{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_40315/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_40315","id":"gutenberg_40315","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40315","summary":null,"tags":["Arts -- Periodicals","Category: Art","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Literature -- Periodicals","Political science -- Periodicals","The Contemporary Review"],"text":"[Transcriber's Note:\n\nThe first part of this volume (September 1879) was produced as Project\nGutenberg Ebook #30048. The relevant part of the table of contents has\nbeen extracted from that document.\n\nThe rest of the Transcriber Notes are at the end of the Book.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_The Contemporary Review, Volume 36, Issue 4_\n\nPublished December 1879.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n  DECEMBER, 1879.\n                                                                   PAGE\n  The Lord's Prayer and the Church: Letters Addressed to the Clergy.\n  By John Ruskin, D.C.L.                                            539\n\n  India under Lord Lytton. By Lieut.-Colonel R. D. Osborn           553\n\n  On the Utility to Flowers of their Beauty. By the Hon. Justice    574\n\n  Where are we in Art? By Lady Verney                               588\n\n  Life in Constantinople Fifty Years Ago. By an Eastern Statesman   601\n\n  Miracles, Prayer, and Law. By J. Boyd Kinnear                     617\n\n  What is Rent? By Professor Bonamy Price                           630\n\n  Buddhism and Jainism. By Professor Monier Williams                644\n\n  Lord Beaconsfield:--                                              665\n\n    I. Why we Follow Him. By a Tory.\n    II. Why we Disbelieve in Him. By a Whig.\n\n  Contemporary Life and Thought in France. By Gabriel Monod         697\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nTHE LORD'S PRAYER AND THE CHURCH.\n\nLETTERS ADDRESSED BY JOHN RUSKIN, D.C.L.,\n\n\n\n\nTO THE CLERGY.\n\n\nThe following letters, which are still receiving the careful\nconsideration of many of my brother clergy, are, at the suggestion of\nthe Editor, now printed in the CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, with the object\nof eliciting a further and wider expression of opinion. In addition\nto the subjoined brief Introductory Address, I desire here to say that\nevery reader of these remarkable letters should remember that they\nhave proceeded from the pen of a very eminent layman, who has not had\nthe advantage, or disadvantage, of any special theological training;\nbut yet whose extensive studies in Art have not prevented him from\nfully recognizing, and boldly avowing, his belief that religion is\neverybody's business, and _his_ not less than another's. The draught\nmay be a bitter one for some of us; but it is a salutary medicine, and\nwe ought not to shrink from swallowing it.\n\nI shall be glad to receive such expressions of opinion as I may be\nfavoured with from the thoughtful readers of the CONTEMPORARY REVIEW.\nThose comments or replies, along with the original letters, and\nan essay or commentary from myself as editor, will be published by\nMessrs. Strahan & Co., and appear early in the spring; the volume\nbeing closed by a reply, or Epilogue, from Mr. Ruskin himself.\n\n  F. A. MALLESON, M.A.\n\n  The Vicarage, Broughton-in-Furness.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nThe first reading of the Letters to the Furness Clerical Society was\nprefaced with the following remarks:--\n\nA few words by way of introduction will be absolutely necessary before\nI proceed to read Mr. Ruskin's letters. They originated simply in a\nproposal of mine, which met with so ready and willing a response,\nthat it almost seemed like a simultaneous thought. They are addressed\nnominally to myself, as representing the body of clergy whose\nsecretary I have the honour to be; they are, in fact, therefore\naddressed to this Society primarily. But in the course of the\nnext month or two they will also be read to two other Clerical\nSocieties,--the Ormskirk and the Brighton (junior),--who have acceded\nto my proposals with much kindness, and in the first case have invited\nme of their own accord. I have undertaken, to the best of my ability,\nto arrange and set down the various expressions of opinion, which will\nbe freely uttered. In so limited a time, many who may have much to say\nthat would be really valuable will find no time to-day to deliver it.