoffed at the\nHoly Scripture, and exposed it to contempt and ridicule, and also for\nhaving spoken against Christianity and the established religion.\n\n\"These are therefore to command you in Her Majesty's name, to be\nand appear on Wednesday the 1st day of July next at 10 o'clock in the\nForenoon, at Treean Gate in the Parish of Lanewath in the said County,\nbefore such said Justices of the Peace for the County as may then\nbe there, to answer to the said Information and Complaint, and to be\nfurther dealt with according to Law.\n\n\"Given under my hand and Seal this 27th day of June, in the year of\nour Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven, at Liskeard in the\nCounty aforesaid.\n\n\"James Glencross.\"\n\n\nNotes on the summons were:--\"(a) If upon Oath insert 'On Oath.' (b)\nErase the words in italic when summons is issued by Justice acting out\nof jurisdiction in which he resides.\"\n\nThere is more untruth and holy malevolence in this summons than Pooley\nwas ever known to be guilty of in all his life. Mr. Bush charges Mr.\nPooley with \"wilfully composing\" the words complained of. Everybody\nin the parish knew that he had not the mental coherence to \"compose\"\nanything. He had neither spoken against God--for he was a believer in\nHim--nor was he a preacher either in pulpit or on street corner. Nor\ndid he \"speak\" about God, except when he was being stripped in gaol. His\n\"scoffing against the Holy Scriptures\" merely meant that he was incensed\nagainst priests. The charge that he had published a \"scandalous,\nimpious, blasphemous, and profane libel\" was simply the reckless,\nfalse, professional language of the clergyman and lawyer who drew up\nthe summons, which would be counted unscrupulous and venomous in other\npersons. In this summons we have the same profanation of the Queen's\nname as we have already seen. How can a monarch expect his office or\ncharacter to be held in esteem who permits his or her name to be cited\nfor the purposes of any bigot who has spite in his heart and falsehood\non his lips? People cease to respect a monarch who has no respect for\nhimself.\n\nThere was more of the evil spirit of untruth in the charges in the\nsummons than in all Mr. Pooley's vague and honest anger. I went down to\nDuloe to see Mr. Bush, and found him residing in a spacious house, with\na pleasant outlook of roads and fields before it, while poor Pooley\nlived in wells. Why should one so well-placed as the Rev. Paul Bush\nconspire to procure twenty-one months' imprisonment for this friendless,\nhalf-demented parishioner? Very likely Mr. Bush was by nature a\nkind-hearted clergyman in whom theology generated--\n\n\"Words, Which turned the milk of kindness into curds.\"\n\nAt the trial Pooley, who was entirely undefended received a sentence\nof twenty-one months' imprisonment. The son of the judge, Sir John Duke\nColeridge, who prosecuted, said, \"It was not the prosecution of\nopinion in any sense, but society was to be protected from outrage and\nindecency.\" If so, six weeks' imprisonment was more than sufficient in a\ncase in which there was no wantonness and only half-insane conviction in\nit Mr. Thomas Henry Buckle, the famous historian of Civilisation, wrote\nin _Fraser_ an indignant and generous denunciation of the sentence, and\nthose concerned in it. It was the last great letter of a philosopher in\ndefence of the mental liberty of a poor man, and no equal to it appeared\nin the century. I published an account of Pooley's case, which Buckle\nsaw. Sir John Duke (who afterwards became Lord Chief Justice Coleridge)\nhad behaved, as prosecuting counsel, better than I knew, as I\nadmitted when I did know it. Still, the sentence (twenty-one months'\nimprisonment) will always stand on record as atrocious, apart from the\nirresponsible condition of the offender. The words said to be \"spoken,\"\nand which were made a count in his indictment, were mere exclamations,\nprovoked by the irritation of gaolers, which the prisoner had neither\nmeans nor intent of publishing. A barrister in court was struck by the\nsigns of insanity in Pooley, unnoticed by the preoccupied eyes of the\njudge and his son.\n\nPooley, as we have said, was a well-sinker, a tall, strongly-built man\nof honest aspect and of good courage and fidelity, who had descended\ninto a deep well and rescued his master from death. Though not a\nphilosopher, Pooley, like some who were, was a wild sort of Pantheist.\nHe thought this world to be an organism, and believed it to be alive;\nand such was the tenderness and reverence of his devotion that nothing\ncould persuade him to dig a well beyond a certain depth, lest he should\nwound the heart of the world.\n\nSome years later Lord Coleridge informed me that he did not press the\ncase against Pooley, and that he had no idea he was of uncertain mind,\nnor did his father suspect it. I thought it was impossible they could be\nunaware of it, as it was well known to all Liskeard. In justice to Lord\nColeridge's father, I ought to say, that when he subsequently became\naware of Pooley's condition of mind, he at once consented to his\nliberation, and Pooley was taken home, after four months' imprisonment,\nin the carriage of the governor of the gaol, who had sympathy for him.\nSir William Molesworth and Sir Erskine Perry were, after Mr. Buckle,\nthe chief instruments of his liberation. The facts I have related of the\nColeridges were not known to me when I first saw Mr. Buckle, who wrote\nupon the information I gave him. Pooley was a resolute man, who had\nself-respect and would not wear the prison dress. When it was put upon\nhim he tore it to shreds, and he was left naked in the dark cell in\nwhich he was confined. He would have been made quite mad had he not been\nreleased when he was.\n\n\nIV.\n\nThe last case in which I supply documentary evidence is that concerning\nthe limelight placed on the Clock Tower at Westminster. No member of\nParliament had thought of it, nor should I, had I not needed it for my\nown convenience. I was then secretary to Mr. (afterwards Sir) Joseph\nCowen. When he wished to take part in a division he would ask me to\nascertain whether the House was sitting. In those days there were two\nlamp-posts in Palace Yard with three lights each, which were kept in\nwhile the \"House was sitting,\" but when the \"House was up\" two of the\nlights were extinguished. There was no other sign, and I had often\nto ride from Redcliffe Square, Brompton, to Palace Yard before the\nsignal-light could be seen. The limelight had just been perfected, and\nit occurred to me that if an effective light was placed on the\nClock Tower it would be conspicuous for miles around, and members of\nParliament, dining in the suburbs, could learn by that sign when the\nHouse was sitting and its absence would indicate that the House was\nup. I wrote to Lord John Manners, giving reasons of Parliamentary\nconvenience for the institution of such a light Lord John was then First\nCommissioner of Works. The following is a copy of the letter directed to\nbe sent to me:--\n\n\"Office of Works, 12, Whitehall Place, S.W.\" It is requested that any\nanswer to this letter may be directed to The Private Secretary to the\nFirst Commissioner of H.M. Works.\n\n\"8--1--68.\n\n\"Sir,--I am desired by Lord John Manners to acknowledge with\nthanks the receipt of your letter, and suggestions.\n\n\"Your faithful servant,\n\n\"H. Stuart Wortlev.\n\n\"G. J. Holyoake, Esq.\"\n\n\nNothing was done during Lord John Manners' reign as Commissioner of\nWorks, but when Mr. A. S. Ayrton became Commissioner of the Board,\nhe found the letter in the archives of the office, and had the light\nerected.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII. UNFORESEEN QUALITIES IN PUBLIC MEN\n\n\nI.\n\nWithout noticing unexpected qualities now and then, and remembering\nthem, many are needlessly discouraged in purposes of improvement. The\ntwo Bramwells, the judge and his brother Frederick, were both men of\ngreat parts. This narrative relates to the Judge, who could do mischief\nat will--and did it. It was Baron Bramwell who protected the bribers of\nBerwick. It is to judges of his political proclivities, to whom bribers\nlook still for countenance. Young men of to-day enjoy advantages unknown\nto their forefathers, and the new generation are mostly ignorant how\ntheir good fortune, which Liberalism brought them, came to them--and\nthey make no inquiry. Not only have they no pride in sustaining the\npolitical traditions of their family, but their base ambition is to give\nthe influence of the position they have attained to that party who\nput every impediment in the way of their ever emerging from social and\nindustrial obscurity--a condition from which they did not deserve to be\nrescued.\n\nPolitical reformers used to complain of bribery at elections, by which a\nfew wealthy political adventurers tempted the baser sort of citizens to\nsell the liberties of the nation to them. Tories, by the law of their\nbeing, seek authority by which the majority of them intend the control\nof public affairs for their own advantage. They supply money for\ncorruption, intending to refund themselves by place and profit when the\nresources of the State come under their manipulation. Even judges\nof their party accord them legal security in their political\nnefariousness.\n\nWhen the Liberals of Newcastle-on-Tyne claimed that Parliament should\nterminate electoral bribery, Lord John Russell said the law was already\nagainst it, and that the Newcastle applicants to the House of Commons\nshould put bribery down at their own door, meaning in Berwick-on-Tweed,\nnotorious for it Lord John had never tried to do this, or he would not\nhave advised the attempt His counsel at the time seemed reasonable, and\nwhat came of it was shown in a petition from the Northern Reform Union,\nsent to Parliament (1859), which set forth as follows:--\n\nThat the petitioners were members of a society named \"The Northern\nReform Union,\" which was instituted for the purpose of obtaining a\nfurther Reform of the Representation of the People of these Realms in\nParliament, and for the purpose of vindicating that purity and freedom\nof election which is essential to a true representative system. Amongst\nother steps with a view to these purposes, the said petitioners were\ninduced to institute inquiries into certain corrupt practices, alleged\nto have taken place in the election of a member for the town of\nBerwick-upon-Tweed.\n\nThe result of these inquiries was, that the petitioners were induced,\nas a matter of public duty, to prosecute certain electors of the town\nof Berwick-upon-Tweed for the offence of offering bribes at the election\naforesaid. The prosecution was instituted under the provision of the Act\nof 1854, known as \"The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act,\" when one or\nmore of the persons upon whom writs were served in accordance with the\nprovisions of the Act, made affidavit that to the best of their belief,\nMr. Richard Bagnall Reed, the secretary of the Northern Reform Union\nand the nominal prosecutor in these cases, was not of ability to pay the\ncosts of suit in case of nonsuit, and applied through their counsel\nto Sir G. W. Bramwell, one of the Barons of Her Majesty's Court of\nExchequer, to make order that security should be lodged for payment\nof the costs in these actions if proceeded with. A report of the\nparticulars of this application was published in a newspaper printed at\nNewcasde under the title of the _Northern Daily Express_, which report\nis verbatim, as follows:--\n\n\"London, _December_ 16, 1859.\n\n\"Actions have been commenced, at the suit of Mr. R. B. Reed, the\nsecretary of the Northern Reform Union, against several persons\nsuspected of bribery at the last Berwick election. The actions are\nfounded on the 5th Section of 'The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act,\n1854,' which provides that 'any one who shall be guilty of using any\nundue influence at any Parliamentary election shall not only be guilty\nof a misdemeanour, but shall also be liable to forfeit the sum of fifty\npounds to any person who shall sue for the same, together with full\ncosts of suit.'\n\n\"An application was made at chambers before the Hon. Mr. Baron B ram\nwell, on the part of the defendants in the above actions, for an order\nthat the plaintiff should give security for costs.\n\n\"Mr. Chitty appeared in support of the application.\n\n\"Mr. Rutherford appeared on behalf of the secretary of the Northern\nReform Union to oppose the granting of the order.\n\n\"Mr. Chitty founded his application on an affidavit, which stated\nthat Mr. Reed was not the real plaintiff in the action; he was only\ninstigated by the Northern Reform Union, who were the real plaintiffs.\nA copy of the _Northern Daily Express_ was annexed as an exhibit to the\naffidavit, and a passage was read from it relating to the proceedings of\nthe Northern Reform Union. Mr. Chitty cited cases to prove that where a\nplaintiff in an action was for the benefit of third parties, he is bound\nto give security for costs; and he endeavoured to show that in the event\nof the action being decided in the defendant's favour, it would be in\nvain to look to the plaintiff for costs.\n\n\"Mr. Baron Bramwell hereupon made the following extraordinary remark:\n'This Northern Reform Union is a purity society. It consists of\npatriots, and surely these gentlemen will only be too eager to give\nany security that may be desired, if it were merely to show their\nhigh-mindedness and integrity.'\n\n\"Mr. Rutherford said that his Lordship, on looking into the case, would\nfind that the application now made was a vexatious proceeding to throw\nobstacles in the way of the plaintiff. Mr. Reed was the secretary of the\nUnion, and the proper person to sue. The Union must sue in the name of\nsome one, and who so proper as their secretary? The authorities that\nhad been cited on the other side did not touch the case, because the\nplaintiff was suing for penalties, which, if recovered, would be for his\nown benefit. It mattered not at whose instigation he was suing. He was\nsuing for a penalty, which the Act of Parliament gave him the right to\nsue for.\n\n\"Mr. Baron Bramwell: 'What is the plaintiffs position? Is he a man of\nsubstance?'\n\n\"Mr. Rutherford: 'He is, I am told, a gentleman of a respectable\nposition. But that is not the question; it appears clearly from the\nauthorities that in penal actions the courts have refused to order\nsecurity, even in cases where the common informer was a person of great\npoverty. In one case Mr. Justice Bayley says, \"Many _qui tam_ actions\nhave been brought by men who were worth nothing, but there is no\ninstance of their being compelled to give security for costs. It might\nhappen that the penalties had been incurred, but their recovery would be\ndefeated by requiring such a security.\"'\n\n\"Mr. Baron Bramwell here observed: 'There is great force in that Men of\nproperty are not likely to trouble themselves about such things. I think\nI cannot make the order. Cannot some agreement be come to between the\nparties? Mr. Chitty, will you name any other member of the Union to\nbe substituted as plaintiff instead of Mr. Reed? Some one must be\nplaintiff; and the same argument you have used against Mr. Reed would\napply to any one else.'\n\n\"A long discussion here ensued.\n\n\"Mr. Rutherford said he could not, without the consent of his clients,\nagree to substitute another person as plaintiff. The Act would become a\ndead letter if the judges allowed obstacles to be thrown in the way of\ncarrying it out. There was no ground at all for this application, and\nif his Lordship granted it, it was impossible to conceive under what\ncircumstances a similar application would be refused.\n\n\"Mr. Chitty insisted that his clients would not be able to recover their\ncosts if the action were decided in their favour. It was a very hard\nthing to be compelled to defend an action at the suit of invisible\npersonages. His Lordship had said that 'purity principles were all very\nfine.'\n\n\"Mr. Baron Bramwell: 'No doubt they are. It is very easy to go about\nprofessing integrity. To commence actions against people for penalties\nwhen the plaintiff cannot pay the costs, is a cheap way of becoming\na patriot--cheap and, I think, nasty. I find that the Act gives me\na discretion. The affidavits made by the defendants have not been\nanswered. I shall make the order.'\n\n\"The order was made accordingly.\n\n\"The petitioners were informed and believed that the report quoted was\nsubstantially and literally correct. It was reprinted and commented upon\nby various other journals, and no attempt to question its accuracy was\nmade, either on the part of the learned judge or of any other person.\n\n\"The petitioners were persuaded that the language asserted to have been\nused by the learned judge on this occasion cannot be deemed by, nor\nappear to Parliament either befitting the station of him who used it,\nor just towards the suitors in this prosecution, who were taking legal\nsteps, under a sense of public duty, to put a stop to practices which\ntend to corrupt the source of all law.\n\n\"The petitioners submitted that the order made on this occasion is\ncontrary to all precedent, and inconsistent with the intention and\nenactments of the said Corrupt Practices Act, which by Section 13\nexpressly limits the obligation on the plaintiff to find security for\ncosts to those cases only where he may seek to recover, by order of the\njudge, the costs of prosecution for offences against the Act.\n\n\"The petitioners urged that they did not deserve to have their motives\nand characters thus questioned and sneered away, nor did they think that\nsuch language as that imputed to Baron Bramwell can tend to add to that\nrespect for the law and those who administer it which the petitioners\ntrusted may never be lost amongst Englishmen.\n\n\"On the contrary, such language appeared to the petitioners calculated\nto cause the people to believe that a complicity with such practices\nexists amongst the administrators of the law; subversive at once of\njustice and of the representative portion of the Legislature.\n\n\"The petitioners, therefore, prayed the honourable House of Commons to\ntake such steps as might appear to it most fitting, to bring the matter\nunder the notice of Her Majesty and her advisers in such a mode as may\nprevent a repetition of the same.\"\n\nThis remarkable petition, which may be read in the records of the House,\nbore the signatures of the following persons:--\n\n     Thomas Doubleday,\n     James Eadie,\n     James Watson,\n     James Hay,\n     Jos. Cowen, jun.,\n     Robert Sutherland,\n     Thomas Gregson,\n     Thomas Allen,\n     Jos. Barlow,\n     Thomas Spotswood, jun.,\n     John Emerson,\n     Robert Ramsay,\n     William Douglas,\n     James Reed, and thirty-three others.\n\nThe character of Baron Bramwells remarks--the impediments he must\nwell know he was putting in the way of any prosecution for bribery in\nBerwick; the words by which he sought to intimidate the prosecutors\nby holding them up to public ridicule--the language of the petition\nappropriately characterised. Baron Bramwell could not be ignorant of\nthe great expense which had been incurred in taking legal proceedings\nagainst the persons accused of bribery and in collecting evidence long\nafter the time when the acts of bribery occurred. Such evidence is\nexpensive to collect at the time, and much costlier at a later stage.\nAfter obtaining witnesses it was necessary to protect them from being\nspirited away at the time of the trial--no uncommon occurrence in these\ncases. Many hundreds of pounds must have been spent before the case\nreached the stage when Baron Bramwell was appealed to by the accused to\nput obstacles in the way of the charges against them being tried. The\npenalties recoverable under the Act would not have covered a tenth part\nof these costs. Those who appealed to Baron Bramwell for protection knew\nperfectly well, as all Durham and Northumberland knew, that any costs\nthey might be able to claim against Mr. Reed would be met. Baron\nBramwell, by the remarks he uttered and the order he made, aided and\nabetted the bribery, and protected those who committed it. The Baron's\nobservation that \"men of property would not be likely to trouble\nthemselves\" to put the Act in force against electoral corruption, was\ntrue and significant. The \"men of property\" were they who profited\nby it; and if any man of property had justice and patriotic spirit\nsufficient to prosecute bribers, he was certain to incur annoyance and\nloss, and subject himself to offensive comments such as Baron Bramwell\nmade. It was the duty of a judge, to whom the Act gave discretion, to\nuse it in favour of public purity, and not to favour public corruption.\nThough no other judge behaved so flagrantly ill as Baron Bramwell, there\nwere few who could be trusted to render justice to Reformers.\n\nThe Tory judge, Baron Bramwell, sneered away all chance of a just\nverdict, and Mr. Joseph Cowens noble effort to vindicate electoral\npurity cost him L2,000 and whatever obloquy and derision the venomous\ntongue of the judge could heap upon him.\n\nLet men beware of principles which render corruption congenial--and let\nthem honour the memory of those who made heroic sacrifices for electoral\nintegrity.\n\n*****\n\nIt is happily exceptional when political partisanship perverts the sense\nof justice in a judge. Sometimes the sense of truth, characteristic of\nLiberalism (for it is not worth while being a Liberal unless it implies\nthe ascendency of truth) is perverted by political exigency or obscured\nby excitement. An instance of this occurred where it was little\nexpected.\n\n\nII.\n\nMr. J. Humffreys Parry drew up the legal part of my defence at\nGloucester in 1842. He was then a young law student, living in lodgings\nat (what was then) No. 5, Gray's Inn Road, near Theobalds' Road. His\ngrandfather was editor of the Cambro-Briton, and one of the founders, in\n1820, of the Cymmrodorion Society. But we knew nothing of this. We only\nknew young Humffreys as a stalwart, energetic platform speaker. Radical,\nbold, and impetuous, but so manifestly sincere, that it atoned for\nhis somewhat gaseous style of speaking. Like O'Connell, he acquired\neventually two styles. Parry's legal style became Demosthenic in\nits terseness. For the research and care he took to prepare my legal\ndefences, he ought, even at that stage of his career, to have received\ntwenty guineas, but for it he received nothing, nor asked for anything.\nWhen he became Mr. Serjeant Parry he abandoned his platform style\naltogether, for one of uncoloured vigour, which gave him ascendency\nat the Bar. Had he lived a few years longer than he did he would have\nbecome one of our judges. His son--known as Judge Parry--was shot by a\nsuitor, while presiding at a Manchester court, but not shot fatally. He\nis still known with distinction as a judge, as an author, and dramatic\ncritic. Thus three generations of Parrys have been notable.\n\nYears ago propagandists of new opinion were often assisted by Mr. Robert\nMackay, author of a powerful work on the \"Progress of the Intellect.\" A\nsilent, unobtrusive man, Mr. Mackay would be seen at times at meetings\nor lectures, but never taking any public part He seemed to shrink back\nwhen addressed, and was as reserved as an affrighted man. In his quiet\nway, of his own initiative, he took much trouble to promote the opening\nof the National Gallery on Sundays, and went personally to men of note\nin law, science, and art, to solicit their signatures to a memorial in\nfavour of opening public treasures on Sundays for the refinement of the\npoor, that being the only day when they had a leisure hour to see them.\nAmong others, Mr. Mackay called on Mr. Serjeant Parry, who signed the\nmemorial. Later the Serjeant was a Parliamentary candidate for Finsbury.\nSome super-fervid free Sunday advocate went to electoral meetings,\nasking Mr. Parry whether he would vote for the opening of the National\nGallery. There are always \"fool-friends\" of progress, who are ever ready\nto ruin it by their Pauline zeal of doing things in season and out of\nseason. It was well known to all concerned that he would vote for an\n\"Open Door\" of art. But if the constituency knew it, it would cost him\nthe votes of most of the Puritan portion of the electors. Forgetful,\nat the moment, of the incident that he had signed the memorial, the\ncandidate denied that he had. One morning when due in court, he had\nhurriedly signed his name to some documents brought before him,\namong them the memorial sent in by Mr. Mackay. Whereupon this modest,\nretiring, shrinking, impalpable gentleman went into turbulent meetings,\nvindictively parading the actual memorial to confront the candidate.\nThis proceeding cost Mr. Parry his election. It was a warning to\npublic men against signing a liberal document which might be needlessly\nobtruded against them at a critical conjuncture. Thus the Sunday League\nlost a Parliamentary defender, who, from persuasion of the righteousness\nand rightfulness of its objects, would have stood by it The word of Mr.\nMackay would have been quite sufficient to vindicate the honour of the\nLeague, had he waited till the election was over. But the unexpected\nthing was to see Mr. Mackay--who had never spoken at a meeting\nbefore--appearing at crowded and tumultuous assemblies, where a strong\nand resolute man might have hesitated to present himself.\n\nThe answer of Mr. Serjeant Parry in question was given without\npremeditation; it was evident to the audience that it was made under the\ninspiration of an after-dinner speech, when robust barristers, in\nthose days, were liable to airiness or eccentricity of statement.\nBeing pursued vindictively, he became too indignant to give the obvious\nexplanation of the inadvertency of his denial of his signature.\n\n\nIII.\n\nThere are saints of the Church and saints of humanity; Lord Shaftesbury\nwas a saint of both churches. There are two kinds of Conservatives, as I\nhave elsewhere said.* One class seek power for personal aggrandisement;\nanother, and better class, covet it as a means of doing good. Lord\nShaftesbury belonged to this class. Through not making this distinction,\nthe whole Conservative body are made answerable for the actions of a\npart Discrimination is as just in politics as in morals.\n\n     * \"Life of Joseph Rayner Stephens, Preacher and Political\n     Orator.\"\n\nLord Shaftesbury was a nobleman of two natures. In politics he would\nwithhold power from workmen. In humanity he would withhold nothing\nfrom them which could do them good. In theology he knew no measure. Of\nProfessor Seeley's book, \"Ecce Homo,\" he said it was \"vomited from the\nmouth of hell.