\nOf these brethren, I beg that they will do me the favour to express\ntheir views at their leisure, in writing. The original letters, the\ndiscussions, the letters which may be suggested, and a few comments\nof the Editor's, will be published in a volume which will appear, I\ntrust, in the beginning of the next year.\n\nI will now, if you please, undertake the somewhat dangerous\nresponsibility of avowing my own impressions of the letters I am\nabout to read to you. I own that I believe I see in these papers\nthe development of a principle of the deepest interest and\nimportance,--namely, the application of the highest and loftiest\nstandard in the interpretation of the Gospel message _to_ ourselves as\nclergymen, and _from_ ourselves to our congregations. We have plenty\nelsewhere of doctrine and dogma, and undefinable shades of theological\nopinion. Let us turn at last to practical questions presented for our\nconsideration by an eminent layman whose field of work lies quite as\nmuch in religion and ethics, as it does, reaching to so splendid an\neminence, in Art. A man is wanted to show to both clergy and laity\nsomething of the full force and meaning of Gospel teaching. Many there\nare, and I am of this number, whose cry is \"_Exoriare aliquis_.\"\n\nI ask you, if possible, to do in an hour what I have been for the last\ntwo months trying to do, to divest myself of old forms of thought, to\ncast off self-indulgent views of our duty as ministers of religion,\nto lift ourselves out of those grooves in which we are apt to run so\nsmoothly and so complacently, persuading ourselves that all is well\njust as it is, and to endeavour to strike into a sterner, harder path,\nbeset with difficulties, but still the path of duty. These papers will\ndemand a close, a patient, and in some places, a few will think, an\nindulgent consideration; but as a whole, the standard taken is, as I\nfirmly believe, speaking only for myself, lofty and Christian, to the\nextent of an almost ideal perfection. If we do go forward straight\nin the direction which Mr. Ruskin points out, I know we shall come,\nsooner or later, to a chasm right across our path. Some of us, I hope,\nwill undauntedly cross it. Let each judge for himself, [Greek: t\u00f4\ntelei pistin pher\u00f4n].\n\n\n\n\nLETTERS.\n\n\nI.\n\n  BRANTWOOD, CONISTON,\n  LANCASHIRE, _20th June, 1879_.\n\nDEAR MR. MALLESON,--I could not at once answer your important letter:\nfor, though I felt at once the impossibility of my venturing to\naddress such an audience as you proposed, I am unwilling to fail in\nanswering to any call relating to matters respecting which my feelings\nhave been long in earnest, if in any wise it may be possible for me to\nbe of service therein. My health--or want of it--now utterly forbids\nmy engagement in any duty involving excitement or acute intellectual\neffort; but I think, before the first Tuesday in August, I might be\nable to write one or two letters to yourself, referring to, and\nmore or less completing, some passages already printed in _Fors_\nand elsewhere, which might, on your reading any portions you thought\navailable, become matter of discussion during the meeting at some\nleisure time, after its own main purposes had been answered.\n\nAt all events, I will think over what I should like, and be able,\nto represent to such a meeting, and only beg you not to think me\ninsensible of the honour done me by your wish, and of the gravity of\nthe trust reposed in me.\n\n  Ever most faithfully yours,\n\n  J. RUSKIN.\n\n  THE REV. F. A. MALLESON.\n\n\nII.\n\n  BRANTWOOD, CONISTON,\n  _23rd June, 1879_.\n\nDEAR MR. MALLESON,--Walking, and talking, are now alike impossible to\nme;[1] my strength is gone for both; nor do I believe talking on such\nmatters to be of the least use except to promote, between sensible\npeople, kindly feeling and knowledge of each other's personal\ncharacters. I have every trust in _your_ kindness and truth; nor do I\nfear being myself misunderstood by you; what I may be able to put\ninto written form, so as to admit of being laid before your friends in\ncouncil, must be set down without any question of personal feeling--as\nsimply as a mathematical question or demonstration.