\" Surely something ought to be pardoned to a writer who\nmade Satan sick. At an earlier day such language had handed the luckless\nProfessor over to Torquemada. Yet Lord Shaftesbury was so courteous,\ntender, and friendly to Nonconformists, that he laid more foundation\nstones of Dissenting chapels than any other peer or patron. Should\nEngland one day be counted among extinct civilisations, and some\nexplorers arrive to excavate its ruins, they will come upon so many\nstones deposited by Lord Shaftesbury and bearing his name, that report\nwill be made of the discovery of the king of the last dynasty. Whatever\ncontradictions biographers may have to record of the character of Lord\nShaftesbury, everything will be forgiven him in consideration of his\nnoble exertions on behalf of factory children. He sought to improve the\ncondition of women in mines and collieries. Public health,\nemigration, ragged-schools, penny banks, drinking-fountains, and\nmodel lodging-houses were subjects of his generous solicitude. Lord\nShaftesbury was one of the earliest of slum visitors. He was essentially\nand exclusively a social reformer. He took no part in political\namelioration. He believed that working people only clamoured for\npolitical enfranchisement because they were ill-used and uncomfortable.\nHe saw no further. Their desire for independence never occurred to\nhim. His sympathy with co-operators was on moral grounds. It was quite\nunforeseen by any, and had little acceptance in his day, that he should\nadvise, that the agencies for planting Christianity among heathen\nnations should include the secular missionary, who must precede the\nChristian teacher to prepare the soil of the soul by social amelioration\nbefore the seeds of Christianity could take root Like Faraday, Lord\nShaftesbury had a dual mind. Faraday reasoned like a Sandemanian on\nquestions of faith and like a philosopher on questions of science.\nIn like manner Lord Shaftesbury was a sectarian in piety and a\nlatitudinarian in humanity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII. THE COBDEN SCHOOL\n\n[Illustration: Cobden]\n\nThere never was a \"Manchester School,\" though a volume has been\npublished upon it. It never had professor nor special tenets. Manchester\nstands for Free Trade and nothing more. Its three great leaders--Thomas\nThomasson, Richard Cobden, and John Bright--were also for Peace,\nRetrenchment, and Reform, for the extension of the suffrage, and the\nrepeal of the taxes upon knowledge, because they were essential to the\npopularity and maintenance of Free Trade. But Manchester took no special\ninterest, save in Free Trade, which was a local manufacturing necessity,\nas well as a national one.\n\nMr. John Morley uses the term \"Manchester School,\" as embodying the\npersonal convictions of the great Free Trade leaders. Manchester did\na great thing in adopting, adhering to, and enforcing Free Trade. That\nitself is a noble distinction.\n\nThe advocacy of Thomasson, Cobden, and Bright included principles\nloftier and wider than Manchester. The \"Manchester School\" is but a term\nof courtesy used for convenience of reference, far less definite than\nthe \"School of Bentham.\" The \"School of Cobden\" is intelligible, as\ncovering a larger area of thought than Manchester. As to Cobden, no\none can presume to give any new estimate of him, after John Morley has\nwritten his Life. Therefore I confine myself to such personal incidents\nas came under my own observation.\n\nOnce, when I had the pleasure to be a guest of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain\nat Highbury, Mr. John Morley was present Conversation in the library\nturning upon Cobden, I remarked that he had introduced more immorality\ninto politics than any other public man in my time. \"How?\" asked\nMr. Morley, with a quick, questioning look. I answered, \"By advising\nelectors to vote for any candidate, irrespective of his politics, who\nwould vote for the repeal of the Corn Laws.\" This was in effect saying,\n\"Vote for the devil, provided the devil will vote for you,\" who, even\nif he keeps faith with you, is a dangerous ally to put in power. In\na speech to the council of the Anti-Corn Law League in Manchester in\nSeptember, 1842, Mr. Cobden said: \"We are no political body. We have\nrefused to be bought by the Tories;* we have kept aloof from the Whigs,\nand we will not join partnership with either Radicals or Chartists;**\nbut we hold out our hand, ready to give it to all who are ready to\nadvocate the total repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws.\"\n\n     * Would the Tories have bought them? What could they have\n     done with them?\n\n     * Neither Radicals nor Chartists asked them. Both parties\n     conditionally opposed the Corn Law Repealers. Thomasson held\n     that the repeal of the Corn Laws could precede the Charter.\n     The Chartists contended that the Corn Laws could not be\n     repealed until the people had universal suffrage. Thomasson\n     was right.\n\nThis doctrine, sanctioned by Cobden's illustrious name, has demoralised\npolitics and placed every Prime Minister at the mercy of every\nconscientious party strong enough to defeat him by an unscrupulous\nconspiracy in Caves, or at the poll. The Independent Labour Party\nfounded their Ishmaelitish policy (of _more_ than aloofness) upon this\ncontagious Manchester speech--leaving out the friendly condition of\n\"readiness to give their hands\" to any who advocate the interests of\nLabour, which is their professed reason of being. Women who seek the\npolitical emancipation of their sex adopt the policy of voting for\nTories, and Mr. Woodall, in their name, risked the wrecking of a Liberal\nGovernment if it did not accede to their claim. Mr. Cobden, in inviting\nelectors to vote for Conservatives who were against the Corn Laws,\nwould have established Tory ascendancy in the land. Considering that\nthe stricken condition of the people was through their food being taxed,\nToryism might be a lesser evil than the denial of Free Trade. Cobden\nmight reasonably be of opinion that no party can do so much harm as\nstarvation, and therefore felt justified in possibly destroying the\nLiberal party to save the people. But he should have qualified his\npolicy by restricting it to extreme cases, where the arrest of a\nprogressive Government is a lesser peril than refusing a particular\nand paramount claim. Without such qualification Cobden's precedent\nproclaimed a policy of selfishness which fights for its own hand against\nthe general interest of the State. This is the charge which Liberals\nbring against the aristocracy. It is the policy of Self which makes the\nmultiplication of parties a public danger. Such unqualified advocacy\nof reforms carries with it an element of national hostility. Justifying\nhimself by the example of Cobden, we have seen the publican going for\nthe bung, and the teetotaler for the teapot The anti-vaccinator will\nrisk poisoning the nation by Toryism in order to arrest the lancet; as\ncertain workmen will destroy Liberalism in the interest of Labour. Thus,\ngenerally speaking, every party is for its own hand and none for the\nState.\n\nThe great French Revolution, which promised the emancipation of\nEurope, was destroyed by the determination of each party to obtain the\nascendancy of its own theories, at the peril of the Republic.\n\nThe Society for Repealing the Taxes upon Knowledge met in many places.\nWhen Francis Place was chairman we met in Essex Street. At one time\nwe met in the rooms of the secretary, Mr. C. D. Collet, in Great Coram\nStreet, within a door or two of the house where a girl was killed, for\nwhich a Dutch clergyman was arrested, and falsely and ignominiously\nimprisoned for a time. Bright and Cobden attended committee meetings in\nGreat Coram Street.\n\nOne day when Cobden came, he walked to the House of Commons after the\nmeeting, through falling snow, in the quiet, meditative way peculiar\nto him. As I had some duties in the House of Commons in those days, I\nfollowed him, curious to see what streets he would go through, wondering\nas I went along, at the disinterested and unnoted services so great a\nman, of European fame, rendered to the interests of the working people.\nMistaken Chartists were denouncing Cobden, Bright, and Milner-Gibson\nas Whigs--as mere middle-class advocates--these libelled leaders were\ngenerously and disinterestedly labouring to confer upon the working\nclass the enfranchisement of the Press--although they knew full well\nit would put larger means of assailing them into the hands of their\ndefamers. Why should Mr. Cobden walk through the snow to put new power\nin their hands--save from nobleness of nature, which helped others,\nirrespective of any advantage to himself--irrespective even of their\ngoodwill? He not only personally attended committees, as Bright and\nGibson also did, but often sent us letters explaining principle or\npolicy which implied constant thought upon the movement as well as\nlabour for it.\n\nThe \"pale-faced manufacturer\" was a champion of the industrial classes,\nwhich he foresaw would come into the field, which were thought then good\nenough for paying taxes, but who were to be kept out of the pale of the\ngoverning classes.\n\nThus I conceived and retained a personal affection for Cobden,\nnotwithstanding his aversion for some views he supposed me to hold.\n\nWhen it was advised that I should appear at the London Tavern to oppose\nMr. Peter Borthwick's design of setting up a separate society for the\nrepeal of the paper duty, which would divide the forces for the repeal\nof the whole of the taxes upon knowledge, Bright hesitated as to the\npropriety of sending me on that mission. \"What I am thinking of,\" said\nBright, \"is whether we shall not be taken as seeking the repeal of the\nThirty-nine Articles instead of the taxes on knowledge.\" Cobden was more\nfearless in things intellectual. I was deputed to speak at the Borthwick\nmeeting.\n\nThough Cobden's mind was engrossed in public affairs, public affairs\nwere never master of him. He always possessed himself.\n\nSir Alexander Burne's despatches were long withheld, and when produced,\nat Mr. Blight's instigation, they were found to be so mutilated\nthat they were spoken of as the \"forged\" despatches. It was of that\ntransaction that Cobden said, \"Palmerston was so impartial, that he\nhad no bias, not even towards the truth,\" showing that he could speak\nepigrams that cut into a reputation.\n\nOne night Mr. Cobden brought to me in the Bill Room of the House of\nCommons a blind young man, whom he said he wished to introduce to me. It\nwas Mr. Henry Fawcett, of whom he said great things might be expected\nin the future. Mr. Cobden had procured for Mr. Fawcett an order for the\nSpeaker's Gallery. He was waiting for admission, as the doorkeeper told\nhim there was no room. Amid all the chatter and bustle of the Lobby, Mr.\nFawcett's ears were up that staircase, and he said, \"I hear footsteps\ncoming down,\" which meant there was a vacant seat, and Mr. Fawcett was\nadmitted. No one else had heard the descending feet. It was that night\nthat Mr. Cobden told me, in answer to a question put to him, that he\n\"believed, had it not been for the occurrence of the Irish famine, all\nthe vast educative efforts of the Anti-Corn Law League would not have\neffected the repeal of the Corn Laws at that time.\" Nevertheless,\nthe great propagandist activity of the League was the main element of\nsuccess. The Anti-Corn Law agitation of the League was a triumph of\nargument aided by calamity. Subsequendy Mr. Fawcett became a professor,\nand an authority on political economy. At Social Science meetings,\nwherever or whenever I asked him to aid the Co-operative question of\nCo-partnership--by defining it in debate, as public ideas were confused\nabout it--he would always find or make occasion to do so.\n\nIn order that Co-operation should be represented at his funeral, I\ntravelled across country through the early morning fog, from Leicester\nto Trumpington, where he was buried. I found in the churchyard my\nearly friend, Sir Michael Foster, who had like regard for the dead\nPostmaster-General. I was the only person known to be connected with the\nCo-operative movement who was present at his grave that day.\n\nHow well Cobden could take care of himself appeared in a matter in which\nmy friend, Thornton Hunt, to my great regret, was in the wrong. The\n_Times_ had published defamatory imputations on Mr. Cobden, who took\nthe editor, Mr. Delane, by the throat and held him with a grasp of such\nvigour that when he died the marks of Cobdens fingers were upon the neck\nof his reputation. The _Daily Telegraph_, of which Mr. Thornton Hunt\nwas consulting editor, published comments in defence of the _Times_ on\nCobdens letter to Delane, but refused to insert Cobden's letter of self\ndefence. Mr. Hunt, who had real regard for Cobden, wrote to assure him\nof it, and gave as the reason for declining to insert his letter, his\nfear lest it should damage his reputation. It was the same as saying to\nCobden, \"Our readers have a great regard for you, but if you should\nprove you are not a knave, you will sink in their estimation.\" The\nineffable meanness and audacity of this inspired Mr. Cobden with a\ncontemptuous indignation, and he told Mr. Hunt there was only one favour\nhe could do him, and that was not to take his reputation under his\nrepellent patronage.\n\nApart from instances such as the perfidy to Cobden, Mr. Delane was a\ngreat editor, determining the fluctuating policy of the _Times_ (the\npolicy of the ascendancy of prevailing opinion, right or wrong),\nselecting leading articles and defining the lines to be taken by the\nwriters. Robert Lowe (afterwards Lord Sherbrooke) received directions\nwhich might themselves be printed as leaders in brief. As it was Mr.\nLowe's custom to throw Mr. Delane's letters into his paper basket, they\ncame into the hands of his butterman, who, having practical curiosity,\ntook them to Mr. James Beal, who, upon the advice of Mr. Bright, sent\nthem back to Mr. Lowe. All who saw the letters were surprised at the\nfidelity of the articles as they appeared in the _Times_ to Mr. Delane's\npreconceived comprehensive, explicit, and well-defined tenor.\n\nIt was a favourite story told against Cobden by his adversaries, that\nwhen he visited the Central Illinois Railway, the company gave free\ntickets to residents near each station, that the seeming crowd of\ntravellers might impose on Cobden to report well on its prospects.\n\nIt is what sharp business Americans might be supposed to do. But it did\nnot impose on the popular traveller, whom many naturally strove to see.\nThe chief of the company was candid to him* Mr. Morley has made clear\nthat what did influence Cobden was the prospect of advancing the welfare\nof emigrants abroad.\n\nAt the Great Exhibition of 1851 a belief arose that international\ncommerce would increase. A friend of mine, Mr. Allsop, like Cobden, lost\na large fortune by premature enthusiasm. Mr. Cobden's was a like error,\nbut a generous one.\n\nOn the night of Cobden's last speech in Rochdale, I was one of the\naudience in the great Mill Room in which he spoke. He sent to me a note\nfrom the platform. It was the last I received from him. I was that night\nmore conscious than ever before of his wonderful self-possession in\nspeaking. He held up as it were, in the air, a chief sentence as he\nspoke it, and supplied, before he left it, the qualification he saw it\nneeded, or the amplification he saw it required, so that malignity could\nnot pervert it, nor ignorance misunderstand it. After making the longest\nspeech of his life to the largest audience he had ever met in one room,\nhe was taken to the house of a friend, where he was kept standing on\nthe cold marble hearth in a fireless room, while his friends greeted\nhim until late that November night. To a man of Cobden's temperament\nstanding is painful after mental exhaustion. A cold followed the\nfireless reception. I knew in Birmingham a speaker of great promise,\nMr. J. H. Chamberlain (unrelated to Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) who was\nsurrounded by his friends after a long and brilliant lecture, and when\nat last he sat down, he died.\n\nI was in Lavington Churchyard when Cobden was buried. On our walk from\nthe station there, Mr. Gladstone, who was before me, turned round to\nshake hands with a friend. I saw at once that he was a Lancashire man,\nwhich had never struck me before. He shook hands from the shoulder,\nwhich I had observed Lancashire men did. In the churchyard I lingered\nbehind, and stood within a clump of trees overlooking the grave. When\nMr. Bright, who had left the other mourners, came there himself, I\nmoved noiselessly away. He remained alone, looking down on the last\nresting-place of his star-bright colleague in counsel and in fight.\n\nCobden excelled among politicians of the people in enthusiasm of the\nintellect. He regarded strong, lucid argument as the omnipotent force of\nprogress. When one morning the news came, \"_Cobden is dead_\" it was felt\nin every workshop in the land that a great power for peace and industry\nwas lost to the nation. His disciples have grown with succeeding years,\nand if he be regarded as the founder of a school, no nobler one exists\namong politicians. He laid the foundations of Free Trade, not only\nfor Manchester, but for the world. As Mr. Morley tells us in his great\n\"Life,\" Mr. Gladstone \"ranked the introduction of cheap postage for\nletters, documents, patterns, and printed matter, and the abolition\nof all taxes on printed matter as in the catalogue of Free Trade\nlegislation.\" \"These great measures,\" says Mr. Morley, \"may well take\ntheir place beside the abolition of prohibitions and protective duties,\nthe simplifying of revenue laws, and the repeal of the Navigation Act\"\nThese were all Cobden's ideals. Most of them he called into being, and\nhe was the principal enchanter who gave them a local habitation and a\nname.\n\nAs with the \"Manchester School,\" so with the term \"Manchester men,\" it\nis used with a geographical indefiniteness; as when we speak of any one\nbelonging to a shire instead of a town. Hence Cobden, who was a\nMidhurst man, and Bright, who was a Rochdale man, are taken as typical\n\"Manchester men.\" As few readers have any definite idea of what a\n\"Manchester man\" of the nobler sort individually is, I give a brief\nbiography of one of the most influential of them, who might be regarded\nas the founder of the Cobden School.\n\nThomas Thomasson [1808-1876], manufacturer and political economist,\nborn at Turton, near Bolton, December 6, 1808, came of a Quaker family\nsettled in Westmoreland (1672). His grandfather came from Edgeworth,\nnear Bolton, about the middle of the seventeenth century, where he owned\na small landed estate, and built a house known as \"Thomasson's Fold.\"\nHe gave the site for the Friends' Meeting House and burial ground\nat Edgeworth. Mr. Thomasson's father, John, was born in 1776. He was\nmanager of the Old Mill, Eagley Bridge, Bolton, having also a share\nin the business, and subsequently became a cotton spinner on his own\naccount. His son, Thomas Thomasson, the subject of this notice, erected\nNo. 1 Mill in Bolton in 1841, at a time of great depression in trade,\nand great distress in the town--a fact which was mentioned by the Prime\nMinister (Sir R. Peel) in the House of Commons as evidence that persons\ndid not hesitate to employ their capital in the further extension of the\ncotton trade, notwithstanding its condition. Thomas Thomasson married\na daughter of John Pennington, of Hindley, a Liverpool merchant. Though\nbrought up a member of the Society of Friends, Thomasson attended the\nBolton Parish Church, his wife being a Churchwoman. But in 1855 he\nheard the clergyman preach on the propriety of the Crimean War, which\nhe thought so un-Christian that he never went to church again. By\nhis vigorous speeches he gave the impression that he knew more of the\npolitical economy of trade and commerce than any other manufacturer of\nhis time. Mr. Bright and Mr. Cobden may be said to have learned from\nhim. When Mr. Bright went out to deliver his first speech at a public\nmeeting, he went to Mr. Thomasson on his way to take his opinion upon\nwhat he had in his mind to say. At Thomasson's decease Mr. Bright bore\ntestimony to his remarkable capacity as a man of business, saying, \"He\nwill be greatly missed by many who have been accustomed to apply to him\nfor advice and help.\" He was not merely an eminent manufacturer, he was\ndistinguished for his interest in public affairs. He assisted by money,\ncounsel, and personal exertions in securing the incorporation of Bolton.\nHe consented to join the first Council and was at the head of the poll,\nconsidering it his duty to take part in promoting the improvements he\nhad advocated. He remained a member of the Council over eighteen years.\nUnder the old government it was usual to call out armed police, or the\nmilitary, for comparatively trifling disturbances, which greatly excited\nThomasson's indignation. He was a vigorous advocate for the town being\nsupplied with cheap gas and cheap water, which involved watchfulness and\nadvocacy extending over several years. He was foremost in insisting on\nthe sanitary improvements of the town, and that the inspector should\nproceed against those who suffered nuisances on their premises. He gave\nthe instance of \"a family living in a cellar, outside of which there was\na cesspool, the contents of which oozed through the walls and collected\nunder the bed.\" L300 being left towards the formation of an industrial\nschool, Thomasson gave L200 more that it might be put into operation. On\none occasion, when he was much opposed to the views of the Council,\nhe resigned rather than frustrate a compromise in which he could not\nconcur, but which others thought beneficial. He promoted petitions in\nfavour of Decimal Coinage, and refused to join in a petition against\nthe Income Tax, deeming direct taxation the best. For some time he was a\nmember of the Board of Guardians, but resigned because he \"could not\nsit and see men slaughtered by a stroke of the pen,\" alluding to what\nhe considered the illiberal manner in which relief was dispensed.\nHe promoted the establishment of a library and museum, and gave L100\ntowards establishing a school on the plan of the British and Foreign\nBible Society. When new premises were required for a Mechanics'\nInstitution, he gave L500 towards that project. He subscribed fifty\nguineas towards a memorial statue of Crompton, the inventor, and\nproposed that something should be given to his descendants, saying: \"If\nCrompton had been a great general and had killed thousands of people,\nthe Government would have provided him with a small county, and given\nhim a peerage; but as he had given livelihood to thousands of mule\nspinners, it was left to the people to provide for his distressed\ndescendants.\" The town would have given Thomasson any office in\nits power, but he would neither be Alderman, Mayor, nor Member of\nParliament. He declined testimonials or statue. He sought no distinction\nfor himself and accepted none; he cared alone for the welfare of the\nnation and the town, and the working people in it.\n\nAt a time when the votes of workpeople were generally regarded as the\nproperty of employers, Thomasson said: \"If the men in his employ were\nTories and voted so\"--which meant voting for the Corn Laws, to which\nhe was most opposed--\" they would remain perfectly undisturbed by\nhim--their public opinion and conduct were free.\" He was distinguished\nbeyond any Quaker of his day for political sympathy and tolerance. His\nprinciple was \"to extend to every man, rich or poor, whatever privilege,\npolitical or mental, he claimed for himself.\"\n\nAt a memorable occasion in the Bolton Theatre, when the Corn Law\nquestion was contested, he may be said to have called Mr. Paulton into\npublic life, by sending him on to the platform to defend the cause of\nrepeal. Mr. Paulton became the first effective platform advocate of\nthat movement Thomasson was the chief promoter of the Anti-Corn Law\nagitation, and the greatest subscriber to its funds. When the great\nsubscription was raised in 1845, he was the first to put down L1,000.\nWhen it was proposed to make some national gift to Mr. Cobden,\nThomasson gave L5,000. He subsequently gave,L5,000 to the second Cobden\nsubscription. This is not all that he did. Mr. John Morley relates,\nin his \"Life of Cobden,\" that Thomasson, learning that Cobden was\nembarrassed by outstanding loans, raised to pay for his Illinois shares,\namounting to several thousand pounds, Thomasson released the shares, and\nsent them to Cobden, with a request that \"he would do him the favour to\naccept that freedom at his hands in acknowledgment of his vast services\nto his country and mankind.\" On a later occasion, when aid was needed,\nMr. Thomasson went down to Midhurst and insisted that Cobden should\naccept a still larger sum, refusing a formal acknowledgment and handing\nit over in such a form that the transaction was not known to any one but\nCobden and himself. After Mr. Thomasson's death there was found among\nhis private papers a little memorandum of these advances containing the\nmagnanimous words: \"I lament that the greatest benefactor of mankind\nsince the invention of printing was placed in a position where his\npublic usefulness was com-promised and impeded by sordid personal cares,\nbut I have done something as my share of what is due to him from his\ncountrymen to set him free for further efforts in the cause of human\nprogress.\"\n\nIn the repeal of the Corn Laws he always had in mind the welfare of his\nown townsmen, who, he said, \"were paying in 1841 L150,000 more for\nfood than they did in 1835,\" and every town in the country in a similar\nproportion. He constantly sought opportunities of generosity which could\nnever be requited, nor even acknowledged, as he left no clue to the\ngiver. When in London, he would, two or three years in succession, call\nin Fleet Street at my publishing house--then aiding in the repeal of the\ntaxes on knowledge and defending the freedom of reasoned opinion--and\nleave L10, bearing the simple inscription, \"From T.T.\" Several years\nelapsed before it was known whose name the initials represented. All\nthis was so unlike the popular conception of a political economist, that\nsuch incidents deserve to be recorded. Workmen whose views he did\nnot share would invite lecturers to the town, whom he would sometimes\nentertain, and judging that their remuneration would be scant, he would\nadd L5 on their departure to cover their expenses. Thinking that Huxley\nmight need rest which his means might not allow, Thomasson offered to\ndefray the cost of six months' travel abroad with his family. It was not\nconvenient to the Professor to act upon the offer. At Thomasson's death\na note was found among his papers, saying, \"Send Huxley L1,000,\" which\nhis son, afterwards member for Bolton, did in his father's name.\n\nThomasson was not one of those who strongly _wish_ improvement, but\nfeebly _will_ it. He willed what he wished, and gave his voice and\nfortune to advance it. He was not a foolish philanthropist, with emotion\nwithout wisdom; his aid was never aimless, but given discerningly to\nreward or aid others who rendered public service. His merit was like\ncircumstantial evidence--if special acts did not exceed those of some\nother men, the accumulated instances made a record which few have\nexcelled.\n\nThat was the character of a real \"Manchester man\"--on whom Charles\nKingsley poured out the vitriolic vials of his holy wrath. Yet Kingsley\nhad noble qualities--far above those with which the country clergyman\nis usually credited. It requires discrimination to speak of men of the\n\"Manchester School\" as persons--\n\n     \"Who have only to close their eyes,\n     Be selfish, cold, and wise,\n     And they never need to know\n     How the workers' children grow,\n     And live out only half their time.\"\n\nThomasson did know this--wished to know this--took trouble to know\nit--and gave both thought and fortune to make their lot better. Thomas\nBayley Potter was of that class, which includes Manchester careers worth\nremembering.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV. HARRIET MARTINEAU, THE DEAF GIRL OF NORWICH\n\n[Illustration: Martineau]\n\nThere is a romance in the title of this chapter, should some one arise\nto write it It was Lord Brougham who first spoke of Harriet Martineau as\nthe \"deaf girl of Norwich,\" which does more than any other words written\nabout her to suggest a great disadvantage under which she accomplished\nmore than any other woman ever attempted. The phrase quoted occurs in\none of those letters which show that kindly feeling and genuine interest\nin progress was natural to Lord Brougham, though obscured by the\nturbulence of his later life. He first brought Miss Martineau into\nnotice. He wrote: \"There is at Norwich a deaf girl, who is doing more\ngood than any man in the country. Last year she (Harriet Martineau)\ncalled upon me several times, and I was struck with such marks of energy\nand resolution in her, which I thought must command success in some line\nor other of life.\"\n\nIf the reader can realise what deafness means, he will know how great\nwas her disablement Asking questions is the surest way of acquiring\nknowledge, or verifying it. Harriet Martineau was discouraged in asking\nquestions, because she could not hear the answers, unless given through\na speaking-tube, which imposed efforts on her friends she was loath to\nsubject them to. She could hear no great singer, actor, or orator. These\nnoble sources of pleasure and ideas were denied to her. She could take\nno part in public meetings or conferences, save those of which the\nbusiness was foreknown to her. Then she was dependent upon some friend\nwho indicated to her the time when she might intervene. Not hearing\nconversation, she could only learn indirectly what had gone before. Nor\nwas it always possible to hear accurately, or interpret what was told to\nher. How, under these disadvantages, she acquired her large knowledge,\nher wonderful judgment of character, her unrivalled mastery of political\nquestions of the day--which made her the greatest political woman in\nEnglish history--proves the possibility of seemingly impossible things.\nShe wrote some twenty small volumes of \"Tales of Political Economy,\"\nwhich were as eagerly looked forward to as the small volumes in which\nSterne's \"Tristram Shandy\" appeared, or Dickens's \"Pickwick Papers.\"\nJames Mill and Charles Buller told her it was impossible to make the\n\"Dismal Science\" entertaining, but she did it, and she was the first who\ndid it. She translated Comte's \"Positive Philosophy\" so well that Comte\nhad it retranslated from English into French, as being better than his\nown work.\n\nIn 1852-3 Harriet Martineau invited me to visit her at Ambleside,\nsaying, \"I should like a good long conversation with you on the\nAbolitionists and American slavery, and also on the intolerable\niniquities of the _Leader?_\"  What they were I do not recall--probably\nCopperheadism* in one of the editors, which she could sharply detect.\n\n     * \"Copperhead\" was the name of a venomous American snake,\n     which gave no warning of its approach. The slavery\n     Copperhead during the Civil War proclaimed his attachment to\n     the Union, and argued against it. There are Copperheads in\n     every movement.\n\nOn Sunday, the day after my arrival, she drove me to Wordsworth's house\nand other places of interest. At my request she extended the drive to\nConiston Water, some miles away, and on to Brantwood, the place Mr.\nRuskin afterwards bought of Mr. Joseph Cowen, who held a mortgage of\nL7,000 upon it. Brantwood was then the residence of W. J. Linton, and\nCol. Stolzman and his wife were inmates. The Colonel was an old Polish\nofficer, who, when a young man, was present at Fontainebleau, when\nNapoleon took leave of his Old Guard. Miss Martineau's quick eye took in\nat a glance the surroundings of the dwelling, and she explained to Mrs.\nLinton, who looked delicate, what should be done to render the house\nhealthier, as the rains falling on the hill behind made the undrained\nfoundation damp. Miss Martineau had an instinct of domesticity.\n\nI never knew a more womanly woman. Her life was an answer to those\nwho think that active interest in public affairs is incompatible with\nhousehold affection. After my return home she wrote: \"I enjoyed your\nvisit very much; and I hope you will come as often as you conveniently\ncan. It will be a great benefit, as well as pleasure to me. My good\ngirls, Caroline and Elizabeth, send you respectful thanks for your\nremembrance of them. I, too, am obliged by your thoughtfulness of them.\nBut let this be once for all. You will come again, I hope; and my girls\nwill enjoy being hospitable, in their own way, to one whom I had led\nthem to respect as they do you\"--mentionable as showing the tact,\njudgment, independence, and friendliness of the hostess to visitors and\nthose of her household.\n\nShe aided the diffusion of opinions she thought ought to have a hearing\nwithout altogether coinciding with them. She sent L10 towards the\nestablishment of the Fleet Street House. She took in the _Reasoned_\nsending a double subscription. Many editors will appreciate so excellent\nan example. Her interest in the _Reasoner_ was less in the subjects\ndiscussed, than in its endeavour to maintain in controversy that\nfairness to adversaries, which we should have wished (but did not even\nexpect) to be shown towards ourselves.\n\nOf the L500 given by Mr. Loombs in aid of her translation of Comte's\ngreat work, she arranged to reserve L150 for Comte, whose rights, as\nauthor, she considered ought to be respected. Many unrequited authors\nwould be glad if all translators held the same opinion.\n\nIn 1854-5 she was told by her physicians that she had heart disease,\nwhich might end her life any day. I mentioned to Professor Francis\nWilliam Newman the jeopardy she was said to be in. At times restoratives\nhad to be administered before she could be brought down to dinner. Mr.\nNewman desired me to tell her that he had had, some years previously,\nheart trouble. All at once a shock came as though a pistol had been\ndischarged in his brain, and he expected fatal results. Yet he recovered\nhis usual health and lived to a great age. Harriet Martineau lived\ntwenty-two years after her friends were instructed to expect her death\ndaily. Fearless and indifferent when the end might come, she was saved\nfrom the apprehensiveness by which the timid invite what they dread.\n\nIt was during this--the period when her physicians apprehended her early\ndeath--that I one day (February 5, 1855) received the following note at\n147, Fleet Street:--\n\n\"Miss H. Martineau presents her compliments to Mr. Holyoake, and is\nhappy to find that she may hope to see him this week, and to thank him\nfor his kindness in sending her some interesting papers by post.\n\n\"Miss H. Martineau will be happy to see Mr. Holyoake at tea on Wednesday\nevening next, if he can favour her with his company at seven o'clock.\n\n\"55, Devonshire Street, Portland Place.\"\n\nIn accordance with this note I took tea with her. She conversed in her\naccustomed unperturbed way, and said, \"I sent for you that you may bear\nwitness that I die on your side. An attempt will be made to represent\nthat my opinions have vacillated. Whereas I have gone right on, as, I\nbelieve, from truth to truth. My views may not, however, have been those\nof progress.\"\n\nI remarked that I had bought her earlier works to satisfy myself of the\nsuccessiveness of her convictions, as expressed in her writings, and\nthought she rightly described them as being intrinsically progressive.\n\n\"Yes,\" she added, \"my views from time to time were at successive stages,\nas they are now, clear and decided. Certainly I was never happier in my\nlife than at the present time. Christians, if they think it worth while\nto attempt it, will not be able to make a 'Death Bed' out of me. I wish\nyou to know my opinions at this time. We have to vindicate the truth as\nwell as to teach it.\"*\n\n     * I put these words down the same night; thus I am able to\n     quote them.\n\nFor myself, I was neither priest nor confessor. Had I been, I should\nhave felt it presumption to attempt to confirm one better able to teach\nme than I was to teach her. All I said was: \"It is certainly a moral\nrelief not to hold the cardinal Christian tenets of faith, as so many\npreachers speaking, as they assume to do, in the name of God, explain\nthem. To act according to conscience and speak according to knowledge,\nnever ceasing to consider what we can do for the service of others, is\nthe one duty which a future life, if it comes, will not contradict.\"\n\nThough no one was so well able as herself to write her biography, it was\nnot in her mind to do it, and she wrote to me to give her the names of\npersons I thought might undertake it. I named three: Charles Knight,\nwho knew more of her life than any one else, eligible to write it; next\nFrancis William Newman, who, being a many-sided thinker, and largely\ncoinciding with her views, could justly estimate her earlier and\nlater convictions. The third was Mr. H. G. Atkinson, who was entirely\nconversant with her convictions and career, but who declined with\nexpressions of diffidence, though I urged him to undertake the work. At\nlength she did it herself, in a way which showed no one else could have\ndone it so well. She left instructions in her will that I should receive\na copy of her Autobiography, which appeared in three volumes, and\ncame to me (February 28, 1877) from Mr. Thomas Martineau, one of her\nexecutors.\n\nNo autobiography produced in its day a greater impression. The treatment\nMiss Martineau had received from eminent adversaries astonished a\ngeneration in which greater controversial fairness had come to prevail.\nThe friends of those who had assailed her felt some consternation at the\nimperishable descriptions of their conduct, which would never cease to\nbe associated with their names, and they made public attempts to explain\nthe facts away.\n\nHer mind was photographic in other respects. She saw social facts and\ntheir influences, their nature and sequences, with a vividness no other\nwriter of her day did. Her charming romance, the \"Feats of the Fiord\"\nimpressed Norwegians with the belief that she was personally familiar\nwith the country, where she had never been. There was \"caller\" air in\nthe pages which made the reader hungry.\n\nThe autobiography contains a small gallery of statues of contemporaries,\nof note in their time, sculptured from life, as perfect in their way\nas Grecian statues. Their excellencies are generously portrayed for\nadmiration, and their defects described for the guidance of survivors.\nNot like the false eulogies of the dead, which, by pretending\nperfection, lie to the living, where silence on errors or deficiencies\nare of the nature of deceit, and sure to be resented when the truth\ncomes to be known. Only that admiration is lasting which is fully\ninformed.\n\nNo character of Lord Brougham so striking and true as hers, has ever\nbeen drawn. Eminent biographers and critics, including Carlyle, have\ndelineated him, but her portrait--drawn twenty years before theirs\nappeared--Professor Masson assured me her character of Brougham was the\nmost perfect of all.\n\nHer two-sided estimate gave discomfort to those content with obliqueness\nin knowledge, but those who have the impartial instinct seek reality,\nby which no one is deceived. The light and shade of character, like the\nlight and shade of a painting, alone give distinctiveness and truth.\nBut whoever delineates so must suffer no distorting tints of pique, or\nspite, or prejudice on his palate.\n\nMiss Martineau entered into a correspondence on \"Man's Nature and\nDevelopment,\" with Mr. Henry G. Atkinson, which, when published, was\nreviewed by her brother, Dr. James Martineau, in the _Prospective\nReview_ No. xxvi., Art 4, for which he selected the offensive and\nignorant title of \"Mesmeric Atheism.\" It was misleading, because\nmesmerism has no theology. It was ignorant, because neither Mr. Atkinson\nnor Dr. Martineau's sister were Atheists. Their disavowal of Atheism was\nin the book before him.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV. HARRIET MARTIN EAU--FURTHER INCIDENTS IN HER SINGULAR CAREER\n\nIf the reader is curious to know what really were the opinions of these\ntwo distinguished offenders (H. Martineau and H. G. Atkinson), I recite\nthem. In the book Dr. Martineau reviewed, Mr. Atkinson said:--\n\n\"I am far from being an Atheist I do not say there is no God, but that\nit is extravagant and irreverent to imagine that cause a Person.\"\n\nMiss Martineau herself writes in the same series of letters:--\n\n\"There is no _theory_ of a God, of an author of Nature, of an origin of\nthe universe, which is not utterly repugnant to my faculties; which is\nnot (to my feelings) so irreverent as to make me blush; so misleading as\nto make me mourn.\"\n\nYet Dr. Martineau wrote of his sister and her friend in terms which\nseemed, to the public, of studied insult and disparagement, which,\nin educated society, would be called brutal. It was merely spiritual\nmalignity, of which I had in former years sufficient experience to\nrender me a connoisseur in it.\n\nAll the while Dr. Martineau had heresies of his own to answer for,\nyet he wrote words of his sister which no woman of self-respect could\ncondone, unless withdrawn. During her long illness of twenty years Dr.\nMartineau, her brother, never wrote to her nor addressed one word of\nsympathy to one who had loved him so well. He had told the world that\nthe \"subtle, all-penetrating spirit of Christ has an inspiring nobleness\nphilosophy cannot reach, nor science, nor nature impart.\" Then how\ncame Dr. Martineau to miss it? The nobleness of mind of his illustrious\nsister all the world knew--before the world knew him--and Mr. Atkinson\nwas a gentleman of as pure a life and of as good a position in society\nas Dr. Martineau himself. O Theology, into what crookedness dost thou\ntwist the straightest minds! I have seen in a \"Life of Dr. Martineau\"\nthat Professor Newman assented to what Dr. Martineau wrote of his\nsister. This fact I ought not to withhold from the reader.\n\nBut Mr. Newman only knew what Dr. Martineau told him.\n\nMr. Atkinson was the son of a London architect who left him an income\nwhich enabled him to devote himself to philosophy, which was his taste.\nHe was personally conversant, as visitor or guest, with a wide range of\ndistinguished thinkers and writers of his time. He was full of curious\nknowledge and notable sayings gathered in that opportune intercourse.\nWith a mind devoid of prejudice, he looked on scientific discoveries\nas a veteran and seasoned spectator. No new idea surprised him, no\nexpression of thoughtful opinion awakened in him resentment. He cared\nonly for truth, in whatever form or quarter it appeared. He had none\nof the indifference of the arm-chair philosopher, but aided struggling\nopinion to assert itself. Once I was his guest in Boulogne. To my\nsurprise I was the only passenger in the packet boat The quay of\nBoulogne was deserted. At Hughes's Hotel I was the only guest in the\ndining-room. On inquiring the reason, I learned that Gilbert a'Beckett\nhad died a few days before of diphtheria, and that Douglas Jerrold had\nleft for England since. Mr. Atkinson, not expecting me, had gone for\na day's sea trip to Calais. On his return we spent pleasant hours at a\ncafe. He had no idea of leaving the hotel where he had rooms. Some years\nlater Mr. Atkinson died in Boulogne, where he had resided many years.\nPersonally he was tall, of good presence and refined manners. He was\nclean shaven, and might be taken for an Evangelical Bishop. Save a\nmobile expression, his face was as shadowless as one of Holbein's\nportraits. The object of his letters to Miss Martineau was to ascertain\nif there could be found a real basis of a science of mind. The common\nidea in those days was that mind was a \"vital spark\" which shone at\nwill--originating without conditions--acting of its own caprice and\nobeying no law. Only the theological spirit could see harm in this\ninvestigation.\n\nNot only fidelity, but chivalry towards her friends was a characteristic\nof Miss Martineau. When W. J. Linton, for whom I had great regard, as\nappears in what I have written of him in the \"Warpath of Opinion,\" had\nbecome vindictive--because I had obtained 9,000 shillings for European\nFreedom from readers of the _Reasoner_ at the request of Mazzini, Mr.\nLinton--equally desirous and equally devoted, had not succeeded--wrote\nto the _Liberator_ of New York, edited by Lloyd Garrison, assailing\nme politically and personally, whereupon Miss Martineau sent to the\n_Liberator_ the following generous letter--which, though it be counted\negotism in me to cite, I accept the risk, since such friendship was\nwithout parallel in my experience:--\n\n\"Dear Sir,--I see with much surprise and more concern an attack in your\npaper upon the character of Mr. G. J. Holyoake, signed by Mr. W. J.\nLinton. I could have wished, with others of your readers, that you had\nwaited for some evidence, or other testimony, before committing your\nmost respected paper to an attack on such a man from such a quarter. Of\nMr. Linton it is not necessary for me to say anything, because what\nI say of Mr. Holyoake will sufficiently show what I think of his\ntestimony.\n\n\"I wish I could give you an idea of the absurdity that it appears to us\nin this country to charge Mr. Holyoake with sneaking, with desiring to\nconceal his opinions, and get rid of the word 'Atheism.' His whole life,\nsince he grew up, has been one of public advocacy of the principles he\nholds, of weekly publication of them under his own signature, and of\nconstant lecturing in public places. One would think that a man who has\nbeen tried and imprisoned for Atheism, and has ever since continued\nto publish the opinions which brought him into that position, might be\nsecure, if any man might, from the charge of sneaking. The adoption\nof the term Secularism is justified by its including a large number\nof persons who are not Atheists, and uniting them for action which has\nSecularism for its object, and not Atheism. On this ground, and because\nby the adoption of a new term a vast amount of impediment from prejudice\nis got rid of, the use of the name Secularism is found advantageous;\nbut it in no way interferes with Mr. Holyoake's profession of his own\nunaltered views on the subject of a First Cause. As I am writing this\nletter, I may just say for myself that I constantly and eagerly read Mr.\nHolyoake's writings, though many of them are on subjects--or occupied\nwith stages of subjects--that would not otherwise detain me, because\nI find myself always morally the better for the influence of the noble\nspirit of the man, for the calm courage, the composed temper, the\ngenuine liberality, and unintermitting justice with which he treats\nall manner of persons, incidents, and topics. I certainly consider the\nconspicuous example of Mr. Holyoake's kind of heroism to be one of our\npopular educational advantages at this time.\n\n\"You have printed Mr. Linton's account of Mr. Holyoake. I request you to\nprint mine. I send it simply as an act of justice. My own acquaintance\nwith Mr. Holyoake is on the ground of his public usefulness, based on\nhis private virtues; and I can have no other reason for vindicating him\nthan a desire that a cruel wrong should be as far as possible undone.\nAnd I do it myself because I am known to your readers as an Abolitionist\nof sufficiently long standing not to be likely to be deceived in regard\nto the conduct and character of any one who speaks on the subject,\n\n\"I am, yours very respectfully,\n\n\"Harriet Martineau.\n\n\"London, November 1, 1855.\"\n\n\nBorn June 12, 1802, at Norwich, she died June 27, 1876, at Ambleside. In\n1832, when she was twenty-eight, Lucy Atkin wrote to tell Dr. Channing\nthat \"a great light had arisen among women,\" which shone for forty-four\nyears. When she was a young woman, Lord Melbourne offered her a pension,\nwhich she declined on the ground that a Government which did not\nrepresent the people had no right to give away their money--an act of\nintegrity so infrequent as to be always fresh. In her case it explains a\ncareer.\n\nTwo of the greatest women in Europe, George Sand and Harriet Martineau,\nof nearly equal age, died within a few weeks of each other. \"Passed\naway\" is the phrase now employed, as though the writer knew that a\njourney was intended, and was in progress, whereas as Barry Cornwall\nwrote:--\n\n     \"A flower above and a mould below\n     Is all the mourners ever know.\"\n\nMrs. Fenwick Miller relates that Miss Martineau began writing for\nthe Press, like the famous novelist mentioned, under a man's name,\n\"Deciphalus.\" Once when at Mr. W. E. Forster's, at Burley, it fell to\nme to take Mrs. Forster down to dinner. Being in doubt as to what was\netiquette in such cases, preferring to be thought uncouth than familiar,\nI did not offer my hostess my arm. Afterwards I asked Miss Martineau\nwhat I might have done. She answered that \"a guest was an equal, and any\nact of courtesy permissible in him was permissible in me,\" but in better\nterms than I can invent. Recurring to the subject at another time, she\nsaid, \"I was well pleased at your consulting me as you did. It would\nsave a world of trouble and doubt and energy, if we all asked one\nanother what the other is qualified to tell. I, who have to be\neconomical of energy and time, always do it. I ask, point blank, what\nit is important for me to know, from any one who can best tell me, and\nI like to be inquired of in the same way. I hope no guest will feel\npuzzled in my house, but ask, and what I can answer I will.\" The\nreadiness with which she placed her wisdom at the service of her friends\nmight have given Matthew Arnold (as she was a frequent visitor at Fox\nHowe) his idea of \"Sweetness and Light.\"\n\nGreater than the difficulty of deafness was the fact that Miss Martineau\nwrote on the side of Liberalism. Tory writers dipped their pens in the\nbest preparation of venom sold by Conservative chemists. The Church and\nKing party, which burnt down Dr. Priestley's house, soon discovered that\nMiss Martineau was guilty of the further crime of being a Unitarian.\nNevertheless, she abandoned no principle, nor apologised for maintaining\nwhat she believed to be true. Spinoza, as Renan has told us, gave great\noffence to his adversaries by the integrity of his life, as it did not\ngive them a fair opportunity of attacking him, for the enormity of his\nconduct in believing less than they believed. This was the case with\nHarriet Martineau, who had said in one of her books, \"A parent has a\nconsiderable influence over the subsistence fund of his family, and an\nabsolute control over the numbers to be supported by that fund.\" The\n_Quarterly Review_, \"written by gentlemen for gentlemen,\" added, \"We\nventure to ask this maiden sage the meaning of this passage.\" Why not\nask the Rev. Thomas Maithus, whose words Miss Martineau merely repeated?\nAll that was meant was \"deferred marriages.\" The reviewer put an obscene\nconstruction upon it, and imputed to her his own malignant inference.\nThis was a common rascality of logic alike in theology and politics in\nthose days.\n\nThe intrepid authoress happened to believe there was some truth in\nmesmerism. Dr. Elliotson, who thought so too, told me that his temerity\nthat way cost him L7,000 a year in fees. This mesmeric episode brought\nthe doctors upon the poor lady, who never forgave her being alive when\nthey said she ought to be dead. Eminent physicians predicted that she\nwould sink down in six months. When, instead of sinking down, she rode\non a camel to Mount Sinai and Petra, and on horseback to Damascus, they\nsaid \"she had never been ill!\"\n\nShe had the unusual capacity which the gods only are said to give--that\nof seeing herself as others saw her. She saw her own life and\nintellectual power in its strength and in its limitation, as though\nshe stood away from them and looked at them; she saw them, as it were,\npalpable and apart from herself. Of imagination, which sheds sunshine\nover style, she had little. Her pictures were etchings rather than\npaintings. Her strength lay in directness of expression and practical\nthought She saw social facts and their influences, their nature and\nsequences, with a vividness no other writer of her day did. When she had\ncompleted the translation of Comte's \"Positive Philosophy,\" she placed\nat my disposal twenty-five copies to give to persons unable to buy\nthem, but able to profit by them; and to extend the knowledge of its\nprinciples. She offered me the publication of an edition of \"Household\nEducation.\" No book like it had been written before, and none since.\nFour hundred copies were sold by my arrangement. The book was mainly\nintended for women. The review of it for the _Reasoner_* was written by\nmy wife, as I advocated that women should take their own affairs in the\npress into their own hands, and give their own opinion on what concerned\nthem. Miss Martineau's object in writing \"Household Education\" was, she\ntold me, \"to indicate that, in her opinion, education should be on a\nphilosophical basis,\" adding: \"I should see the great point of it is\nignoring rank in so important a matter as the development of human\nbeings. It was written for Buckingham Palace and the humblest cottage\nwhere life is decently conducted.\" Miss Martineau lived twenty-two years\nafter receiving prognostications of early decease. Had she not been\na woman of courage she would have died, as was suggested to her. She\nunderstood that she must accept new conditions of life. She had a bed\nmade in a railway carriage, and went down with her maids to Ambleside,\nand never left her house except to take air and get the relief which\nthe smoking of a cigarette gave her, as she sat on summer evenings\njust outside the open windows of her sitting-room. She might have given\nherself greater liberty, for she did not die of heart ailment after all.