\n\nThe first exact question which it seems to me such an assembly may\nhe earnestly called upon by laymen to solve, is surely axiomatic: the\ndefinition of themselves as a body, and of their business as such.\n\nNamely: as clergymen of the Church of England, do they consider\nthemselves to be so called merely as the attached servants of a\nparticular state? Do they, in their quality of guides, hold a position\nsimilar to that of the guides of Chamouni or Grindelwald, who, being\na numbered body of examined and trustworthy persons belonging to those\nseveral villages, have nevertheless no Chamounist or Grindelwaldist\nopinions on the subject of Alpine geography or glacier walking: but\nare prepared to put into practice a common and universal science\nof Locality and Athletics, founded on sure survey and successful\npractice? Are the clergymen of the Ecclesia of England thus simply the\nattached and salaried guides of England and the English, in the way,\nknown of all good men, that leadeth unto life?--or are they, on the\ncontrary, a body of men holding, or in any legal manner required, or\ncompelled to hold, opinions on the subject--say, of the height of the\nCelestial Mountains, the crevasses which go down quickest to the pit,\nand other cognate points of science--differing from, or even contrary\nto, the tenets of the guides of the Church of France, the Church of\nItaly, and other Christian countries?\n\nIs not this the first of all questions which a Clerical Council has to\nanswer in open terms?\n\n  Ever affectionately yours,\n\n  J. RUSKIN.\n\n    [Footnote 1: In answer to the proposal of discussing the\n    subject during a mountain walk.]\n\n\nIII.\n\n  BRANTWOOD, _6th July_.\n\nMy first letter contained a Layman's plea for a clear answer to the\nquestion, \"What is a clergyman of the Church of England?\" Supposing\nthe answer to this first to be, that the clergy of the Church of\nEngland are teachers, not of the Gospel to England, but of the Gospel\nto all nations; and not of the Gospel of Luther, nor of the Gospel\nof Augustine, but of the Gospel of Christ,--then the Layman's second\nquestion would be:\n\nCan this Gospel of Christ be put into such plain words and short terms\nas that a plain man may understand it?--and, if so, would it not be,\nin a quite primal sense, desirable that it should be so, rather than\nleft to be gathered out of Thirty-nine Articles, written by no means\nin clear English, and referring, for further explanation of exactly\nthe most important point in the whole tenour of their teaching,[1]\nto a \"Homily of Justification,\"[2] which is not generally in the\npossession, or even probably within the comprehension, of simple\npersons?\n\n  Ever faithfully yours,\n\n  J. RUSKIN.\n\n    [Footnote 1: Art xi.]\n\n    [Footnote 2: Homily xi. of the Second Table.]\n\n\nIV.\n\n  BRANTWOOD, _8th July_.\n\nI am so very glad that you approve of the letter plan, as it enables\nme to build up what I would fain try to say, of little stones, without\nlifting too much for my strength at once; and the sense of addressing\na friend who understands me and sympathizes with me prevents my being\nbrought to a stand by continual need for apology, or fear of giving\noffence.\n\nBut yet I do not quite see why you should feel my asking for a simple\nand comprehensible statement of the Christian Gospel at starting.\nAre you not bid to go into _all_ the world and preach it to every\ncreature? (I should myself think the clergyman, most likely to do good\nwho accepted the [Greek: pas\u00ea t\u00ea ktisei] so literally as at least to\nsympathize with St. Francis' sermon to the birds, and to feel that\nfeeding either sheep or fowls, or unmuzzling the ox, or keeping the\nwrens alive in the snow, would be received by their Heavenly Feeder as\nthe _perfect_ fulfilment of His \"Feed my sheep\" in the higher sense.)\n\nThat's all a parenthesis; for although I should think that your\ngood company would all agree that kindness to animals was a kind of\npreaching to them, and that hunting and vivisection were a kind of\nblasphemy to them, I want only to put the sterner question before\nyour council, _how_ this Gospel is to be preached either \"[Greek:\npantachou]\" or to \"[Greek: panta ta ethn\u00ea],\" if first its preachers\nhave not determined quite clearly what it _is_? And might not such\ndefinition, acceptable to the entire body of the Church of Christ, be\narrived at by merely explaining, in their completeness and life, the\nterms of the Lord's Prayer--the first words taught to children all\nover the Christian world?