\n\n     * Reasoner, vol. vi. pp. 378-9 and 390.\n\n\nAs I have seen in women of thought, Harriet Martineau, like George\nEliot, grew handsomer as she grew older, and acquired that queenly\ndignity, such as is seen in George Richmond's painting of Miss Martineau\nin mature years.\n\nShe devoted all her diversified genius to inspire public affairs with\nloftier aims and persistent purpose. She was one of those Christians\nmentioned by Shakespeare who \"mean to be saved by believing rightly.\"*\nHarriet Martineau did, and these words of Flavius might be her epitaph.\n\n     * \"Twelfth Night,\" act iii., scene 2.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI. THE THREE NEWMANS\n\n[Illustration: Newman]\n\nIn one of the last conversations I had the pleasure to hold with\nMr. Gladstone, I referred to the \"three Newmans\" and their divergent\ncareers. He said he never knew there were \"three.\" He knew John Henry,\nthe Cardinal (as he afterwards became), at Oxford. He knew Francis\nWilliam there, who had repute for great attainments, retirement of\nmanner, and high character; but had never heard there was a third\nbrother, and was much interested in what I had to tell him. The articles\nof Charles Newman I published in the _Reasoner_, and their republication\nby the late J. W. Wheeler, were little known to the general public, who\nwill probably hear of them now for the first time.\n\nThough I name \"three Newmans,\" this chapter relates chiefly to the one I\nbest knew, Francis William, known as Professor Newman. The eldest of the\nthree was John Henry, the famous Cardinal. The third brother, Charles,\nwas a propagandist of insurgent opinion. Francis was a pure Theist, John\nwas a Roman Catholic, and Charles a Naturist, and nothing besides; he\nwould be classed as an Agnostic now. Francis William was the handsomest\nHe had classical features, a placid, clear, and confident voice, and an\nimpressive smile which lighted up all his face. John Henry manifested\nin his youth the dominancy of the ecclesiastic, and lived in a priestly\nworld of his own creation, in which this life was overshadowed by the\nterrors of another unknown. Francis believed in one sole God--not the\nhead of a firm. His Theism was of such intense, unquestioning devotion,\nof such passionate confidence, as was seen in Mazzini and Theodore\nParker, of America. Voltaire and Thomas Paine were not more determined\nTheists. In all else, Francis was human. Charles believed in Nature\nand nothing more. In sending me papers to print in the _Reasoner_ on\n\"Causation in the Universe,\" he would at times say, \"My mind is leaving\nme, and when it returns a few months hence, I will send you a further\npaper.\" Like Charles Lamb's poor sister, Mary, who used to put her\nstrait waistcoat in her basket and go herself to the asylum, when she\nknew the days of her aberration were approaching, Charles Newman had\npremonition of a like kind. He had the thoroughness of thought of his\nfamily. The two brothers--the Cardinal and the Professor--united to\nsupply Charles with an income sufficient for his needs. The Cardinal,\nthough he knew Charles' opinions, readily joined.\n\nWhen some questioning remark on Professor Newman was made incidentally\nin the House of Commons, in consequence of his uncompromising views,\nthe Cardinal wrote saying that \"for his brother's purity he would die,\"\nwhich, considering their extreme divergence of opinion, was very noble\nin the Cardinal.\n\nProfessor Newman, I believe, wrote more books, having regard to their\nvariety and quality, than any other scholar of his time. Science,\nhistory, poetry, theology, political economy, mathematics, travel,\ntranslations--the Iliad of Homer--among them a Sanscrit dictionary. He\nwrote many pamphlets and spoke for the humblest societies, regardless of\nthe amazement of his eminent contemporaries and associates. On questions\nrelating to marital morality, he did not hesitate to publish leaflets. I\npublished a series of letters for him in the _Reasoner_--now some fifty\nyears ago, so we were long acquainted. These earlier communications came\nto me at a time when the authorities of University College in London,\nwhere he was Professor of Latin, were being called upon to consider\nwhether his intellectual Liberalism might deter parents from sending\ntheir sons there. But it was bravely held that the University had no\ncognisance of the personal opinions of any professor. Like Professor\nKey, Mr. Newman took an open interest in public affairs. Though variedly\nlearned, Professor Newman's style of speech, to whomever addressed by\ntongue or pen, was fresh, direct, precise, and lucid.\n\nMr. Newman's quarto volume on Theism, written in metre, is the greatest\ncompendium of Theistical argument published in my time, and until Darwin\nwrote, no entirely conclusive answer was possible.\n\nFrancis Newman had a travelling mind. From the time when I published his\n\"Personal Narrative\" of his early missionary experience at Aleppo, he\ngrew, year by year, more rationalistic in his religious judgment. In\none of his papers, written in the year of his death, he said: \"It may\nbe asked, 'Is Mr. Newman a disciple of Jesus?' I answer, 'Of all nations\nthat I know, that have a religion established by law, I have never seen\nthe equal to what is attributed to Jesus himself. But much is attributed\nto Him--I disapprove of.' On the whole, if I am asked, 'Do you call\nyourself a Christian?' I say, in contrast to other religions, 'Yes! I\ndo,' and so far I must call myself a Christian. But if you put upon me\nthe words Disciple of Jesus, meaning the believing all Jesus teaches\nto be light and truth I cannot say it, and I think His words variously\nunprovable. Now all disciples, when they come to full age, ought to seek\nto surpass their masters. Therefore, if Jesus had faults, we, after more\nthan two thousand years' experience, ought to expect to surpass Him,\nespecially when an immense routine of science has been elaborately built\nup, with a thousand confirmations all beyond the thought of Jesus.\"\n\nWhat a progressive order of thought would exist now in the Christian\nworld had Mr. Newman's conception of discipleship prevailed in the\nChurches!\n\nMr. Newman's words about myself, occurring in his work on \"The Soul,\" I\nremember with pride. They were written at a time when I had an ominous\nreputation among theologians. When residing at Clifton as a professor,\nMr. Newman came down to Broadmead Rooms at Bristol, and took the chair\nat one of my lectures, and spoke words on my behalf which only he could\nframe. But he was as fearless in his friendship as he was intrepid in\nhis faith. He wrote to me, April 30, 1897, saying: \"I appeal to your\ncompassion when I say, that the mere change of opinion on a doubtful\nfact has perhaps cost me the regard of all who do not know me\nintimately.\" The \"fact\" related to the probability of annihilation at\ndeath. He regretted the loss of friendship, but never varied in his\nlofty fidelity to conscience. Whatever might be his interest in a future\nlife, if it were the will of God not to concede it, he held it to be\nthe duty of one who placed his trust in Him to acquiesce. The spirit\nof piety never seemed to me nobler, than in this unusual expression of\nunmurmuring, unpresuming resignation.\n\nHis first wife, who was of the persuasion of the Plymouth Brethren, had\nlittle sympathy with his boldness and fecundity of thought. Once,\nwhen he lived at Park Village, Regent's Park, his friend, Dr. James\nMartineau, came into the room; she opened the window and stepped out on\nto the lawn, rather than meet him. Mr. Newman was very tender as to her\nscruples, but stood by his own. When I visited him, he asked me, from\nregard to her, to give the name of \"Mr. Jacobs\"--the name I used when\na teacher in Worcester in 1840, where I lectured under my own name and\ntaught under another.\n\nOn February 12, 1897, Mr. Newman wrote:--\"Mv dear Holyoake,--I am not\ncoming round to you, though many will think I am. On the contrary, I\nhope you are half coming round to me, but I have no time to talk on\nthese matters.\" He then asked my advice as to his rights over his own\npublications, then in the hands of Mr. Frowde, printer, of Oxford; but\nwith such care for the rights of others, such faultless circumspection\nas to the consequences to others in all he wished done, as to cause\nme agreeable surprise at the unfailing perspicacity of his mind, his\nunchanging, scrupulous, and instinctive sense of justice.\n\nHe regarded death with the calmness of a philosopher. He wrote to me\nApril 30, 1897: \"Only those near me know how I daily realise the near\napproach of my own death (he was then ninety-three). I grudge every day\nwasted by things unfinished which remain for me to do.\" No apprehension,\nno fear, and he wished I could \"appear before him, with a document drawn\nup,\" by which he could consign to me the custody of all the works under\nhis control. At the time, as he said, he might \"easily be in his grave\"\nbefore I could accomplish his wishes. He says in another letter that\nhis \"wife, like himself, abhorred indebtedness.\" He provided for the\nprobable cost of everything he wished done. His sense of honour remained\nas keen as his sense of faith. He was a gentleman first and a Christian\nafterwards.\n\nMr. Gladstone told me he was under the impression that he had, in some\nway unknown to himself, lost the friendship of Mr. Newman, from whom he\nhad not heard for several years; and Mr. Newman was under an impression\nthat Mr. Gladstone's silence was occasioned by disapproval of his\npublished views of the \"Errors of Jesus\"--an error of assumption\nrespecting Mr. Gladstone into which Mr. Newman might naturally, but not\nexcusably, fall; for Mr. Newman should have known that Mr. Gladstone had\na noble tolerance equal to his own, or should personally have tested\nit, by letter or otherwise, before nurturing an adverse conjecture. I\nmentioned the matter to Mr. Gladstone, and found Mr. Newman's surmise\ngroundless. At the same time I gave him a copy of Mr. Francis Newman's\n\"Secret Songs\" (as one copy given to me was called) which revealed to\nMr. Gladstone a devotional spirit he did not, as he said, imagine could\nco-exist in one whose faith was so divergent to his own.\n\nThe following letter, which has autobiographical value, may interest the\nreader:--\n\n\"Norwood Villa, 15, Arundel Crescent,\n\n\"Weston-super-Mare.\n\n\"March 22, 1893.\n\n\"Dear Mr. George Jacob Holyoake,--I had no idea of writing to Mr.\nGladstone, yet am glad to hear that you gave him my 'Secret Hymns.'\nProbably my contrast to my brother, the late Cardinal, always puzzled\nhim. That we were in painful opposition ever since 1820 had never\nentered his mind, much less that this opposition made it impossible to\nme to endure living in Oxford, which also would have been my obvious\ncourse.\n\n\"I did send my 'Paul of Tarsus' to Mr. Gladstone, which partially opened\nhis eyes. For my brother's first pretentious religious book was against\nthe Arians, which I _think_ I read at latest in 1832. Mr. Gladstone has\n_written_ that my brother's secession to Rome was the greatest loss that\nthe English Church ever suffered. Of what kind was the loss my little\nbook on 'Paul' indirectly states, in pointing out that, as our English\nNew Testament shows, Paul in his own episode plainly originated the\ndoctrine, three centuries later _called_ Arianism, and held by all the\nWestern Church until young Athanasius introduced his new and therefore\n'false' doctrine.\n\nMy brother, with Paul's epistle open before him, condemned the doctrine\nof Arian, and did not know that it was the invention of Paul, and\nthereby prevailed in the whole Western Church. Moreover, I read what I\ncannot imagine met Mr. Gladstone's eyes, that 'It is not safe to quote\nany Pre-Athanasian doctrines concerning the Trinity, since the _Church_\nhad not yet taught them how to express themselves.' After this, _could_\nMr. Gladstone, as a decent scholar, mourn over my brother's _loss_ to\nthe Church? I hope Mr. Gladstone can now afford time to read\nsomething of the really early Christianity. He will find the Jerusalem\nChristianity perishing after the Roman revolt, and supplanted by Pauline\nfancies (not Christian at all) and by Pauline morality, often better\nthan Christian. To me our modern problem is to eschew Pauline fancies\nand further to improve on Pauline wisdom.\n\n\"But since I have reached the point of being unable to take Human\nImmortality as a Church axiom, I cannot believe that the problem is\nabove fully stated, or that Christianity deserves to become coetaneous\nwith man's body.\n\n\"Perhaps I ought to thank you more, yet I may have said too much.--Yours\ntruly,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nOne day as Mr. Newman was leaving my room in Woburn Buildings, he looked\nround and said: \"I did not think there were rooms so large in this\nplace\"; and then descending the stairs, as though the familiarity of the\nremark was more than an impulse, he said: \"Do you think you could join\nwith me in teaching the great truth of Theism?\" Alas! I had to express\nmy regret that my belief did not lie that way. Highly as I should think,\nand much as I should value public association with Mr. Newman, I had to\ndecline the opportunity. If the will could create conviction, I should\nalso have accepted Mazzini's invitation--elsewhere referred to--for\nTheism never seemed so enchanting in my eyes as it appeared in the lives\nof those two distinguished thinkers who were inspired by it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII. MAZZINI IN ENGLAND-INCIDENTS IN HIS CAREER\n\n[Illustration: Mazzini]\n\nGiuseppe Mazzini, whom Englishmen know as Joseph Mazzini, was born in\nGenoa, June 22, 1805, and died in Pisa, March 10, 1872. He spent the\ngreater part of forty years of his marvellous life in London. * Some\nincidents of his English career, known to me, may increase or confirm\nthe public impression of him.\n\n     * First in Devonshire Street, Queen Square; in Chelsea; in\n     Brompton; in earlier years in penury. Where he had command\n     of a sitting-room, birds were flying about. Uncaged freedom\n     was to Mazzini the emblem of Liberty.\n\nNever strong from youth, abstemious, oft from privation, and always\nfrom principle, he was as thin as Dumas describes Richelieu. Arbitrary\nimprisonment, which twice befel him, and many years of voluntary\nconfinement, imposed upon himself by necessity of concealment--living\nand working in a small room, whence it was dangerous for him to emerge\nby day or by night--were inevitably enervating. When he first came to\nLondon in 1837, he brought with him three exiles, who depended upon his\nearnings for subsistence. The slender income supplied him by his mother\nmight have sufficed for his few wants,* but aid for others and the\nceaseless cost of the propaganda of Italian independence, to which he\ndevoted himself, had to be provided by writing for reviews. At times\ncherished souvenirs had to be pledged, and visits to money-lenders had\nto be made.\n\n     * Of Mazzini's great abstemiousness it was written later in\n     life:\n\n     \"A cheaper world no one can know,\n     Where he who laughs grows fat;\n     Man wants but little here below--\n     Mazzini less than that.\"\n\nIt was the knowledge all his countrymen had that he sought nothing for\nhimself, never spared himself in toil or peril, that was the source of\nhis influence. He wrote: \"We follow a path strewn with sacrifices and\nwith sorrows.\" But all the tragedies of his experience we never knew\nuntil years after his death, when his incomparable \"Love Letters\" were\npublished in the _Nineteenth Century_, No. 219, May, 1895.\n\nHe appeared to others to have \"the complexion of a student,\" the air\nof one who waited and listened. As Meredith said, it was not \"until you\nmeet his large, penetrating, dark eyes, that you were drawn suddenly\namong a thousand whirring wheels of a capacious, keen, and vigorous\nintellect.\"\n\nMr. Bolton King has published a notable book on the great Italian,\ncontaining more incidents in his career than any other English writer\nhas collected. I confine myself mainly to those within my knowledge.\n\nWhen anything had to be done, in my power to do, I was at his command.\nI had numerous letters from him. His errorless manuscript had the\nappearance of Greek writing. Two letters \"t\" and \"s,\" such as no other\nman formed, were the signs of his hand and interpreters of his words. Of\nall the communications I ever received from him or saw, none had date or\naddress, save one letter which had both. Many sought for conversation,\nif by chance they were near him, or by letter, or interview--for ends\nof their own. But no one elicited any information he did not intend to\ngive. His mind was a fortress into which no man could enter, unless he\nopened the door.\n\nKossuth astonished us by his knowledge of English, but he knew little\nof the English people. Louis Blanc knew much; but Mazzini knew more than\nany foreigner I have conversed with. Mazzini made no mistake about us.\nHe understood the English better than they understood themselves--their\nfrankness, truth, courage, impulse, pride, passions, prejudice,\ninconsistency, and limitation of view. Mazzini knew them all.\n\nHis address to the Republicans of the United States (November, 1855) is\nan example of his knowledge of nations, whose characteristics were as\nfamiliar to him as those of individuals are to their associates, or as\nparties are known to politicians in their own country. There may be seen\nhis wise way of looking all round an argument in stating it. No man of a\nnature so intense had so vigilant an outside mind.\n\nHe knew theories as he knew men, and he saw the theories as they\nwould be in action. There was no analysis so masterly of the popular\nschools--political and socialist--as that which Mazzini contributed\nto the _People's Journal_, His criticisms of the writings of Carlyle,\npublished in the _Westminster Review_, explained the excellencies and\nthe pernicious tendencies--political and moral--of Carlyle's writing,\nwhich no other critic ever did. But Mazzini wrote upon art, music,\nliterature, poetry, and the drama. To this day the public think of him\nmerely as a political writer--a sort of Italian Cobbett with a genius\nfor conspiracy.\n\nThe list of his works fills nearly ten pages of the catalogue of the\nBritish Museum.\n\nUnder other circumstances his pen would have brought him ample\nsubsistence, if not affluence. Much was written without payment, as\na means of obtaining attention to Italy. It was thus he won his first\nfriends in England.\n\nNo one could say of Mazzini that he was a foreigner and did not\nunderstand us, or that the case he put was defective through not\nunderstanding our language. The _Saturday Review_, which agreed with\nnobody, said, on reading Mazzini's \"Letter to Louis Napoleon,\" which was\nwritten in English, \"The man can write.\" The finest State papers seen in\nEurope for generations were those which Mazzini, when a Triumvir in\nRome, wrote--notably those to De Tocqueville. De Tocqueville had a great\nname for political literature, but his icy mystifications melted away\nunder Mazzini's fiery pen of principle, passion, and truth. This\nwandering, homeless, penniless, obscure refugee was a match for kings.\n\nSome day a publisher of insight will bring out a cheap edition of\nthe five volumes of his works, issued by S. King and Co., 1867, and\n\"dedicated to the working classes\" by P. A. Taylor, which cost him L500,\nfew then caring for them. Mrs. Emilie Ashurst Venturi was the translator\nof the five volumes, which were all revised by Mazzini. The reader\ntherefore can trust the text.\n\nMazzini did me the honour of presenting to me his volume on the\n\"Duties of Man,\" with this inscription of reserve: \"To my friend, G. J.\nHolyoake, with a very faint hope.\" Words delicate, self-respecting and\nsuggestive. It was hard for me, with my convictions, to accept his great\nformula, \"God and the People.\" It was a great regret to me that I could\nnot use the words. They were honest on the lips of Mazzini. But I had\nseen that in human danger Providence procrastinates. No peril stirs it,\nno prayer quickens its action. Men perish as they supplicate. In danger\nthe people must trust in themselves.\n\nThinking as I did, I could not say or pretend otherwise.\n\nMazzini one day said to me, \"A public man is often bound by his past.\nHis repute for opinions he has maintained act as a restraint upon\navowing others of a converse nature.\" This feeling never had influence\nover me. Any one who has convictions ought to maintain a consistency\nbetween what he believes, and what he says and does. But to maintain\nto-day the opinions of former years, when you have ceased to feel them\ntrue, is a false, foolish, even a criminal consistency. To conceal\nthe change, if it concerns others to know it, is dishonest if it is\nmisleading any persons you may have influenced. The test, to me, of the\ntruth of any view I hold, is that, I can state it and dare the judgment\nof others to confute it. Had I new views--theistical or otherwise--that\nI could avow with this confidence, I should have the same pleasure in\nstating them as I ever had in stating my former ones. When I look\nback upon opinions I published long years ago, I am surprised at the\ncontinuity of conviction which, without care or thought on my part,\nhas remained with me. In stating my opinions I have made many changes.\nSchiller truly says that \"Toleration is only possible to men of large\ninformation.\" As I came to know more I have been more considerate\ntowards the views, or errors, or mistakes of others, and have striven\nto be more accurate in my own statement of them, and more fair towards\nadversaries. That is all. Mazzini understood this, and did not regard as\nperversity the prohibition of conscience.\n\nIn his letter to Daniel Manin, which I published in 1856, Mazzini\ndescribed as a \"quibble\" the use of the word \"unification\" instead\nof \"unity.\" \"Unification\" is not a bad thing in itself, though very\ndifferent from unity. To put forth unification as a substitute for unity\nwas forsaking unity. It was a change of front, but not \"quibbling.\" The\nGovernment of Italy were advised to contrive local amelioration, as\na means of impeding, if not undermining, claims for national freedom.\nMazzini condemned Manin for concurring in this. All English insurgent\nparties have shown similar animosity against amelioration of evil,\nlest it diverted attention from absolute redress. Yet it is a great\nresponsibility to continue the full evil in all its sharpness and\nobstructiveness, on the grounds that its abatement is an impediment\nto larger relief. Every argument for amelioration is a confession that\nthose who object to injustice are right What is to prevent reformers\ncontinuing their demand for all that is necessary, when some of the evil\nis admitted and abated? Paramount among agitators as I think Mazzini,\nit is a duty to admit that he was not errorless. High example renders an\nerror serious.\n\nThe press being free in England, there needed no conspiracy here. An\nengraved card, still hanging in a little frame in many a weaver's and\nminer's house in the North of England, was issued at a shilling each\non behalf of funds for European freedom, signed by Mazzini for Italy,\nKossuth for Hungary, and Worcell for Poland. When editing the _Reasoner_\nI received one morning a letter from Mazzini, dated 15, Radnor Street,\nKing's Road, Chelsea, June 12, 1852. This was the only one of Mazzini's\nletters bearing an address and date I ever saw, as I have said. It\nbegan:--\n\n\"My dear Sir,--You have once, for the Taxes on Knowledge question,\ncollected a very large sum by dint of sixpences. Could you not do\nthe same, if your conscience approved the scheme, for the Shilling\nSubscription [then proposed for European freedom]? I have never made any\nappeal for material help to the English public, but once the scheme is\nstarted, I cannot conceal that I feel a great interest in its success.\nA supreme struggle will take place between Right and Might, and any\nadditional strength imparted to militant Democracy at this time is not\nto be despised. Still, the _moral_ motive is even more powerful with me.\nThe scheme is known in Italy, and will be known in Hungary, and it would\nbe extremely important for me to be able to tell my countrymen that it\nhas not proved a failure.\n\n\"Ever faithfully yours,\n\n\"Joseph Mazzini.\"\n\n\nI explained to the readers of the _Reasoner_ the great service they\nmight render to European freedom at that time by a shilling subscription\nfrom each. Very soon we received 4,000 shillings. Later (August 3, 1852)\nMazzini, writing from Chelsea, said:--\n\n\"My dear Sir,--I have still to thank you for the noble appeal you have\ninserted in the _Reasoner_ in favour of the Shilling Subscription in aid\nof European freedom. My friend Giovanni Peggotti, fearing that physical\nand moral torture might weaken his determination and extort from him\nsome revelations, has hung himself in his dungeon at Milan, with his own\ncravat. State trials are about being initiated by military commissions,\nand General Benedek, the man who directed the wholesale Gallician\nbutcheries, is to preside over them. At Forli, under Popish rule,\nenforced by Austrian bayonets, four working men have been shot as guilty\nof having defended themselves against the aggression of some Government\nagents. The town was fined in a heavy sum, because on that mournful\nday many of the inhabitants left it, and the theatres were empty in the\nevening.\n\n\"Faithfully yours,\n\n\"Joseph Mazzini.\"\n\n\nPeople of England have mostly forgotten now what Italians had to suffer\nwhen their necks were under the ferocious heel of Austria.\n\nIn a short time I collected a further 5,000 shillings, making 9,000 in\nall, and I had the pleasure of sending to Mazzini a cheque for L450.*\n\n     * The expenses of collection I defrayed myself.\n\nA shilling subscription had been previously proposed mainly at the\ninstigation of W. J. Linton, which bore the names of Joseph Cowen,\nGeorge Dawson, Dr. Frederic Lees, George Serle Phillips, C. D. Collet,\nT. S. Duncombe, M.P., Viscount Goderich, M.P. (now Marquis of Ripon),\nS. M. Hawks, Austin Holyoake, G. J. Holyoake, Thornton Hunt, Douglas\nJerrold, David Masson, Edward Miall, M.P., Professor Newman, James\nStansfeld, M.P. Some of these names are interesting to recall now. But\nit was not until Mazzini asked me to make an appeal in the _Reasoner_\nthat response came. Its success then was owing to the influence of\nMazzini's great name. Workmen in mill and mine gave because he wished\nit.\n\nI published Weill's \"Great War of the Peasants,\" the first and only\nEnglish translation, in aid of the war in Italy. The object was to\ncreate confidence in the struggle of the Italian peasantry to free their\ncountry, and to give reasons for subscriptions from English working men\nto aid their Italian brethren. Madame Venturi made the translation, on\nMazzini's suggestion, for the _Secular World_, in which I published it.\n\nIn 1855 wishing to publish certain papers of 'azzini s, I wrote asking\nhim to permit me to do so, when he replied in the most remarkable letter\nI received from him:\n\n\"Dear Sir,--You are welcome to any writing or fragment of mine which you\nmay wish to reprint in the _Reasoner_. Thought, according to me, is,\nas soon as publicly uttered, the property of _all_, not an _individual_\none. In this special case, it is with true pleasure that I give the\nconsentment you ask for. The deep esteem I entertain for your personal\ncharacter, for your sincere love of truth, perseverance, and nobly\ntolerant habits, makes me wish to do more; and time and events allowing,\nI shall.\n\n\"We pursue the same end--progressive improvement, association,\ntransformation of the corrupted medium in which we are now living,\noverthrow of all idolatries, shams, lies, and conventionalities. We both\nwant man to be not the poor, passive, cowardly, phantasmagoric unreality\nof the actual time, thinking in one way and acting in another; bending\nto power which he hates and despises, carrying empty Popish, or\nthirty-nine article formulas _on_ his brow and none within; but\na fragment of the living truth, a real individual being linked to\ncollective humanity, the bold seeker of things to come; the gentle,\nmild, loving, yet firm, uncompromising, inexorable apostle of all that\nis just and heroic--the Priest, the Poet, and the Prophet. We widely\ndiffer as to the _how_ and _why_. I do dimly believe that all we are\nnow struggling, hoping, discussing, and fighting for, is a _religious_\nquestion. We want a new intellect of life; we long to tear off one more\nveil from the ideal, and to realise as much as we can of it; we thirst\nafter a deeper knowledge of _what_ we are and of the _why_ we are. We\nwant a _new heaven_ and a _new earth_. We may not all be now conscious\nof this, but the whole history of mankind bears witness to the\ninseparable union of these terms. The clouds which are now floating\nbetween our heads and God's sky will soon vanish and a bright sun shine\non high. We may have to pull down the despot, the arbitrary dispenser of\n_grace_ and _damnation_, but it will only be to make room for the Father\nand Educator.\n\n\"Ever faithfully yours,\n\n\"Joseph Mazzini.\"\n\n\nAnother incident has instruction in it, still necessary and worth\nremembering in the political world. In 1872 I found in the _Boston\nGlobe_, then edited by Edin Ballou, a circumstantial story by the\n_Constitutional_ of that day, setting forth that Sir James Hudson, our\nMinister at Turin, begged Cavour to accord an interview to an English\ngentleman. When Cavour received him, he was surprised by the boldness,\nlucidity, depth, and perspicacity of his English visitor, and told him\nthat if he (Cavour) had a countryman of like quality, he would\nresign the Presidency of the Council in favour of him, whereupon the\n\"Englishman\" handed Cavour his card bearing the name of Joseph Mazzini,\nmuch to his astonishment.\n\nThere are seven things fatal to the truth of this story received and\ncirculated throughout Europe without question:--\n\n1. Sir James Hudson could never have introduced to the Italian Minister\na person as an Englishman, whom Sir James knew to be an Italian.\n\n2. Nor was Mazzini a man who would be a party to such an artifice.\n\n3. Cavour would have known Mazzini the moment he saw him.\n\n4. Mazzini's Italian was such as only an Italian could speak, and Cavour\nwould know it.\n\n5. Mazzini's Republican and Propagandist plans were as well known to\nCavour as Cobden's were to Peel; and Mazzini's strategy of conspiracy\nwas so repugnant to Cavour, that he must have considered his visitor a\nwild idealist, and must have become mad himself to be willing to resign\nhis position in Mazzini's favour.\n\n6. Cavour could not have procured his visitor's appointment in his place\nif he had resigned.\n\n7. Mazzini could not have offered Cavour his card, for the reason\nthat he never carried one. As in Turin he would be in hourly danger\nof arrest, he was not likely to carry about with him an engraved\nidentification of himself.\n\nNevertheless, the _Pall Mall Gazette_ of that day (in whose hands it was\nthen I forget) published this crass fiction without questioning it.\n\nThe reader will rightly think that these are the incredible fictions\nof a bygone time, but he will conclude wrongly if he thinks they have\nceased.\n\nLately, not a nameless but a known and responsible person, one Sir\nEdward Hertslet, K.C.B., a Foreign Office official, published a volume\nin which he related that in 1848 (the 10th of April year, when no\npolitical historian was sane) a stranger called at the Foreign Office\nto inquire for letters for him from abroad. A colleague of Sir Edward's\nsuggested that he should inquire at the Home Office. The strange\ngentleman replied indignantly, \"I will not go to the Home Office. _My\nname is Mazzini_.\" This answer Sir Edward put in quotation marks,\nas though it was really said. Sir Edward has been in the Diplomatic\nservice. He has been a Foreign Office librarian, and is a K.C.B., yet\nfor more than fifty years he has kept this astounding story by him,\nreserved it, cherished it, never suspected it, nor inquired into its\ntruth.\n\nMazzini was not a man to give his name to a youth (as Sir Edward was\nthen) at the Foreign Office. He never went there. It is doubtful whether\nany letter ever came to England bearing his name. He was known among his\nfriends as Mr. Flower or Mr. Silva. When the late William Rathbone Greg\nwished to see him, he neither knew his name nor where he resided,\nand his son Percy--who was then writing for a journal of which I was\neditor--was asked to obtain from me an introduction, and it was only to\noblige me that Mazzini consented to see Mr. W. R. Greg. Sir James Graham\nnever opened any letter addressed to Mazzini, for none ever came. He\nopened letters of other persons, as every Foreign Secretary before\nhim and since has done, in which might be enclosed a communication\nfor Mazzini. Was it conceivable that the Foreign Office, then known to\nsecretly open Mazzini's letters, would be chosen by the Italian exile as\na receiving house for his letters, and have communications sent to its\ncare, and addressed in his name? Was it conceivable that Mazzini would\ngo there and announce himself when the Foreign Office was acting as a\nspy upon his proceedings in the interest of foreign Governments? This\nauthenticated Foreign Office story would be too extravagant for a \"penny\ndreadful,\" yet not too extravagant, in Sir Edward Hertslet's mind, to be\nbelievable by the official world now, and was sent or found its way to\nForeign Embassies and Legations for their delectation and information.\nYet Sir Edward was not known as a writer of romance, or novels, or\ntheological works, nor a poet, or other dealer in imaginary matters. His\nbook was widely reviewed in England, and nowhere questioned save in the\n_Sun_ during my term of editorship in 1902.\n\nMazzini preached the doctrine of Association in England when it had no\nother teacher. Much more may be said of him--but Sir James Stansfeld\nis dead, and Madame Venturi and Peter Alfred Taylor. Only Jessie White\nMario and Professor Masson remain who knew Mazzini well. But this\nchapter may give the public a better conception than has prevailed of\nMazzini's career in England.\n\n[Illustration: Mario]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII. MAZZINI THE CONSPIRATOR\n\nThere have been many conspirators, but Mazzini appears to have been the\ngreatest of them all. In one sense, every leader of a forlorn hope is\na conspirator. Prevision, calculation of resources, plans of\ncampaign--mostly of an underground kind--are necessary to conspiracy.\nThe struggles of Garrison and Wendell Phillips for the rescue and\nsustentation of fugitive slaves are well-known instances of underground\nconspiracy. There the violence of the slave-owner made conspiracy\ninevitable. In despotic countries, without a free platform and a free\npress, the choice lies between secret conspiracy and slavery. When\nMazzini began to seek the deliverance of Italy he had to confront\n600,000 Austrian bayonets. How else could he do it than by conspiracy?\n\nThose are very much mistaken who think that the occupation of promoting\nor taking part in a forlorn hope is a pastime to which persons\ndisinclined to business or honest industry, betake themselves. The spy,\nfor instance, who is a well-known instrument in war, takes the heroism\nout of it. The sinister activity of the spy turns the soldier into a\nsneak. Honourable men do, indeed, persuade themselves that if by deceit\nthey can obtain knowledge of facts which may save the lives of many on\ntheir own side, it is right. At the same time they also betray to death\nmany on the other side, including some who have trusted the spy in his\ndisguise. But whatever success may attend the deceit of the spy, he can\nnever divest himself of the character of being a fraud; and a fraud in\nwar is only a little less base than a fraud in business. But it is the\nperils of even the patriotic spy, which are so often under-estimated. If\ndiscovered by the enemy, he is sure to be shot; and he runs the risk of\nbeing killed on suspicion by friends on his own side--too indignant to\ninquire into the nature of the suspicions they entertain. The spy dare\nnot communicate the business he is upon to his friends. Somehow it would\nget out; then the spy would surely walk the plank, or hang from the\ngallows as Andre did. The spy's own friends being ignorant of the secret\nduty he has undertaken, observe him making the acquaintance of the\nenemy--hear of him being seen in communication with them--and he becomes\ndistrusted and disowned by those whom he perils his life to serve.\nMazzini detested the Cabinets, or the Generals, who employed spies.\nHe made war by secrecy--open war being impossible to him--but never by\ntreachery. Some who had suffered and were incensed by personal outrage\nor maddening oppression, would act as spies in revenge. Because these\nwere done on the side of Italian independence, Mazzini was accused of\ninspiring them and employing them.\n\nMazzini had another difficulty. Like Cromwell, he sought his combatants\namong men of faith. Mazzini was, as has been said, a Theist, like Thomas\nPaine, or Theodore Parker, or Francis William Newman, he was that and\nnothing more; and, as with them, his belief was passionate. He did not\nbelieve that political enthusiasm could be created or sustained without\nbelief in God. He seemed unable to conceive that a sense of duty could\nexist separately from that belief. Hence his motto always was \"God and\nthe People,\" which limited his adherents largely to Theists, and implied\na propaganda to convert persons to a belief in Deity, before they could,\nin his opinion, be counted upon to fight for Italian independence. Yet\nthere were contradictions; but contradictions seldom disturb passionate\nconvictions, and Mazzini himself could not deny that he had often been\nfaithfully served by men who were not at all sure that God would fight\non their side, if disaster overtook them. One night at a crowded Fulham\nparty Mazzini was contending, as was his wont, that an Atheist could not\nhave a sense of duty. Garibaldi, who was present, at once asked, \"What\ndo you say to me? I am an Atheist. Do I lack the sense of duty?\"\n\n\"Ah,\" said Mazzini, playfully, \"you imbibed duty with your mother's\nmilk\"--which was not an answer, but a good-natured evasion. Garibaldi\nwas not a philosophical Atheist, but he was a fierce sentimental one,\nfrom resentment at the cruelties and tyrannies of priests who professed\nto represent God. To disbelieve unwillingly from lack of evidence, and\nto disbelieve from natural indignation is a very different thing.\n\nAll the many years Mazzini was in London, Madame Venturi was constantly\nin communication with him, and was present at more conversations than\nany one else. Had she possessed the genius of Boswell, and put down\nday by day criticisms she heard expressed, the narratives of his\nextraordinary adventures, and such as came to her knowledge from\ncorrespondence, now no longer recoverable, we might have had as\nwonderful a volume of political and ethical judgment as was Boswell's\n\"Johnson.\" Sometimes I expressed a hope that she was doing this.\nNevertheless, we are indebted to her for the best biography of him that\nappeared in her time. I add a few sayings of his which show the quality\nof his table talk:--\n\n\"Falsehood is the art of cowards. Credulity without examination is the\npractice of idiots.\"\n\n\"Any order of things established through violence, even though in itself\nsuperior to the old, is still a tyranny.\"\n\n\"Blind distrust, like blind confidence, is death to all great\nenterprises.\"\n\n\"In morals, thought and action should be inseparable. Thought without\naction is selfishness; action without thought is rashness.\"\n\n\"The curse of Cain is upon him who does not regard himself as the\nguardian of his brother.\"\n\n\"Education is the bread of the soul.\"\n\n\"Art does not imitate, it interprets.\"\n\nOnly those who were in the agitation for Italian freedom can understand\nthe exhausting amount of labour performed by those who were adherents\nor sympathisers. How much greater was the labour of the commander of the\nmovement, who had to create the departments he administered, to provide\nthe funds for them, to win and inspire its adherents, and correspond\nincessantly with agents scattered over Europe and America, and to\nvindicate himself against false accusations rained upon him by a\nhostile, ubiquitous European press.\n\nOrsini was a man of invincible courage, and could be trusted to execute\nany commission given him. No danger deterred him, but in enterprises\nrequiring prevision of contingencies, he was inadequate. Mazzini\nthought so; and Orsini secretly contrived to plot against the French\nusurper, to extort from Mazzini the confession that he (Orsini) could\ncarry out an independent enterprise. All the same, the adversaries of\nItalian freedom made Mazzini responsible for it.\n\nA writer in the press, who did not give his name (and when a writer does\nnot do that, he can say anything), published, in editorial type, this\npassage: \"By the way, I remember that Orsini, the day before he left\nEngland to make his attempt upon the life of Napoleon III., had a\nsolemn discussion with Joseph Cowen and Mazzini, as to the justice of\ntyrannicide.\" Mazzini being then dead, I sent the paragraph to Mr. Cowen\nand asked him if there was any truth in it, who replied:--\n\n\"Blaydon-on-Tyne, March 2, 1891.\n\n\"My dear Holyoake,--I have no idea where the writer of the enclosed\nparagraph gets his information. I cannot speak as to Orsini having a\nconversation with Mazzini, but I should think it is in the highest sense\nimprobable, because long before Orsini went to France, Mazzini and he\nhad not been in friendly intercourse. There was a difference between\nthem which kept them apart. I had repeated conversations with Orsini\nabout tyrannicide--a matter in which he seemed interested--but I did not\nsee him for some weeks before he went to France.\n\n\"Yours truly,\n\n\"Joseph Cowen.\"\n\n\nMazzini always repudiated the dagger as a political weapon. It answered\nthe purpose of his adversaries in his day and since, to accuse him\nof advocating it. He pointed out that calumny was a dagger used to\nassassinate character, but to that form of assassination few politicians\nmade objection. Sometimes partisans of Mazzini would supply a colourable\npresumption of the truth of this accusation.\n\nA circumstantial story appeared in the \"Life of Charles Bradlaugh\" (vol.\ni. p. 69), signed W. E. Adams, as follows:--\n\n\"The year 1858 was the year of Felice Orsinis attempt on the life of\nLouis Napoleon. I was at that time, and had been for years previously, a\nmember of the Republican Association, which was formed to propagate the\nprinciples of Mazzini. When the press, from one end of the country to\nthe other, joined in a chorus of condemnation of Orsini, I put down on\npaper some of the arguments and considerations which I thought told\non Orsini's side. The essay thus was read at a meeting of one of our\nbranches; the members assembled earnestly urged me to get the piece\nprinted. It occurred to me also that the publication might be of\nservice, if only to show that there were two sides to the question\nof 'Tyrannicide.' So I went to Mr. G. J. Holyoake, then carrying on\nbusiness as a publisher of advanced literature. Mr. Holyoake not being\non the premises, his brother, Austin, asked me to leave my manuscript\nand call again. When I called again Mr. Holyoake returned me the paper,\ngiving, among other reasons for declining to publish it, that he was\nalready in negotiation with Mazzini for a pamphlet on the same subject.\n'Very well,' said I, 'all I want is that something should be said on\nOrsini's side. If Mazzini does this, I shall be quite content to throw\nmy production into the fire.'\"\n\nIt is true that the pamphlet was brought to me by Mr. Adams, entitled,\n\"Tyrannicide: A Justification.\" What really took place on my part, as\nI distinctly remember, was this. I said: \"I was unwilling to publish a\npamphlet of that nature which did not bear the name of the writer,\" which\nthe MS. did not. The author answered that \"a name added no force to an\nargument; besides, his name was unimportant, if put on the tide-page,\"\nwhich was reasonably and modestly said. My reply was, \"That in an affair\nof murder, 'Justification' was a recommendation, and that any one acting\non his perilous suggestion ought to know who was his authority.\" Nothing\nmore was said by me. The writer made no offer to add his name to\nhis MS., nor to meet my objection by a less assertive title. As any\nprosecution for publishing it would be against me, and not against him,\nI thought I had a right to an opinion as to the title and authorship\nof the work I might have to defend. It was afterwards issued by Mr.\nTruelove, a bookseller of courage and public spirit, but who suggested\nthe very changes I had indicated to the author; and by Mr. Truelove's\ndesire the author not only gave his name, but changed the title into\n\"Tyrannicide: Is it Justifiable?\" which was quite another matter. It\nasked the question; it no longer decided it.\n\nAs to Mazzini, it is impossible I could have said what is imputed to\nme. I was not \"in negotiation with Mazzini\" \"to write anything upon\nthe Orsini affair. I knew he would not do so. Orsini, as I have said,\nconcealed his plot from Mazzini, who never incited it, never approved\nit, never justified it--he deplored it. Only enemies of Mazzini sought\nto connect him with it. If I left this story uncontradicted, it might\ncreep into history that, in spite of the disclaimers of Mazzini's\nfriends, he actually \"entered into negotiation\" to write in defence\nof Orsini's attempt, which must imply concurrence with the deplorable\nmethod Orsini unhappily took; and, moreover, that a publisher, regarded\nas being in Mazzini's confidence, had, in an open, unqualified way, told\na writer on assassination of it. The publisher was speedily arrested\non the issue of the pamphlet, as I should have been, but that would\nnot have deterred me from publishing it in a reasonable and responsible\nform.\n\nSoon after I printed and published a worse pamphlet by Felix Pyat, which\nwas signed by \"A Revolutionary Committee.\" The Pyat pamphlet was under\nprosecution at the time I voluntarily published it. As what I did I did\nopenly--I wrote to the Government apprising them of what I was doing.\n\nBesides, I commenced to issue serial \"Tyrannicide Literature,\"\ncommencing with pamphlets written by Royalist advocates of\nassassination. Because I did not publish the Adams Tyrannicide pamphlet\nright off without inquiry or suggestion, I was freely charged with\nrefusing to do it from fear. No one seems to have been informed of\nthe reasons I gave for declining. No one inquired into the facts.\nAdversaries of those days did not take the trouble. But, as I had to\ntake the consequences of what I did, I thought I had a right to take my\nown mode of incurring them.\n\nOn the last night of Orsini's life, Mazzini and a small group of the\nfriends both of Orsini and himself, of which I was one, kept vigil until\nthe morning, at which hour the axe in La Roquette would fall.\n\nThe favourite charge of the press against the great conspirator was that\nhe advised others to incur danger, and kept out of it himself. This was\nentirely untrue--but it did not prevent it being said. The principle\nthese critics go upon is, that whoever is capable of advising and\ndirecting others, should do all he can to get himself shot--a doctrine\nwhich would rid the army of all its generals, and the offices of all\nnewspapers of their editors. Upon Mazzini's life the success of twenty\nsmall cohorts of patriots depended, ready to give their lives for Italy.\nMazzini was not only the commander of the army of Liberation, but, as\nhas been indicated, the provider of its reserves, its commissariat\nand recruits. His life was also of priceless value to other struggling\npeoples. He was the one statesman in Europe who had a European mind--who\nknew the peoples of the Continent, whose knowledge was intimate, and\nwhose word could be trusted. So far from avoiding danger, he was never\nout of it. With a price set upon his head in three countries, hunted\nby seven Governments, with spies always following him and by assassins\nlying in ambush, his life for forty years passed in more peril than any\nother public man of his time. Yet it was fashionable to charge him with\nwant of courage whose whole \"life,\" to use his own phrase, \"was a battle\nand a march.\"\n\nCould there be a doubt of the intrepidity of a man who, with the slender\nforces of insurgent patriots, confronted Austria with its 600,000\nbayonets.\n\nNo sooner was Garibaldi in Rome than Mazzini was there in the streets\ninspiring its defenders. What dangers he passed through to reach Rome,\nknowing well that his arrest meant death!\n\nRome was not a safe place for Mazzini, neither was London. His life was\nnever safe. I have been asked by his host to walk home with him at night\nfrom a London suburban villa where he dined, because a Royalist assassin\nwas known to be in London waiting to kill him.\n\nMazzini died at Pisa, March 10, 1872, from chill by walking over the\nAlps in inclement weather, intending to visit his English friends once\nmore. A few of his English colleagues protested against his embalmment.\nI was not one. Gorini, the greatest of his profession, undertook to\ntransform the body into marble, and for him Mazzini had friendship. Dr.\nBertani, Mazzini's favourite physician, approved embalming. It could\nnot be done by more reverent hands. How could England--who disembowelled\nNelson and sent his body home in a cask of rum; who embalmed Jeremy\nBentham, and took out O'Connell's heart, sent it to one city, and his\nmutilated remains to another--reproach Italy for observing the national\nrites of their illustrious dead?\n\nThe personal character of Mazzini never needed defence. In private life\nand state affairs, honour was to him an instinct. He saw the path of\nright with clear eyes. No advantage induced him to deviate from it. No\ndanger prevented his walking in it.\n\nCarlyle, whom few satisfied, said he \"found in him a man of clear\nintelligence and noble virtues. True as steel, the word, the thought of\nhim pure and limpid as water.\"\n\nIt may be by experience that a nation is governed, but it is by\nrightness alone that it is kept noble. It was to promote this that\nMazzini walked for forty years on the dreary highway between exile and\nthe scaffold. It was from belief in his heroic and unfaltering integrity\nthat men went out at his word, to encounter the dungeon, torture, and\ndeath, and that families led all their days alarmed lives, and gave up\nhusbands and sons to enterprises in which they could only triumph by\ndying. No one save Byron has depicted the self-denial incidental to\nMazzini's career, which involved the abnegation of all that makes life\nworth living to other men.\n\n          \"Such ties are not\n     For those who are called to the high destinies\n     Which purify corrupted commonwealths.\n     We must forget all feeling save the _One_\n     We must resign all passions, save our purpose.\n     We must behold no object, save our country.\n     And only look on death as beautiful\n     So that the sacrifice ascend to heaven,\n     And draw down freedom on her evermore.\"*\n\n     * \"Marino Faliero.\"\n\nMazzini left a name which has become one of the landmarks, or rather\nmindmarks, of public thought, and, though a bygone name, there is\ninstruction and inspiration in it yet.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX. GARIBALDI--THE SOLDIER OF LIBERTY\n\n[Illustration: Garibaldi]\n\nDining one day (June 29, 1896) at Mr. Herbert Spencer's, thirty years\nafter Garibaldi left England, Professor Masson, who was a guest of Mr.\nSpencer, told me that Garibaldi said to Sir James Stansfeld that \"the\nperson whom he was most interested in seeing in England was myself.\"\nThis Garibaldi said at a reception given by Mr. Stansfeld to meet the\nGeneral--as we had then begun to call him. I was one of the party; but\nMr. Stansfeld did not mention the remark to me, and I never heard of it\nuntil Professor Masson told me. Of course I should have been gratified\nto know it We had met before, but it was years earlier, and Garibaldi\nhad forgotten it. The vicissitudes and battles of his tumultuous career\nmay well have effaced the circumstance from his mind. The first occasion\nof my meeting Garibaldi was at an evening party at the Swan Brewery,\nFulham, when I was asked to accompany him to Regent Street, where he was\nthen residing. My name would be given to him at the time, which he might\nnot distinctly hear, as is often the case when an unfamiliar name is\nheard by a foreign ear, as occurs when a foreign name is mentioned to an\nEnglish ear. On our way he asked me \"how it was that the English people\nhad accorded such enthusiastic receptions to Kossuth, and yet they\nappeared to have done nothing on behalf of Hungary?\" I explained to him\nthat \"our Foreign Office was controlled by a few aristocratic families\nwho had little sympathy with and less respect for the voteless voices of\nthe splendid crowds who greeted Kossuth with generous acclaim. That was\nwhy large and enthusiastic concourses of people in the streets produced\nso little effect upon the English Government\" The great Nizzard\ninsurgent had been mystified by the impotence of popular enthusiasm.\nIn such plain, brief and abrupt sentences as I thought would be\nintelligible, I explained that \"he must distinguish between popular\nsympathy and popular power. He might find himself the subject of the\ngenerous enthusiasm of the streets, but he must take it as the voice of\nthe people, not the voice of the Government.