\n\nI will try to explain what I mean of its several articles, in\nfollowing letters; and in answer to the question with which you close\nyour last, I can only say that you are at perfect liberty to use any,\nor all, or any parts of them, as you think good. Usually, when I am\nasked if letters of mine may be printed, I say; \"Assuredly, provided\nonly that you print them entire.\" But in your hands, I withdraw even\nthis condition, and trust gladly to your judgment, remaining always\n\n  Faithfully and affectionately yours,\n\n  J. RUSKIN.\n\n  THE REV. F. A. MALLESON.\n\n\nV.\n\n  BRANTWOOD, _10th July_.\n\nMy meaning, in saying that the Lord's Prayer might be made a\nfoundation of Gospel-teaching, was not that it contained all that\nChristian ministers have to teach; but that it contains what all\nChristians are agreed upon as first to be taught; and that no good\nparish-working pastor in any district of the world but would be glad\nto take his part in making it clear and living to his congregation.\n\nAnd the first clause of it, of course rightly explained, gives us the\nground of what is surely a mighty part of the Gospel--its \"first and\ngreat commandment,\" namely, that we have a Father whom we _can_ love,\nand are required to love, and to desire to be with Him in Heaven,\nwherever that may be.\n\nAnd to declare that we have such a loving Father, whose mercy is over\n_all_ His works, and whose will and law is so lovely and lovable that\nit is sweeter than honey, and more precious than gold, to those who\ncan \"taste\" and \"see\" that the Lord is Good--this, surely, is a most\npleasant and glorious good message and _spell_ to bring to men--as\ndistinguished from the evil message and accursed spell that Satan has\nbrought to the nations of the world instead of it, that they have no\nFather, but only \"a consuming fire\" ready to devour them, unless they\nare delivered from its raging flame by some scheme of pardon for all,\nfor which they are to be thankful, not to the Father, but to the Son.\n\nSupposing this first article of the true Gospel agreed to, how\nwould the blessing that closes the epistles of that Gospel become\nintelligible and living, instead of dark and dead: \"The grace\nof Christ, and the _love_ of God, and the fellowship of the Holy\nGhost,\"--the most _tender_ word being that used of the Father?\n\n\nVI.\n\n  BRANTWOOD, _12th July, 1879_.\n\nI wonder how many, even of those who honestly and attentively join in\nour Church services, attach any distinct idea to the second clause of\nthe Lord's Prayer, the _first petition_ of it, the first thing that\nthey are ordered by Christ to seek of their Father?\n\nAm I unjust in thinking that most of them have little more notion on\nthe matter than that God has forbidden \"bad language,\" and wishes them\nto pray that everybody may be respectful to Him?\n\nIs it any otherwise with the Third Commandment? Do not most look on\nit merely in the light of the Statute of Swearing? and read the words\n\"will not hold him guiltless\" merely as a passionless intimation that\nhowever carelessly a man may let out a round oath, there really is\nsomething wrong in it?\n\nOn the other hand, can anything be more tremendous than the words\nthemselves--double-negatived:\n\n  \"[Greek: ou gar m\u00ea katharis\u00eai ... kyrios]\"?\n\nFor _other_ sins there is washing;--for this, none! the seventh verse,\nEx. xx., in the Septuagint, marking the real power rather than the\nEnglish, which (I suppose) is literal to the Hebrew.\n\nTo my layman's mind, of practical needs in the present state of\nthe Church, nothing is so immediate as that of explaining to the\ncongregation the meaning of being gathered in His name, and having\nHim in the midst of them; as, on the other hand, of being gathered\nin blasphemy of His name, and having the devil in the midst of\nthem--presiding over the prayers which have become an abomination.\n\nFor the entire body of the texts in the Gospel against hypocrisy are\none and all nothing but the expansion of the threatening that closes\nthe Third Commandment. For as \"the name whereby He shall be called is\nthe Lord our Righteousness,\"--so the taking that name in vain is the\nsum of \"the deceivableness of _un_righteousness in them that perish.