\" Kossuth, who had a better\nknowledge of English literature and the English press, never made the\ndistinction, which led him into mistakes and caused him needlessly to\nsuffer disappointments. To this day the House of Lords is an alien power\nin England.\n\nIt was at the party which we left that night that I was first struck\nwith the natural intrepidity of Garibaldi. His square shoulders\nand tapering body I had somehow come to associate with military\nimpassableness, and the easy, self-possessed way in which he moved\nthrough the crowd in the room confirmed my impression. I was told\nafterwards by one of his fellow combatants that unconscious courage was\nhis characteristic on the field. Calmness and imperturbable modesty\nwere attributes of his mind, as seen in his heroic acts, deemed utterly\nimpossible save in romance. He had received the triumphal acclamation of\npeople he freed, whose forefathers had only dreamed of liberation.\n\nSince the time of that casual acquaintanceship, Garibaldi had heard\nof me from Mazzini, from Mr. Cowen, and as acting secretary of the\nCommittee who sent out the British Legion to him. We had collected a\nconsiderable sum of money for him, which was lying in unfriendly hands,\nbut which his treasurer had been unable to obtain. I had sent him other\nhelp, when help was sorely needed by his troops. Besides, I had defended\nhim and his cause under the names of \"Landor Praed,\" \"Disque,\" and my\nown name, in the press. Garibaldi sent me one of the first photographs\ntaken of himself after his victorious entry into Naples, on which he had\nwritten the words, \"Garibaldi, to his friend, J. G. Holyoke.\" He had got\nname and initials transposed in those eventful days. After the affair of\nMicheldever,* he charged his son Menotti to show me personal and public\nattention on his visit to the House of Commons. To the end of his life\nhe saw every visitor who came to him with a note from me.\n\n* See \"Sixty Years,\" chap, lxxix.\n\nWhen Menotti Garibaldi died, the family wished that the flag which\nthe \"Thousand\" carried when they made their celebrated invasion of\nthe Neapolitan kingdom, should be borne at the funeral. They therefore\ntelegraphed to the mayor of Marsala, who was supposed to be the guardian\nof the relic. The mayor replied that he had not got it, but that it was\nat Palermo; so the mayor of Palermo was telegraphed to. He also replied\nthat he had not got it, and said it was in the possession of Signor\nAntonio Pellegrini, but that its authenticity was very doubtful. General\nCanzio, one of the survivors of the expedition, says that the flag\npossessed by Signor Pellegrini is nothing like the real one, which was\nmerely a tricolor of three pieces of cotton nailed to a staff. At the\nbattle of Calatafimi the standard-bearer was shot and the flag lost. It\nwas said to have been captured by a Neapolitan sub-lieutenant, but all\ntraces of it have now disappeared. The wonder is not that the flag has\ndisappeared, but that so many official persons should declare it\nto exist elsewhere, of which they had no knowledge. The flag of the\n_Washington_ would have been lost had it not been taken possession of\nby De Rohan. The last flag carried by the Mazzinians, which was shot\nthrough, would have been lost also had not Mr. J. D. Hodge sought for it\nbefore it was too late. Both flags are in my possession.\n\nWalter Savage Landor sent me (August 20, 1860) these fine lines on\nGaribaldi's conquest of the Sicilies:--\n\n     \"Again her brow\n     Sicaria rears\n     Above the tombs--two thousand years,\n     Have smitten sore her beauteous breast,\n     And war forbidden her to rest\n\n     Yet war at last becomes her friend,\n     And shouts aloud\n     Thy grief shall end.\n     Sicaria! hear me! rise again!\n     A homeless hero breaks thy chain.\"\n\nHow often did I hear it said, in his great days of action, that had\nGaribaldi known the perils he encountered in his enterprises, he\nwould never have attempted them. No one seemed able to account for his\nsuccess, save by saying he was \"an inspired madman.\" His heroism was not\nborn of insanity, but knowledge. His wonderful march of conquest through\nItaly was made possible by Mazzini. In every town there was a small\nband, mostly of young heroic men, who were inspired by Mazzini's\nteaching, who, like the brothers Bandiera, led forlorn hopes, or who\nwere ready to act when occasion arose. I well remember when seeking\nassistance for Mazzini, how friends declined to contribute lest they\nbecame accessory to the fruitless sacrifice of brave men. There was no\nother way by which Italy could be freed, than by incurring this risk.\nMazzini knew it, and the men knew it, as Mazzini did not conceal it from\nthose he inspired.\n\nThe following letter to me by one of the combatants was published at the\ntime in the _Daily Telegraph_, It is a forgotten vignette of the war,\ndrawn by a soldier on the battlefield who had been wounded five times\nbefore, fighting under Garibaldi:--\n\n\"Dear Sir,--Just time to say that we are in full possession, after\nstreams of blood have flowed. Fights 'twixt brothers are deadly.\n\n\"We want money; we want, as I told you, a British steamer chartered,\nwith revolving rifles and pistols of Colt's (17, Pall Mall), also some\ncannon _raye_ but for the sake of humanity and liberty do hurry up the\nsubscriptions. The sooner we are strong the less the chance of more\nfighting. We muster now some 30,000 all told, though not all armed. We\nwant arms and ammunition, and caps--Minie rifles. Or the rifle corps\npattern the General would as soon have. He is well and radiant with joy\nand hope, though sighing over the necessity to shed blood. Oh! will the\nworld never learn to value the really great men of the earth until the\ngrave has closed over them? Garibaldi has written only one or two of\nall the things published over his name. The rest are the inventions of\nenemies or over-zealous friends.\n\n\"Messina must capitulate. If the King grant a constitution, all will be\nlost. The Bourbons must be driven from Italy, for it will never be quiet\nwithout. Warn the papers against trusting the so-called letters, etc.,\nfrom Garibaldi. He writes little or none, and dislikes to be made\nprominent.\n\n\"Do try and urge on the subscriptions. The English admiral here has\nbehaved bravely, and Lord John Russell's praises are in every one's\nmouth; but he must not falter or hesitate.\n\n\"The Royal Palace was burned down, and the fighting was desperate\nindeed.\n\n\"Of all the defeats imputed to the 'insurgents' not one has really taken\nplace. The General was at times obliged to sacrifice some lives for\nstrategical purposes.\n\n\"Now, pray use your influence for England not to allow Naples to patch\nup a peace, for I tell you it is useless. Garibaldi and his friends will\nnever consent to anything short of 'Italy for the Italians.'\n\n\"You may communicate this as 'official' if you wish to the _Times_ or\n_News_, reserving my name, Yours truly, in great haste,\n\n\"-------------\n\n\"G. J. Holyoake, Esq.\n\n\"P.S.--I need hardly say this will have to take its chance of getting\nto you. I trust it to a captain whom I have given the money to pay the\npostage in Genoa, where he is going. Will you let me hear from you?\"\n\nHe did hear from me. Whether it is good to die \"in vain,\" as George\nEliot held, I do not stay to determine. Certainly, to die when you know\nit to be your duty, whether \"in vain\" or not, implies a high order of\nnature. Sir Alfred Lyall has sung the praise of those English soldiers\ncaptured in India, who, when offered their lives if they would merely\npronounce the name of the Prophet, refused. It was only a word they\nhad to patter, and Sir Alfred exclaims, \"God Almighty, what could it\nmatter?\" But the brave Englishmen died rather than be counted on the\nside of a faith they did not hold. Dying for honour is not dying in\nvain, and I thought the Italians entitled to help in their holy war for\nmanhood and independence.\n\nWhen Garibaldi was at Brooke House, Isle of Wight, I was deputed by the\nSociety of the Friends of Italy to accompany Mazzini to meet Garibaldi.\nHerzen, the Russian, who kept the \"Kolokol\" ringing in the dominions of\nthe Czar, met us at Southampton. The meeting with Garibaldi took place\nat the residence of Madame Nathan. The two heroes had not met in London\nwhen the General was a guest of the Duke of Sutherland. As soon as\nGaribaldi saw Mazzini, he greeted him in the old patois of the lagoons\nof Genoa. It affected Mazzini, to whom it brought back scenes of their\nearly career, when the inspiration of Italian freedom first began.\n\nMrs. Nathan, wife of the Italian banker of Cornhill, was an intrepid\nlady, true to the freedom of her country, who had assisted Garibaldi and\nMazzini in many a perilous enterprise. After the interview at her house,\nshe had occasion to consult Garibaldi on matters of moment. Misled or\ndeterred by aspersion, which every lady had to suffer, suspected of\npatriotic complicity, Mrs. Nathan was not invited to Brooke House. Under\nthese circumstances she could not go alone to see the General, and\nshe asked me to take her. Offering her my arm, we walked through the\ncourtyard and along the corridors of the house to Garibaldi's rooms.\nGoing and returning from her interview, I was much struck by the queenly\ngrace and self-possession of Mrs. Nathan's manner. There was neither\ndisquietude nor consciousness in her demeanour of the disrespect of not\nbeing invited to Brooke House, though her residence was known.\n\nOn the night of Garibaldi's arrival at Brooke House, Mr. Seely, the\nhonoured host of the General, invited me to join the dinner party,\nwhere I heard things said on some matters, which the speakers could\nnot possibly know to be true. Garibaldi showed no traces of excitement,\nwhich had dazed so many at Southampton that afternoon. The vessel which\nbrought him there was immediately boarded by a tumultuous crowd of\nvisitors. All the reporters of the London and provincial press were\nwaiting for the vessel to be sighted, and they were foremost in the\nthrong on the ship. Before them all was Mrs. Colonel Chambers, with\nher beseeching eyes, large, luminous and expressive, and difficult to\nresist. Garibaldi gave instant audience to Joseph Cowen, whose voice\nalone, or chiefly, influenced him. Years before, when Garibaldi was\nunknown, friendless, and penniless, he turned his bark up the Tyne\nto visit Mr. Cowen, the only Englishman from whom he would ask help.\nGaribaldi's first day at Southampton was more boisterous than a battle.\nEverybody wanted him to go everywhere. Houses where his name had never\nbeen heard were now open to him. Mr. Seely was known to be his friend.\nThe Isle of Wight was near. Brooke House lay out of the way of the\n\"madding crowd,\" and there his friends would have time to arrange\nthings for him. The end of his visit to England was sudden, unforeseen,\ninexplicable both to friend and foe, at the time and for long after.\n\nHe had accepted engagements to appear in various towns in England, where\npeople would as wildly greet him as the people of London had done. When\nit was announced that he had left England, it was believed that the\nEmperor of the French had incited the Government to prevail upon\nGaribaldi to leave the country. Others conjectured that Mr. Gladstone\nhad whispered something to him which had caused the Italian hero\nto depart. I asked about it from one who knew everything that took\nplace--Sir James Stansfeld--and from him I learned that no foreign\nsuggestion had been made, that nothing whatever had been said to\nGaribaldi. His leaving was entirely his own act. He had reason to\nbelieve that Louis Napoleon was capable of anything; but with all his\nheroism, Garibaldi was imaginative and proud He fancied his presence in\nEngland was an embarrassment to the Government. He being the guest of\nthe nation, they would never own to it or say it. But his departure\nmight be a relief to them, nevertheless. And therefore he went.\nHis sensitiveness of honour shrank from his being a constructive\ninconvenience to a nation to whom he owed so much and for whom he cared\nso much. It was an instance of the disappointment imagination may cause\nin politics.*\n\n     * Some who read Mr. Morley's account of \"Garibaldi's\n     Departure\"  in his \"Life of Gladstone\" will think that\n     Garibaldi did not require much imagination to see that he\n     was not wanted to stay in England. He heard, even from Mr.\n     Gladstone, words of solicitude for his health, if he visited\n     the many towns he had promised--and not one suggestion that\n     he should limit the number, which could do him no harm.\n     There could be but one inference from this and Garibaldi\n     drew it.\n\nBut Garibaldi was a poet as well as a soldier. Like the author of the\n\"Marseillaise,\" Korner and Petofe, he could write inspiring verse, as\nwitness his \"Political Poem\" in reply to one Victor Hugo wrote upon him,\nwhich Sir Edwin Arnold, the \"Oxford Graduate\" of that day, translated\nin 1868. Those do not understand Garibaldi who fail to recognise that he\nhad poetic as well as martial fire.*\n\n     * Both poems, the one by Hugo and Garibaldi's in reply, were\n     published with a preface by the present writer.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX. THE STORY OF THE BRITISH LEGION--NEVER BEFORE TOLD\n\nGeneral de Lacy Evans is no longer with us, or he might give us an\ninstructive account of the uncertainty and difficulty of discipline in\na patriotic legion which volunteers its services without intelligently\nintending obedience. When I became Acting Secretary for sending out the\nBritish Legion to Garibaldi, I found no one with any relevant experience\nwho knew what to expect or what to advise. Those likely to be in command\nwere ready to exercise authority, but those who were to serve under them\nexpected to do it more or less in their own way. The greatest merit in a\nvolunteer legion is that they agree in the object of the war they engage\nin. They do not blindly adopt the vocation of murder---for that is\nwhat military service means. It means the undertaking to kill at the\ndirection of others--without knowledge or conviction as to the right and\njustice of the conflict they take part in.\n\nGeneral De Lacy Evans being a military man of repute, and marching with\nhis Spanish Legion, had disciplinary influence over them. Two of\nmy colleagues in other enterprises of danger were among the Spanish\nvolunteers, but they were not at hand--one being in America and the\nother in New Zealand--otherwise I might have had the benefit of their\nexperience.\n\nThe project of sending out to Garibaldi a British Legion came in the\nair. It was probably a suggestion of De Rohan's, who had gathered in\nItaly that British volunteers would influence Italian opinion; be an\nencouragement in the field; and, if sent out in time, they might be\nof military service. Be this as it may, the Garibaldi Committee found\nthemselves, without premeditation, engaged in enlisting men, at least by\nproxy. It was a new business, in which none of us were experts. We knew\nthat men of generous motive and enterprise would come forward. At the\nsame time, we were opening a door to many of whom we could not know\nenough to refuse, or to trust. However, the army of every country is\nlargely recruited from the class of dubious persons, over whom officers\nhave the power to compel order--which we had not.\n\nAs I was the Acting Secretary, my publishing house, 147, Fleet Street,\nwas crowded with inquirers when the project of the Legion became known.\nMany gave their names there. For convenience of enrolment, a house was\ntaken at No. 8, Salisbury Street, Strand, where the volunteers, honest\nand otherwise, soon appeared--the otherwise being more obtrusive and\nseemingly more zealous. Among them appeared a young man, wearing the\nuniform of a Garibaldian soldier, of specious manners, and who called\nhimself \"Captain Styles\"--a harmless rustic name, but he was not at all\nrustic in mind. Being early in the field, volunteers who came later took\nit for granted he had an official position. It was assumed that he\nhad been in Italy and in some army, which was more than we knew. His\ninfluence grew by not being questioned. Without our knowledge and\nwithout any authority, he invented and secretly sold commissions,\nretaining the proceeds for his own use. To avoid obtruding our military\nobjects on public attention, I drew up a notice, after the manner of Dr.\nLunn's tourist agency, as follows:--\n\nEXCURSION to SICILY and NAPLES.--All persons (particularly Members\nof Volunteer Rifle Corps) desirous of visiting Southern Italy, and of\nAIDING by their presence and influence the CAUSE of GARIBALDI and ITALY,\nmay learn how to proceed by applying to the Garibaldi Committee, at the\noffices at No. 8, Salisbury Street, Strand, London.\n\nThe Committee caused, on my suggestion, applicants to receive notice of\ntwo things:--\n\n(1) That each man should remember that he goes out to represent the\nsacred cause of Liberty, and that the cause will be judged by his\nconduct. His behaviour will be as important as his bravery.\n\n(2) Those in command will respect the high feeling by which the humblest\nman is animated--but no man must make his equal patriotism a pretext\nfor refusing implicit obedience to orders, upon which his safety and\nusefulness depend. There no doubt will be precariousness and privation\nfor a time, which every man must be prepared to share and bear.\n\nFurther, I wrote an address to the \"Excursionists\" and had a copy placed\nin the hands of every one of them. It was to the following effect:--\n\nBefore leaving Faro, Garibaldi issued an address to his army, in which\nhe said:--\"Among the qualities which ought to predominate among the\nofficers of an Italian army, besides bravery, is the amiability which\nsecures the affection of soldiers--discipline, subordination, and\nfirmness necessary in long campaigns. Severe discipline may be obtained\nby harshness, but it is better obtained by kindness. This secret the\nnumerous spies of the enemy will not discover. It brought us from Parco\nto Gibil-Rosa, and thence to Palermo. The honourable behaviour of our\nsoldiery towards the inhabitants did the rest. Of bravery, I am sure!\"\nexclaims the General. \"What I want is the discipline of ancient Rome,\ninvariable harmony one with another--the due respect for property, and\nabove all for that of the poor, who suffer so much to gain the scanty\nbread of their families. By these means we shall lessen the sacrifice\nof blood and win the lasting independence of Italy.\" To this address was\nadded the following paragraph:--\n\n\"In these words the volunteer will learn the quality of companionship\nhe will meet with in the field, and the spirit which prevails among the\nsoldiers of Italian independence.\"\n\nWhen we had collected the Legion, the thing was to get it out of the\ncountry--international law not being on the side of our proceedings. As\nmany as a thousand names* were entered on the roll of British volunteers\nfor Italy. The Great Eastern Railway was very animated.\n\nWhen they were about to set out at a late hour for Harwich, a \"Private\nand Confidential\" note was sent to each saying:--\n\n\"As the arrangements for the departure of the detachment of\nExcursionists are now complete, I have to request your attendance at\nCaldwell's Assembly Rooms, Dean Street, Oxford Street, at three o'clock\nprecisely, on Wednesday, the 26th instant (September, 1860), when you\nwill receive information as to the time and place of departure, which\nwill be speedy.\n\n\"(Signed) E. Styles, Major.\"\n\n     * I have preserved all letters of application for curiosity\n     and conjecture. They might be of interest in the future.\n     Some joined personally.\n\n\nBy this times the \"Captain\" had blossomed into a \"Major.\" Owing to\nurgency the Committee had to acquiesce in many things. Garibaldi\nbeing in the field, and often no one knew where, it was futile to ask\nquestions and impossible to get them answered.\n\nThe Government no doubt knew all about the expedition. Captain De Rohan,\nor, as he styled himself, \"Admiral De Rohan,\" was in command of\nthe \"Excursionists.\" He marched up and down the platform, wearing a\nponderous admiral's sword, which was entirely indiscreet, but he was\nproud of the parade. By this time he had assumed the title of \"Rear\"\nAdmiral. De Rohan was not his name, but he was, it was said, paternally\nrelated, in an unrecognised way, to Admiral Dalgren, of American\nfame. Of De Rohan it ought to be said, that though he had the American\ntendency to self-inflation, he was a sincere friend of Italy. Honest,\ndisinterested, generous towards others--and the devoted and trusted\nagent of Garibaldi, ready to go to the ends of the earth in his service.\nWhen the English Committee finally closed, and they had a balance of\nL1,000 left in their hands, they were so sensible of the services and\nintegrity of De Rohan that they gave it to him, and on my introduction\nhe deposited it in the Westminster Bank. He was one of those men for\nwhom some permanent provision ought to be made, as he took more delight\nin serving others than serving himself. In after years, vicissitude came\nto him, in which I and members of the Garibaldi Committee befriended\nhim.\n\nAs our Legion was going out to make war on a Power in friendly relation\nto Great Britain, Lord John Russell was in a position to stop it.\nThe vessel (the _Melazzo_) lay two days in the Harwich waters before\nsailing. There were not wanting persons who attempted to call Lord\nJohn's attention to what was going on, but happily without recognition\nof their efforts. No one was better able than Lord John to congeal\nillicit enthusiasm.\n\nMr. E. H. J. Craufurd, M.P., chairman of the Committee, myself, my\nbrother Austin,--who was unceasing in his service to the Committee and\nthe Legion--W. J. Linton, and other members of the Committee, travelled\nby night with the Legion to Harwich. Mr. George Francis Train went\ndown with us and explained to me vivaciously his theory, that to obtain\nrecognition by the world was to make a good recognition of yourself.\nTrain did this, but all it gave him was notoriety, under which was\nhidden from public respect his great natural ability and personal\nkindness of heart. When I last met him, I found him--as was his\ncustom--sitting on the public seat in a New York square, interesting\nhimself in children, but ready to pour, in an eloquent torrent, the\nstory of his projects into the ear of any passer-by who had time to\nlisten to him.\n\nIt was early morning when we arrived at Harwich. As the ship lay some\ndistance out, it took some time to embark the men, and it was the second\nday before she set sail. To our disappointment De Rohan did not go with\nthe troops, which we thought it was his duty to do, but suddenly left,\nsaying he would meet them at Palermo. He alone had real influence over\nthe men. No one being in authority over them, feuds and suspicions were\nadded to their lack of discipline.\n\nThe vessel was well provisioned, even to the pleasures of the table.\nThere was that satisfaction.\n\nIt may interest readers who have never sailed in a troopship to read the\nregulations enforced:--\n\n1. The men will be allotted berths and divided into messes, regularly by\ncompanies, and their packs are to be hung up near their berths.\n\n2. With a view to the general health and accommodation of the men, they\nwill be divided into three watches, one of which is to be constantly on\ndeck.\n\n3. A guard, the strength of which is to be regulated by the sentries\nrequired, is to mount every morning at nine o'clock.\n\n4. The men of each watch are to be appointed to stations.\n\n5. The men not belonging to the watch are to be ordered below, when\nrequired by the master of the ship, in order that they may not impede\nthe working of the vessel.\n\n6. In fine weather every man is to be on deck the whole day.\n\n7. The whole watch is to be constantly on deck, except when the rain\nobliges them to go down for shelter.\n\n8. Great attention is to be paid to the cleanliness of the privies.\nBuckets of water are to be thrown down frequently.\n\n9. The bedding is to be brought on deck every morning, if the weather\nwill permit, by eight o'clock, and to be well aired.\n\n10. The men are to wash, comb, and brush their heads every morning.\n\n11. At sunset the bedding is to be brought down, and at any time during\nthe day on the appearance of bad weather.\n\n12. At ten o'clock in the evening, every man is to be in his berth,\nexcept the men on guard and of the watch.\n\n13. The chief of the watch is to be careful that no man interferes with\nthe windsails, so as to prevent the air from being communicated.\n\n14. The men are strictly forbidden sleeping on deck, which they are apt\nto do, and which is generally productive of fevers and flushes.\n\nWith a view of preventing accidents from fire, a sentry will be\nconstantly placed at the cooking place or caboose, or one on each side,\nwith orders not to allow fire of any kind to be taken without leave.\n\n1. No lights are to be permitted amongst the men except in lanterns. All\nare to be extinguished at ten o'clock at night, except those over which\nthere may be sentries.\n\n2. No smoking on any account to be permitted, except on upper deck.\n\n3. No lucifer or patent matches to be allowed.\n\n4. The officers are strictly charged to trace when going their rounds\nbetween decks, and to report instantly any man who shall presume either\nto smoke there, or to use any lights except in lanterns.\n\nEvery possible precaution is to be taken to prevent liquor being brought\non board ship.\n\nRegularity and decency of conduct are peculiarly required on board ship.\nIt is the duty of those in command to repress, by the most decided\nand summary measures, any tendency to insubordination, to check every\nspecies of immorality and vice, and to discountenance to the utmost of\ntheir power whatever may disturb the comfort of others, or interrupt the\nharmony and good understanding which should subsist on board.\n\n\nWe had trouble in London. One day at a Committee, held at my house, an\napplicant, who was contracting to supply 900 rifles, attended to show\ncertificates of their efficiency. The legal eye of the chairman (Mr.\nCraufurd, M.P., one of the prosecuting counsel of the Mint), detected\nthem to be forgeries. On his saying so, the applicant snatched them from\nhis hand. The chairman at once seized the knave, when a struggle\nensued to obtain the false credentials. As it was not prudent in us to\nprosecute the presenter and have our proceedings before a court, we let\nhim go.\n\nThere being no legal power to enforce order was the cardinal weakness\nof the British Legion. A competent commander should at least have been\nappointed, and an agreement of honour entered into by each volunteer, to\nobey his authority and that of those under him, on penalty of dismissal,\nand a certain forfeiture of money. These conditions, though not of\nlegal force, would be binding on men of honour, and place the turbulent\nwithout honour at a disadvantage.\n\nAt the Queenwood community, in Robert Owen's day, no contract of this\nkind was thought of, and any one who declined to leave could defy\nthe governor, until he was ejected by force--a process which did not\nharmonise with \"Harmony Hall.\"\n\nDe Rohan met the Excursionists at Palermo on their disembarkation.\n\"Captain Styles\" was prudently absent, and no more was heard of him. The\nspurious commissions could not be recognised, and commotion naturally\narose among those who had been defrauded. Captain Sarsfield, Colonel\nPeard, known as \"Garibaldi's Englishman,\" De Rohan, Captain Scott,\nand others on the spot, with colourable pretensions to authority, took\ndifferent views of the situation. Appeals were made to the Committee in\nLondon, on whose minutes stormy telegrams are recorded. Mr. Craufurd,\nthough he had the prudent reticence of his race, would sometimes fall\ninto impetuous expressions. Yet the second statement of his first\nthought would be faultless. This quality was so conspicuous that it\ninterested me.\n\nThe first man of the Legion killed was young Mr. Bontems, only son of a\nwell-known tradesman in the City of London--a fine, ingenuous fellow.\nHe was shot by the recklessness of a medical student of the London\nUniversity, as Bontems stood in a mess-room at Palermo. It was said not\nto be the first death caused by the criminal thoughtlessness of the same\nperson. Mr. Southall, another London volunteer like young Bontems, was a\nman of genuine enthusiasm, character, and promise. He became an orderly\nofficer to Garibaldi, by whom he was trusted and to whom he gave the\nblack silk cravat he wore on entering Naples.*\n\n     * Southall forwarded it to me. A revolver and case was sent\n     me by request of a soldier who died on the field.\n\nWhen Garibaldi retired to his island home, he sent to England\nthe following testimony of the services and character of the\nExcursionists:--\n\n\"Caprera,\n\n\"Jan. 26, 1861.\n\n\"... They [the British Legion] came late. But they made ample amends for\nthis defect, not their own, by the brilliant courage they displayed\nin the slight engagements they shared with us near the Volturno, which\nenabled me to judge how precious an assistance they would have rendered\nus had the war of liberation remained longer in my hands. In every way\nthe English volunteers were a proof of the goodwill borne by your noble\nnation towards the liberty and independence of Italy.\n\n\"Accept, honoured Mr. Ashurst, the earnest assurance of my grateful\nfriendship, and always command yours,\n\n\"G. Garibaldi.\"\n\n\nAllowing for Garibaldi's generosity in estimating the services of the\nLegion, it remains true that the majority deserved this praise. Many\nwere of fine character. Many were young men of ingenuousness and bright\nenthusiasm, prompt to condone lack of military knowledge by noble\nintrepidity in the field.\n\nThe Legion cost the Italian Government some expense. Claims were\nrecognised liberally. The men were sent back to England overland, and\neach one had a provision order given him to present at every refreshment\nstation at which the trains stopped. Count Cavour was a better friend of\nItalian freedom than even Mazzini knew. It was only known after Cavour's\ndeath, how he had secretly laboured to drag his country from under the\nheel of Austria. Cavour had the friendly foresight to give orders that\nthe members of the English Legion were to be supplied on their journey\nhome with double rations, as Englishmen ate more than Italians. The\nCavourian distinction was much appreciated.\n\nThe sums due to the men until their arrival in England were paid by the\nSardinian Consul (whose office was in the Old Jewry), on a certificate\nfrom me that the applicant was one of the Legion.\n\nA request came to me from Italy for a circumstantial history of the\nLegion and such suggestions as experience had furnished. The story made\nquite a book, which I sent to Dr. Bertani. When after his death I was in\nMilan, I learned from a member of his family that no one knew what had\nbecome of it. And so I briefly tell the story again, as there is no one\nelse to tell it Bertani was the confidant and favourite physician of\nMazzini and Garibaldi. No one knew so well or so much as he who were the\nmakers of Italian Unity. What has become of his papers?\n\nAmong friends of Italy who appeared at our council in London was Captain\nSarsfield, the son of the Duke of Somerset. Pallid, with an expression\nof restrained energy, handsome beyond any face I had seen, it might have\nbeen carved by a Grecian sculptor. His high breeding struck me before\nI knew who he was. He took out for me an important letter to Garibaldi,\nwho had then no postal address. On Sarsfield's return home, he took, as\nwas his delight, a furious ride in a high wind. Washington did the same,\nand it killed him, as it did Captain Sarsfield. Difficulty of breathing\nensued, and it was necessary that Dr. Williams should be called in to\nperform an operation--all in vain. The Duchess of Somerset lay all night\non the carpet-floor by the dead body of her son, for whom she grieved\nexceedingly. In her distress she said Dr. Williams had been wanting in\npromptness or in skill. His great reputation could not be affected by an\naccusation made in agony, and his own explanation would vindicate him.\nBut he took the brutal course of dragging the distressed and distracted\nmother into the law courts. In consequence of remarks I published upon\nthis unfeeling and egotistic outrage, the Duchess sent me a letter of\nthanks, and requested me to call at her residence. So much for the two\nmen who mainly made Italy a nation. What Castelar said to the Italian\npatriots in general, he might have addressed to Garibaldi and Mazzini\nindividually:--\n\n\"That which Julius II. could not effect with his cannon, nor Leo X. with\nhis arts, that which Savonarola could not make a reality by giving\nhimself to God, nor Machiavelli by giving himself to the Devil, has been\ndone by you. You have made Italy one, you have made Italy free, you have\nmade Italy independent.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI. JOHN STUART MILL, TEACHER OF THE PEOPLE\n\n[Illustration: Mill]\n\nOne reason for commencing with the remark that John Stuart Mill was\nborn on May 20, 1806, at No. 13, Rodney Street, Islington, London, is\nto notify the coincidence that Gladstone, another man of contemporaneous\ndistinction, was born in Rodney Street, Liverpool, three years later.\nRodney Street, London, where Mill was born, was a small, narrow,\nsecond-rate, odd, out-of-the-way suburban thoroughfare. But in those\ndays Islington had the characteristics of a rural retreat A little above\nthis Rodney Street, in what is now known as the Pentonville Road, stood\nthe \"Angel,\" a favourite hostelry, where Thomas Paine wrote part of one\nof his famous books, near the period of Mill's birth.\n\nThe familiar books concerning J. S. Mill,* treat mainly of his eminence\nas a thinker.\n\n     * Notably those of Professor A. Bain and Mr. Courtney.\n\nI concern myself with those personal characteristics which won for him\nthe regard and honour of the insurgent industrial classes--insurgent,\nnot in the sense of physical rebellion against authority, but\nof intellectual rebellion against error, social inferiority and\ninsufficiency of means. Mill regarded the press as the fortress of\nfreedom. All his life he gave money to establish such defences, and left\nthe copyright of his works to Mr. John Morley, to be applied in aid\nof publications open to the expression of all reasoned opinion, having\narticles signed by the names of the writers. Mr. Mill was the first who\nmade provision for the expression of unfriended truth. It would be a\nsurprising biography which recorded the causes he aided and the persons\nwhom he helped. He was not one of those philosophers, \"selfish, cold\nand wise,\" who, fortunate and satisfied with their own emancipation from\nerror, leave others to perish in their ignorance. Mill helped them,* as\ndid Place, Bentham, Grote, Roebuck, Molesworth, and other leaders of the\ngreat Utilitarian party. For ten years I knew Mr. Mill to receive and\nwrite letters of suggestion from the India House. He would see any\none, at any hour, interested in the progress of the people. As Mr.\nJohn Morley has said in the _Fortnightly Review_, \"It was easier for a\nworkman than for a princess to obtain access to him.\"\n\n     * Like Samuel Morley, he took trouble to aid honest\n     endeavour, often irrespective of agreement with it.\n\n\nA pamphlet by me on the \"Liberal Situation\" in 1865* being sent to Mr.\nMill, he wrote me the following letter:--\n\n     * It was in the form of a letter addressed to Joseph Cowen.\n\n\"Avignon,\n\n\"April 28, 1865.\n\n\"Dear Sir,--I have received your pamphlet (the 'Liberal Situation')\nwhich I think is one of the best of your writings, and well calculated\nto stir up the thinking minds among the working classes to larger views\nof political questions. So far as I am myself concerned I cannot but\nbe pleased to find you in sympathy with some of the most generally\nunpopular of my political notions. For my own part, I attach for the\npresent more importance to representation of minorities, and especially\nto Mr. Hares plan, combined with opening the suffrage to women, than\nto the plural voting which, in the form proposed by Mr. Buxton, of\nattaching the plurality of votes directly to property, I have always\nthoroughly repudiated. But I think what you say of it likely to be very\nuseful by impressing on the working people that it is no degradation to\nthem to consider some people's votes of more value than others. I would\nalways (as you do) couple with the plurality the condition of its being\naccessible to any one, however poor, who proves that he can come up to a\ncertain standard of knowledge.--I am, yours truly,\n\n\"J. S. Mill.\n\n\"G. J. Holyoake.\"\n\n\nOne night when a great Reform League meeting was held in the\nAgricultural Hall, Islington, I accompanied him from the House of\nCommons to it. There were rumours of danger in attending it. This did\nnot deter him. The meeting itself was ill spoken of by the press--still\nhe went. The crowd about the place made it perilous for one so\nfragile-looking as he, to force a way in. He never hesitated to try it\nWhen we arrived on the thronged platform, it was a struggle to get to\nthe front. The vast amphitheatre, with its distant lights and dense\ncrowds--the horsepit presenting a valley of faces, the higher ground\nhills of men, the iron rafters overhead were alive with hearers who had\nclimbed there--was a strange Miltonic scene. No sooner did the stout\nvoice of Manton--which alone all could hear--announce the arrival of Mr.\nMill than every man was silent; though few would catch the low, wise,\nbrave words he uttered. Afterwards I returned to the House of Commons\nwith him, he being interested in an expected division.\n\nThe Islington meeting that night had been denounced as illegal. He went\nto justify the right of public meeting by his presence, and to share the\nresponsibility of those who convened it. What man eminent as a\nthinker, save he, or Mr. John Morley, would incur the odium, peril, and\ndiscomfort of attending, for such a purpose, a workman's meeting such as\nthat?\n\nThe first time he made a speech at a public meeting was at the\nWhittington Club, before a gathering of co-operators. I asked him to\naddress them. I was as glad as surprised when he consented. Had it not\nbeen for the presence of women taking interest in co-operative economy,\nhe probably had not spoken then. In a sentence he defined the higher\nco-operation. He never spoke in vain.\n\nWhen in business in Fleet Street I signed bills for the convenience of\na city friend, who, like William Ellis--Mill's early associate--was a\nmunificent supporter of progressive endeavour. By putting my name on his\nbills I incurred a liability beyond my means of meeting. My more than\nimprudence was indefensible because it involved the business in which\nthe money of others was invested. Learning that my resources fell short\nby L70 of the amount for which I was answerable, Mr. Mill sent me the\nL70 from himself and a friend. When the bills were repaid me from the\nestate of him for whom I had signed them, I sent the L70 to Mr. Mill,\nwho returned me half as a gift, on the condition that I did not sign\nanother bill, which I never did, unless I was able to pay it if my\nfriend did not, and I was willing to pay it if he could not.\n\nMr. Mill had quoted portions of my \"History of the Rochdale Pioneers,\"\nin his \"Political Economy,\" which was a great advantage to a cause\nwhose success I much desired. In many ways I was much indebted to his\nfriendship, and have never changed in my regard for him. Yet this did\nnot involve spontaneous acquiescence in all his views. Upon the ballot\nI dissented from him. It seemed to me a just condition that the people\nshould be, for one minute in seven years, free to vote for their\npolitical masters (as members of Parliament are) without control,\nintimidation, or fear of resentment Mr. Bright himself and Mr. Berkeley\nwere impressed by my view as stated to a meeting of the Reform League.\nMill thought it conduced to manliness that the elector should withstand\nadverse influences at whatever peril--which assumed the universal\nexistence of a heroic spirit of self-sacrifice. Since the elector by his\nvote subjects his fellow-citizens, it may be, to perilous mastership,\nMill inferred every man had a right to know from whose hand came the\nblessing or the blow. There is still force in Mill's view which\ncommands respect. On the other hand, secret voting is not without its\ndisadvantages. The citizen may be surrounded by disguised adversaries.\nThe fair-seeming dissembler he trusts may stab him at the poll. The\nindependence given by the ballot may betray the State, and the traitors\nbe shielded from responsibility. The secret vote also rests on a vast\nassumption--that of the universal paramountcy of conscience and honesty\nin electors--which paramountcy is as scarce as political heroism. Those\nwho so trust the people incur the greater and ceaseless responsibility\nof educating them in political honour. They who have shown their trust\nin the people, alone have the right of claiming their fidelity. Mr. Mill\nwas foremost in teaching the duty of independent thought, and, to do him\njustice, my dissent from a principle he had come to hold strongly, made\nno difference in his friendship. He was once a believer in the ballot\nhimself.\n\nMr. Mill was an instance which shows that even the virtues of a\nphilosopher need, as in lesser men, good sense to take care of them,\nlest the operation of lofty qualities compromise others. His unguarded\nintrepidity in defence of the right cost him his seat for Westminster.\nThings were going well for him, on his second candidature, when one\nmorning it appeared in the newspapers that he had sent L10 to promote\nthe election of Mr. Bradlaugh. That L10 was worth L10,000 to his Tory\nopponent, and cost Mill's own committee the loss of L3,000, which was\ncontributed to promote his election. When I was a candidate in the\nTower Hamlets, Mr. Mill sent a similar sum to promote my election; but I\nprohibited the publication of an intrepid act of generosity, which might\nprove costly to Mr. Mill At his first election Dean Stanley nobly urged\nChristian electors to vote for Mr. Mill; but at the second election,\nwhen it became known that Mr. Mill was subscribing to bring an Atheist\ninto Parliament, most Christians were persuaded Mr. Mill was himself an\nAtheist, and only the nobler sort would vote for him again. It was right\nand honourable in Mr. Mill to stand by his opinion, that an Atheist\nhad as much right as a Christian to be in Parliament, and that\necclesiastical heresy was no disqualification for public or\nParliamentary service. To maintain your opinions at your own cost is\none thing, but to proclaim them at the cost of others, without regard to\ntime, consent or circumstance, is quite a different matter.\n\nMr. Mill had refused on principle to contribute to the expense of his\nown election, on the ground that a candidate should not be called upon\nto pay for his own election to a place of public service, I though it\nwas perfectly consistent that he should contribute to the election of\nothers. But his committee could not convert the electorate to this\nview. There is nothing so difficult as the election of a philosopher.\nMr. Mill was in favour of the civil equality of all opinions, but it did\nnot follow that he shared all opinions himself. But the electors could\nnot be made to see this after the L10 sent to Northampton became known,\nand England saw the most famous borough in the land handed over for\nunknown years to a Tory bookseller, without personal distinction of his\nown, and a book writer of the highest order rejected by the electors in\nfavour of a mere bookseller.\n\nMr. Mill's father, openly advocating the limitation of families in\nthe interest of the poor, bequeathed to his son a heritage of\ndisadvantage--of liability to frenzied imputation. No man is to be held\nresponsible save for what he himself says and what he himself does. No\nman is answerable, or ought to be held answerable, for the construction\nothers put upon his conduct, or for their inference as to his opinions.\nNo writer ever guarded his words and conduct more assiduously than J.\nS. Mill. Yet few have been more misrepresented by theological and\nConservative writers. Upon the question of \"limitation of families,\" Mr.\nMill never wrote other or more than this:--\n\n\"No prudent man contracts matrimony before he is in a condition which\ngives him an assured means of living, and no married man has a greater\nnumber of children than he can properly bring up. Whenever this family\nhas been formed, justice and humanity require that he should impose on\nhimself the same restraint which is submitted to by the unmarried.\"*\n\n     * \"Principles of Political Economy,\" Book ii.\n\nFurther instruction of the people upon this subject J. S. Mill might\nnot deprecate, but he never gave it He never went so far as Jowett,\nwho wrote: \"That the most important influences on human life should\nbe wholly left to chance, or shrouded in mystery, and instead of being\ndisciplined or understood, should be required to conform to an external\nstandard of propriety, cannot be regarded by the philosopher as a safe\nor satisfactory condition of human things.\"*\n\n     * \"Dialogues of Plato.\" Introduction to \"Republic,\" vol. ii.\n\nMill's views, or supposed views, naturally excited the attention of\nwits. Moore's amusing exaggeration, which, like American humour, was\ndevoid of truth, yet had no malice in it, was:--\n\n     \"There are two Mr. Mills, too, whom those who like reading\n     What's vastly unreadable, call very clever;\n     And whereas Mill senior makes war on _good_ breeding,\n     Mill junior makes war on all _breeding_ whatever.\"\n\nThe way in which opinions were invented for Mill is shown in the\ninstance of the London Debating Club (1826-1830), which was attended by\na set of young men who professed ultra opinions. Mr. J. A. Roebuck was\none. It was rumoured that at a meeting at which Mr. Mill was present, a\npamphlet was discussed entitled, \"What is Love?\" attributed to a man of\nsome note in his day, and of | unimpeachable character in private life.\nMr. Mill might have been present without knowledge of the | subject to\nbe brought forward, and may have been a listener without choice.\n\nBut in those days (and down to a much later period) the conventional\nfallacy was in full vogue--that civility to an opponent implied a secret\nsimilarity of opinion. Courtesy was regarded as complicity with\nthe beliefs of those to whom it was shown. He who was present at\nan unconventional assembly was held to assent to what took place\nthere--though neither a member, nor speaker, nor partisan.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII. JOHN STUART MILL, TEACHER OF THE PEOPLE\n\n(continued)\n\nMill was so entirely serious in his pursuit of truth, and entirely\nconvinced of the advantages of its publicity, that he readily risked\nconventional consequences on that account. He held it to be desirable\nthat those who had important convictions, should be free to make them\nknown, and even be encouraged to do so. In thinking this he was in no\nway compromised by, nor had he any complicity with, the convictions of\nothers. But this did not prevent him being made answerable for them, as\nin the case of the distribution of papers sent to him by friends in his\ncompany. A copy of it came into my possession which assuredly he did\nnot write, and the terms of which he could never have approved, had\nthey been submitted to him. On one occasion he sent to me a passionate\nrepudiation of concurrence or recommendation in any form, of methods\nimputed to him.\n\nThese eccentricities of imputation, supposed to have died by time, were\nfound to be alive at Mills death.\n\nThe chief resurrectionist was one Abraham Hay-ward, known as a teller\nof salacious stories at the Athenaeum. He was a man of many gifts,\nwho wrote with a bright, but by no means fastidious, pen. In some\nunexplained, inconsistent, and inexplicable way, Mr. Gladstone was\non friendly terms with him. No sooner was Mill dead, and illustrious\nappreciators of the great thinker were meditating some memorial to his\nhonour, than Mr. Hayward sent an article to the _Times_, suggesting\nintrinsic immorality in his opinions. He also sent out letters privately\nto deter eminent friends of Mill from giving their names to the memorial\ncommittee. He sent one to Mr. Stopford Brooke, upon whom it had no\ninfluence. He sent one to Mr. Gladstone, upon whom it had, and who, in\nconsequence, declined to join the committee.\n\nHayward was, in his day, the Iago of literature, and abused the\nconfiding nature of our noble Moor.* Yet, when Mr. Mill lost his seat\nfor Westminster, Mr. Gladstone had written these great words: \"We all\nknow Mr. Mill's intellectual eminence before he entered Parliament.\nWhat his conduct principally disclosed to me was his singular moral\nelevation. Of all the motives, stings and stimulants that reach men\nthrough their egotism in Parliament, no part could move or even touch\nhim. His conduct and his language were in this respect a sermon. For the\nsake of the House of Commons, I rejoiced in his advent and deplored his\ndisappearance. He did us all good, and in whatever party, in whatever\nform of opinion, I sorrowfully confess that such men are rare.\"\n\n     * My little book, \"John Stuart Mill, as the Working Classes\n     Knew Him,\" was written to show Mr. Gladstone the answer that\n     could be given to Hayward.\n\nThere was no tongue in the House of Commons more bitter, venomous, or\ndisparaging of the people than that of Lord Robert Cecil, afterwards\nLord Salisbury; yet I record to his honour he subscribed L50 towards the\nmemorial to Mr. Mill. One of the three first persons who gave L50 was\nMr. Walter Morrison. The Duke of Argyll, the Earl of Derby, the Duke of\nDevonshire, Sir Charles and Lady Dilke, Mr. and Mrs. P. A. Taylor were\nalso among the subscribers of L50 each. Among those who gave large\nbut lesser sums were Mr. Herbert Spencer, Stopford Brooke, Leonard\nH. Courtney, Frederic Harrison, G. H. Lewes, W. E. H. Lecky. Sir John\nLubbock, G. Croome Robertson, Lord Rosebery, Earl Russell, Professor\nTyndall, and Professor Huxley. So Mr. Mill had his monument with honour.\nIt stands on the Thames Embankment, and allures more pilgrims of thought\nthan any other there.\n\nPurity and honour, there is reason to believe, were never absent from\nMill's mind or conduct; but trusting to his own personal integrity, he\nassumed others would recognise it His admiration of Mrs. Taylor, whom he\nfrequently visited, and subsequently married, was misconstrued--though\nnot by Mr. Taylor, who had full confidence in Mr. Mill's honour. No\nexpression to the contrary on Mr. Taylor's part ever transpired. It\nmight be due to society that Mr. Mill should have been reserved in\nhis regard. But assured of his own rectitude, he trusted to the proud\nresenting maxim, \"Evil be to him who evil thinks,\" and he resented\nimputation--whether it came from his relatives or his friends. Any\nreflection upon him in this respect he treated as an affront to himself,\nand an imputation upon Mrs. Taylor, which he never forgave. A relative\ntold me after his death, that he never communicated with any of them\nagain who made any remark which bore a sinister interpretation. If ever\nthere was a philosopher who should be counted stainless, it was John\nStuart Mill.\n\nIn the minds of the Bentham School, population was a province of\npolitics. It would seem incredible to another generation--as it seems\nto many in this--that a philosopher should incur odium for being of\nJowett's opinion, that the most vital information upon the conduct of\nlife should not be withheld from the people. To give it is to incur\nconventional reprehension; as though it were not a greater crime to be\nsilent while a feeble, half-fed, and ignorant progeny infest the land,\nto find their way to the hospital, the poor house, or the gaol, than to\nprotest against this recklessness, which establishes penury and\nslavery in the workman's home. Yet a brutal delicacy and a criminal\nfastidiousness, calling itself public propriety, is far less reputable\nthan the ethical preference for reasonable foresight and a manlier race.\n\nMr. Mill's success in Parliament was greater than that of any\nphilosopher who has entered in our time. Unfortunately, very few\nphilosophers go there. The author of \"Mark Rutherford\" (W. Hale White)\nwriting to me lately, exclaimed: \"Oh for one session with Mill and\nBright and Cobden in the House! What would you not give to hear Mill's\ncalm voice again? What would you not give to see him apply the plummet\nof Justice and Reason to the crooked iniquities of the Front Benches? He\nstands before me now, just against the gangway on the Opposition side,\nhesitating, pausing even for some seconds occasionally, and yet holding\neverybody in the House with a kind of grip; for even the most foolish\nunderstood more or less dimly that they were listening to something\nstrange, something exalted, spoken from another sphere than that of the\nprofessional politician.\"\n\nMr. Christie relates that in the London Debating Society, of which Mill\nwas a member when a young man, it used to be said of him in argument,\n\"He passed over his adversary like a ploughshare over a mouse.\"\nCertainly many mice arguers heard in Parliament, who made the public\nthink a mountain was in labour, ended their existence with a squeak when\nMr. Mill took notice of them.\n\nThe operation of the suffrage and the ballot, questions on which Mill\nexpressed judgment, are in the minds of politicians to this day, and\nmany reformers who dissented from him do not conceal their misgivings as\nto the wisdom of their course. \"Misgivings\" is a word that may be taken\nto mean regret, whereas it merely signifies occasion for consideration.\nThe extension of the franchise and the endowment of the ballot have\ncaused misgivings in many who were foremost in demanding them. The wider\nsuffrage has not prevented an odious war in South Africa, and the ballot\nhas sent to the House of Commons a dangerous majority of retrograde\nmembers. John Bright distrusted the vote of the residuum. John Stuart\nMill equally dreaded the result of withdrawing the vote of the elector\nfrom public scrutiny. I agreed with their apprehensions, but it seemed\nto me a necessity of progress that the risk should be run. While the\nBallot Act was before the House of Lords, I wrote to the _Times_ and\nother papers, as I have elsewhere related, to say that the Ballot Act\nwould probably give us a Tory government for ten years--which it did.\nI thought that the elector who had two hundred years of transmitted\nsubjection or intimidation or bribery in his bones, would for some time\ngo on voting as he had done--for others, not for the State. He would not\nall at once understand that he was free and answerable to the State\nfor his vote. New electors, who had never known the responsibility\nof voting, would not soon acquire the sense of it Mr. Mill thought it\nconduced to manliness for an elector to act in despite of his interest\nor resentment of his neighbours, his employer, his landlord, or his\npriest, when his vote became known. At every election there were martyrs\non both sides; and it was too much to expect that a mass of voters,\npolitically ignorant, and who had been kept in ignorance, would\ngenerally manifest a high spirit, which maintains independence in the\nface of social peril, which philosophers are not always equal to. No\ndoubt the secrecy of the vote is an immunity to knaves, but it is the\nsole chance of independence for the average honest man. The danger\nof committing the fortune of the State to the unchecked votes of the\nunintelligent was an argument of great power against a secret suffrage.\nLord Macaulay, though a Whig of the Whigs, gave an effective answer when\nhe brought forward his famous fool, who declared \"he would never go into\nthe water until he had learnt to swim.\" The people must plunge into the\nsea of liberty before they can learn to swim in it. They have now been\nin that sea many years, and not many have learned the art yet. Then was\nfound the truth of Temple Leader's words, that \"if the sheep had votes,\nthey would give them all to the butcher.\" Then when reformers found that\nthe new electors voted largely for those who had always refused them the\nfranchise, the advocates of it often expressed to me their misgivings\nas to its wisdom. Lord Sherbrooke (then Robert Lowe) saw clearly that\nif liberty was to be maintained and extended, the State must educate its\nmasters.\n\nBut has this been done? Has not education been impeded? Have not\nelectoral facilities been hampered? Has not the franchise been\nrestricted by onerous conditions, which keep great numbers from having\nany vote at all? Has not the dual vote been kept up, which enables\nthe wealthy to multiply their votes at will? Before reformers have\nmisgivings concerning the extension of liberty to the masses, they must\nsee that the poor have the same opportunity of reaching the poll as the\nrich have. George Eliot, who had the Positivist reluctance to see the\npeople act for themselves, wrote: \"Ignorant power comes in the end to\nthe same thing as wicked power.\"* But there is this difference in their\nnature. \"Ignorant power\" can be instructed, and experience may teach\nit; but \"wicked power\" has an evil purpose, intelligently fixed and\nimplacably determined.\n\n     * \"Felix Holt,\" p  265.    Blackwood's stereotyped edition.\n\nDoes any reflecting person suppose, that when the vote was given to the\nmass of the people, they would be at once transmuted into intelligent,\ncalculating, and patient politicians--that their passions would be\ntamed, and their vices extinguished--that they would forthwith act\nreasonably? Much of this was true of the thoughtful working men. But\nfor a long time the multitude must remain unchanged until intelligence\nextends. We have had renewed experience that--\n\n     \"Religion, empire, vengeance, what you will,\n     A word's enough to rouse mankind to kill.\n     Some cunning phrase by fiction caught and spread,\n     That guilt may reign, and wolves and worms be fed.\"\n\nBut the reformer has one new advantage now. He is no longer scandalised\nby the excesses of ignorance, nor the perversities of selfishness.\nGiving the vote has, if we may paraphrase the words of Shakespeare, put\ninto\n\n     \"Every man's hands\n      The means to cancel his captivity.\"\n\nIt is no mean thing to have done this. There is no reason for misgiving\nhere. If the people misuse or neglect to use their power, the fault is\ntheir own. There is no one to reproach but themselves.\n\nAbolitionists of slavery may, if supine, feel misgivings at having\nliberated the negroes from their masters, where they were certain of\nshelter, subsistence, and protection from assault of others, and exposed\nthem to the malice of their former owners, to be maltreated, murdered at\nwill, lynched with torture on imaginary or uninvestigated accusations.\nThose who aided the emancipation of the slaves are bound to ceaseless\nvigilance in defending them. But despite the calamities of liberty,\nfreedom has added an elastic race (who learn the arts of order and of\nwealth) to the family of mankind, and misgivings are obsolete among\nthose who have achieved the triumphs and share the vigils and duties of\nprogress.\n\nMr. Mill was essentially a teacher of the people. He wished them to\nthink on their own account--for themselves, and not as others directed\nthem. He did not wish them to disregard the thoughts of those wiser\nthan themselves, but to verify new ideas as far as they could, before\nassenting to them. He wished them not to take authority for truth, but\ntruth for authority. To this end he taught the people principles which\nwere pathways to the future. He who kept on such paths knew where he\nwas. Herbert Spencer said he had no wrinkles on his brow because he\nhad discovered the thoroughfares of nature, and was never puzzled as to\nwhere they led. Mr. Mill was a chartmaker in logic, in social economy,\nand in politics. None before him did what he did, and no successor\nhas exceeded him. By his protest against the \"subjection of women,\" he\nbrought half the human race into the province of politics and progress.\nThey have not all appeared there as yet--but they are on the way.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII. ABOUT MR. GLADSTONE\n\nMr. Gladstone's career will be the wonder of other generations, as it\nhas been the astonishment of this. Mr. Morley's monumental \"Life\" of\nhim will long be remembered as the greatest of all contributions to the\neducation of the British politician. It is a life of Parliament as well\nas of a person. Those who remember how Carpenter's \"Political Text Book\"\nwas welcomed will know how much more this will be valued.\n\nNever before was a biography founded on material so colossal. Only\none man was thought capable of dealing with a subject so vast and\ncomplicated. Great expectations were entertained, and were fulfilled in\na measure which exceeded every anticipation. The task demanded a vaster\nrange of knowledge than was ever before required of a biographer.\nClassic passages, not capable of being construed by the general reader,\nare translated, so that interest is never diverted nor baffled by\nflashes of learned darkness. When cardinal and unusual terms are used,\nwhich might be dubiously interpreted, definitions are given which have\nboth delight and instruction. He who collects them from Mr. Morley's\npages would possess a little dictionary of priceless guidance. A noble\naction or a just idea is recognised, whoever may manifest it Some\npersons, as Mr. Gladstone said of Kinglake's famous book, \"were too\nbad to live and too good to die.\" Nevertheless, their excellence, where\ndiscernible, has its place in this biographical mosaic Thus unexpected\npieces of human thought emerge in the careers of the historic figures\nwho pass before the reader, by which he becomes richer as he proceeds\nfrom page to page. Illuminating similes abound which do not leave\nthe memory--such fitness is there in them. Historic questions which\ninterested those who lived through them, are made clear, by facts\nunknown or unregarded then. Men whom many readers detested in their day\nare discovered to have some noble feature of character, unrevealed to\nthe public before. Mr. Morley is a master of character--a creator of\nfame by his discernment, discrimination, impartiality, and generosity to\nadversaries, from which the reader learns charity and wisdom as he goes\nalong. Knowledge of public life, law, and government, come as part of\nthe charm of the incidents related. Memorable phrases, unexpected terms\nof expression, like flashes of radium, gleam in every chapter. The\nnarrative is as interesting as the adventures of Gil Bias--so full is\nit of wisdom, wonder, and variety. From all the highways, byways, and\nbroadways of the great subject, the reader never loses sight of Mr.\nGladstone. All paths lead to him. Like Bunyan's Pilgrim, the biographer\ngoes on his shining way, guiding the reader to the shrine of the hero of\nthe marvellous story. Mr. Gladstone moves through Mr. Morley's pages as\na king--as he did among men. He sometimes fell into errors, as noble men\nhave done in every age, but there was never any error in his purpose. He\nalways meant justly, and did not hesitate to give us new and ennobling\nestimates of hated men. His sense of justice diffused, as it were, a\nhalo around him. Mr. Morley's pages give us the natural history of a\npolitical mind of unusual range and power which was without a compeer.\nAs Mr. Gladstone began, he advanced, listening to everybody, to use one\nof Mr. Morley's commanding lines: \"He was flexible, persistent, clear,\npractical, fervid, unconquerable.\"\n\nIn \"Vivian Grey,\" Disraeli foreshadowed his bright and vengeful career.\nIn the same way, Mr. Gladstone wrote the whole spirit of his life in\nhis first address to the electors of Newark. His career is in that\nmanifesto, which has never been reprinted. The reader will be interested\nin seeing it Here it is:--\n\nTo the Worthy and Independent Electors of the Borough of Newark.\n\n\"Gentlemen,--Having now completed my canvass, I think it my duty as well\nto remind you of the principles on which I have solicited your votes as\nfreely to assure my friends that its result has placed my success beyond\na doubt. I have not requested your favour on the ground of adherence\nto the opinions of any man or party, further than such adherence can be\nfairly understood from the conviction that I have not hesitated to avow\nthat we must watch and resist that uninquiring and un-discriminating\ndesire for change amongst us, which threatens to produce, along with\npartial good, a melancholy preponderance of mischief, which I am\npersuaded would aggravate beyond computation the deep-seated evils of\nour social state, and the heavy burthens of our industrial classes;\nwhich, by disturbing our peace, destroys confidence and strikes at\nthe root of prosperity. This it has done already, and this we must,\ntherefore, believe it will do.\n\n\"For a mitigation of these evils we must, I think, look not only\nto particular measures, but to the restoration of sounder general\nprinciples--I mean especially that principle on which alone the\nincorporation of Religion with the State in our constitution can be\ndefended; that the duties of governors are strictly and peculiarly\nreligious, and that legislatures, like individuals, are bound to\ncarry throughout their acts the spirit of the high truths they have\nacknowledged. Principles are now arrayed against our institutions, and\nnot by truckling nor by temporising, not by oppression nor corruption,\nbut by principles they must be met. Among their first results should be\nsedulous and especial attention to the interests of the poor, founded\nupon the rule that those who are the least able to take care of\nthemselves ought to be most regarded by others. Particularly it is\na duty to endeavour by every means that labour may receive adequate\nremuneration, which unhappily, among several classes of our\nfellow-countrymen, is not now the case. Whatever measures, therefore,\nwhether by the correction of the Poor Laws, allotment of cottage\ngrounds, or otherwise, tend to promote this object, I deem entitled to\nthe warmest support, with all such as are calculated to secure sound\nmoral conduct in any class of society.\n\n\"I proceed to the momentous question of slavery, which I have found\nentertained among you in that candid and temperate spirit which alone\nbefits its nature, or promises to remove its difficulties. If I have not\nrecognised the right of an irresponsible Society to interpose between\nme and the electors, it has not been from any disrespect to its members,\nnor from any unwillingness to answer their or any other questions\non which the electors may desire to know my views. To the esteemed\nsecretary of the Society I submitted my reasons for silence, and I made\na point of stating those views to him in his character of a voter.\n\n\"As regards the abstract lawfulness of slavery, I acknowledge it simply\nas importing the right of one man to the labour of another; and I rest\nupon the fact that Scripture--paramount authority on such a point--gives\ndirections to persons standing in the relation of master to slave for\ntheir conduct in that relation; whereas, were the matter absolutely and\nnecessarily sinful, it would not regulate the manner. Assuming sin is\nthe cause of degradation, it strives, and strives most effectually, to\ncure the latter by extirpating the former. We are agreed that both\nthe physical and moral bondage of the slave are to be abolished. The\nquestion is as to the order and the order only; now Scripture attacks\nthe moral evil before the temporal one, and the temporal through\nthe moral one, and I am content with the order which Scripture has\nestablished.\n\n\"To this end I desire to see immediately set on foot, by impartial and\nsovereign authority, an universal and efficient system of Christian\ninstruction, not intended to resist designs of individual piety\nand wisdom for the religious improvement of the negroes, but to do\nthoroughly what they can only do partially. As regards immediate\nemancipation, whether with or without compensation, there are several\nminor reasons against it, but that which weighs most with me is, that\nit would, I much fear, exchange the evils now affecting the negro for\nothers which are weightier--for a relapse into deeper debasement, if not\nfor bloodshed and internal war.* Let fitness be made the condition of\nemancipation, and let us strive to bring him to that fitness by the\nshortest possible course. Let him enjoy the means of earning his freedom\nthrough honest and industrious habits, thus the same instruments which\nattain his liberty shall likewise render him competent to use it; and\nthus, I earnestly trust, without risk of blood, without violation of\nproperty, with unimpaired benefit to the negro and with the utmost speed\nwhich prudence will admit, we shall arrive at the exceedingly desirable\nconsummation, the utter extinction of slavery.\n\n     * Isaiah could not have prophesied more definitely. Friends\n     of the slaves stoutly denied that the Scriptures sanctioned\n     their bondage. They were afraid the fact would go against\n     Christianity. It was true nevertheless, and the American\n     preachers pleaded this for their opposition and supineness\n     towards abolition.\n\n\"And now, gentlemen, as regards the enthusiasm with which you have\nrallied round your ancient flag, and welcomed the humble representative\nof those principles whose emblem it is, I trust that neither the lapse\nof time nor the seductions of prosperity can ever efface it from my\nmemory. To my opponents my acknowledgments are due for the good humour\nand kindness with which they have received me, and while I would thank\nmy friends for their zealous and unwearied exertions in my favour, I\nbriefly but emphatically assure them that if promises be an adequate\nfoundation of confidence, or experience a reasonable ground of\ncalculation, our victory is sure. I have the honour to be, gentlemen,\nyour obliged and obedient servant,\n\n\"W. E. Gladstone.\n\n\"Clinton Arms, Newark, Tuesday, Oct, 9, 1832.\"\n\nThe sincerity, the intrepidity, the sympathy with those who labour, the\ncandour of statement, the openness of mind, the sentiments of piety\nand freedom (so rarely combined) of his life, are all there. His whole\ncareer is but a magnificent enlargement of that address. I have lingered\nbefore the hotel in the market-place, where he stayed and from which he\nmade speeches to the electors. There is no one living in Newark now who\nheard them. Byron lived in the same hotel when he came to Newark with\nhis early poems, which he had printed at a shop still standing in the\nmarket-place. The township is enlarged, but otherwise unchanged as the\nConservatism he then represented. I have thrice walked through all\nthe streets along which he passed, for he visited the house of every\nelector. What a splendid canvasser he must have been, with his handsome\nface, his courtesy, his deference, his charm of speech, and infinite\nreadiness of explanation!\n\nI first saw him in the old House of Commons in 1842. Mr. Roebuck had\npresented a petition from me that sitting, and I remained to witness\nsubsequent proceedings. I only remember one figure, seemingly a\nyoung-looking man, tall, pallid-faced, with dark hair, who stood well\nout in the mid-space between the Ministerial benches and the table, and\nspoke with the fluency and freedom of a master of his subject Every one\nappeared to pay him attention. I was told the speaker was Mr. Gladstone.\n\nWhen he visited the Tyne in 1862, I did not need to be told his name. At\nthat time I was connected with the _Newcastle Chronicle_, and it fell\nto me to write the leaders on Mr. Gladstone. The miners were told, when\nthey came up from the pits on that day, they would see a sight new\nin England, which they might not soon see again--a Chancellor of the\nExchequer who was known to have a conscience. Other holders of the same\noffice may have had that commodity about them, but not employing it in\npublic affairs, its existence had not been observed. The penny paper\nwhich gave the miners that information, we told them would not exist but\nfor Mr. Gladstone. Thousands of miners came up from the pits of Durham\nand Northumberland, and great numbers succeeded in shaking hands with\nMr. Gladstone as he approached the _Harry Clasper_, named after the\nwell-known oarsman of the Tyne, who was on the river with Bob Chambers,\nwho had won a hundred contests. Clasper and Chambers were always\nnamed together. Men swam before Mr. Gladstone's vessel a considerable\ndistance, as though they were the water gods of the Tyne, preparing the\nway for their distinguished and unwonted visitor. And what a journey\nit was! Twenty-two miles of banks, counting both sides, were lined with\npeople. The works upon the Tyneside, with their grim piles high in\nthe air, crowned with clouds of blackest smoke, out of which forks of\nsulphurous flames darted, revealing hundreds of persons surmounting\nroofs and pinnacles, cheering in ringing tones, above, while cannon\nboomed at their feet below. Amid it all you could see everywhere women\nholding up their children to see the great Chancellor of the Exchequer\ngo by. The Tyne has seen no other sight like this.\n\nIt was of this visit that I first wrote to Mr. Gladstone. The\narrangements for his wonderful reception were the work of Mr. Joseph\nCowen, jun. His father was Chief Commissioner for the Tyne--in person\ntaller than Mr. Gladstone, with a gift of speech which sincerity made\neloquent. His son, who had organised the reception, never came in sight\nof Mr. Gladstone from first to last. As I knew Mr. Gladstone liked\nto know what was below the surface as well as upon it, I sent him two\ninforming notes.\n\n\"Going to and fro in the land \"--not with inquisitive malice as a\ncertain sojourner mentioned in Job is reputed to have done--on lecturing\npurpose bent, sometimes on political missions, I knew the state and\nnature of opinion in many places. The soul and Liberalism of the country\nwas Nonconformist and religious. Many in Parliament thought that London\nnewspapers, published mainly for sale, and which furnished ideas for\nmusic-hall politicians--represented English opinion at large. At times\nI wrote to members of Parliament that this was not so. Mr. Walter James\n(since Lord Northbourne) was one who showed my reports to Mr. Gladstone.\n\nOne day in 1877 Mr. Gladstone sent me a postcard, inviting me to\nbreakfast with him. He was as open in his friendship as in his politics.\nIn all things he was prepared to dare the judgment of adversaries.\nIncidentally I mentioned the invitation to two persons only, but next\nday a passage appeared in a newspaper--much read in the House of Commons\nat that time--to the effect that Mr. Gladstone was inviting unusual\npersons to his house, who might be useful to him in his campaign on the\nEastern question, so anxious was he to obtain partisan support in the\nagitation in which he was engaged. There was no truth whatever in this,\nas Mr. Gladstone never referred to the subject, nor any of his guests.\nBut I took care at that time not to mention again an invitation lest it\nshould occasion inconvenience to my host. The visit to the Tyne had some\npicturesque incidents. By happy accident, or it might be from thoughtful\ndesign, Mrs. Gladstone wore an Indian shawl having a circle in the\ncentre, by which she was distinguishable. Every person whom thousands\ncome out to see, should have some individual mark of dress, and should\nnever be surrounded by friends, when recognition is impossible and\ndisappointing to the crowd.\n\nAt Middlesboro', Mrs. Gladstone was taken to see molten metal poured\ninto moulds. I knew the ways of a foundry, and that if the mould\nhappened to be damp, a shower of the liquid iron would fall upon those\nnear. The gentlemen around her seemed to think it an act of freedom to\nwarn her of her danger, so I stepped up to her and told her of the risk\nshe ran. She said in after years, that if I did not save her life, I\nsaved her from great possible discomfort.\n\nMiddlesboro* was then in a state of volcanic chaos. Mr. Gladstone\npredicted that it would become what it is now, a splendid town. It was\nin the grey of a murky evening, when blast furnaces were flaming\naround him, that Mr. Gladstone began in a small office--the only place\navailable--a wonderful comparison between Oxford and the scene outside.\nAlas! the dull-minded town clerk stopped him, saying that they wished\nhim to make his speech in the evening--not knowing that Mr. Gladstone\nhad twenty speeches in him at any time. The evening came, but the great\ninspiration returned no more.\n\nThe night before he had spoken in Newcastle, when he made the\nlong-remembered declaration on the war then raging in America, the\nreporter of the Electric Telegraph Company had fallen ill, and Mr.\nCowen asked me to take his place. It is easier to report Mr. Gladstone\nverbatim than to summarise his speech as he proceeded on his rapid,\nanimated, and unhesitating way. So I condensed the famous passage in\nthese words: \"Jefferson Davis had not only made a navy, he had made a\nnation (Sensation).\" The word was too strong. There was no \"sensation;\"\nthere was only a general movement as of unexpectedness, and \"surprise\"\nwould have been a more appropriate word; but it did not come to me at\nthe moment, and there was no time to wait for it, and the \"sensational\"\nsentence was all over London before the speech was ended. The next night\nhe recurred to the subject at Middlesboro' with qualifications, but the\nPress took no notice of them. The \"sensation\" appended to the sentence\nhad set political commentators on fire.\n\nA notable speech was made by the Mayor of Middlesboro'. In presenting\naddresses to Mr. Gladstone, local magnates complimented him upon his\ndistinction in Greek, which none of them were competent to appraise. The\nMayor of Middlesboro', an honest, stalwart gentleman, said simply, \"Mr.\nGladstone, if I could speak as well as you can speak, I should be able\nto tell you how proud we are to have you among us.\" No speech made to\nhim was more effective or relevant, or pleased him more.\n\nBy the courtesy of Mr. Bright, who procured me a seat in the Speaker's\ngallery when there was only one to be had, I heard Mr. Gladstone\ndeliver, at midnight, his famous peroration, when, with uplifted hand,\nhe said, \"Time is on our side.\"\n\nI remember the night well. The Duke of Argyll came into the gallery,\nwhere he stood four or five hours. I would gladly have given him my\nseat, but if I did so I must relinquish hearing the debate, as I must\nhave left the gallery, as no stranger is permitted to stand. So I\nthought it prudent to respect the privileges of the peerage--and keep my\nseat.\n\nIn the years when I was constantly in the House of Commons, I was one\nday walking through the tunnel-like passage which leads from Downing\nStreet into the Park, I saw a pair of gleaming eyes approaching me. The\npassage was so dark I saw nothing else. As the figure passed me I saw\nit was Mr. Gladstone. On returning to \"The House,\" as Parliament is\nfamiliarly called, I mentioned what I had seen to Mr. Vargus, who had\nsat at the Treasury door for fifty years. \"Yes,\" he answered, \"there\nhave been no eyes enter this House like Mr. Gladstone's since the days\nof Canning.\"\n\nYet those eyes of meteoric intensity so lacked quick perception that he\nwould pass by members of his party in the Lobby of Parliament without\naccosting them, fearing to do so when he desired it, lest he should\nmistake their identity and set up party misconceptions. Mr. Gladstone\nignored persons because he did not see them. It should not have been\nleft to Sir E. Hamilton to make this known after Mr. Gladstone's death.\nThe fact should have been disclosed fifty years before.\n\nTo disappointed members with whom I came in contact, I used to explain\nthat Mr. Gladstones apparent slightingness was owing to preoccupation.\nHe would often enter the House absorbed by an impending speech--which\nwas true--and thought more of serving his country than of conciliating\npartisans. Lord Palmerston was wiser in his generation, who knew his\nfollowers would forgive him betraying public interest, if he paid\nattention to them.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"Bygones Worth Remembering, Vol. 1 (of 2)","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":62495}