\"\n\nWithout dwelling on the possibility--which I do not myself, however,\nfor a moment doubt--of an honest clergyman's being able actually to\nprevent the entrance among his congregation of persons leading openly\nwicked lives, could any subject be more vital to the purposes of your\nmeetings than the difference between the present and the probable\nstate of the Christian Church which would result, were it more the\neffort of zealous parish priests, instead of getting wicked _poor_\npeople to _come_ to church, to get wicked rich ones to stay out of it?\n\nLest, in any discussion of such question, it might be, as it too often\nis, alleged that \"the Lord looketh upon the heart,\" &c., let me be\npermitted to say--with as much positiveness as may express my deepest\nconviction--that, while indeed it is the Lord's business to look upon\nthe heart, it is the pastor's to look upon the hands and the lips; and\nthat the foulest oaths of the thief and the street-walker are, in the\nears of God, sinless as the hawk's cry, or the gnat's murmur, compared\nto the responses, in the Church service, on the lips of the usurer and\nthe adulterer, who have destroyed, not their own souls only, but those\nof the outcast ones whom they have made their victims.\n\nIt is for the meeting of clergymen themselves--not for a layman\naddressing them--to ask further, how much the name of God may be taken\nin vain, and profaned instead of hallowed--_in_ the pulpit, as well as\nunder it.\n\n  Ever affectionately yours,\n\n  J. RUSKIN.\n\n\nVII.\n\n  BRANTWOOD, _14th July, 1879_.\n\nDEAR MR. MALLESON,--Sincere thanks for both your letters and the\nproofs sent. Your comment and conducting link, when needed, will be\nof the greatest help and value, I am well assured, suggesting what you\nknow will be the probable feeling of your hearers, and the point that\nwill come into question.\n\nYes, certainly, that \"His\" in the fourth line[1] was meant to imply\nthat eternal presence of Christ; as in another passage,[2] referring\nto the Creation, \"when His right hand strewed the snow on Lebanon,\nand smoothed the slopes of Calvary,\" but in so far as we dwell on that\ntruth, \"Hast thou seen _Me_, Philip, and not the Father?\" we are not\nteaching the people what is specially the Gospel of _Christ_ as\nhaving a distinct function--namely, to _serve_ the Father, and do the\nFather's will. And in all His human relations to us, and commands to\nus, it is as the Son of Man, not as the \"power of God and wisdom of\nGod,\" that He acts and speaks. Not as the Power; for _He_ must pray,\nlike one of us. Not as the Wisdom; for He must not know \"if it be\npossible\" His prayer should be heard.\n\nAnd in what I want to say of the third clause of His prayer (_His_,\nnot merely as His ordering, but His using), it is especially this\ncomparison between _His_ kingdom, and His Father's, that I want to see\nthe disciples guarded against. I believe very few, even of the most\nearnest, using that petition, realize that it is the Father's--not the\nSon's--kingdom, that they pray may come,--although the whole prayer is\nfoundational on that fact: \"_For_ THINE is the kingdom, the power, and\nthe glory.\" And I fancy that the mind of the most faithful Christians\nis quite led away from its proper hope, by dwelling on the reign--or\nthe coming again--of Christ; which, indeed, they are to look for,\nand _watch_ for, but not to pray for. Their prayer is to be for the\ngreater kingdom to which He, risen and having all His enemies under\nHis feet, is to surrender _His_, \"that God may be All in All.\"\n\nAnd, though the greatest, it is that everlasting kingdom which the\npoorest of us can advance. We cannot hasten Christ's coming. \"Of the\nday and the hour, knoweth none.\" But the kingdom of God is as a\ngrain of mustard-seed:--we can sow of it; it is as a foam-globe of\nleaven:--we can mingle it; and its glory and its joy are that even the\nbirds of the air can lodge in the branches thereof.\n\nForgive me for getting back to my sparrows; but truly, in the present\nstate of England, the fowls of the air are the only creatures,\ntormented and murdered as they are, that yet have here and there\nnests, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. And it would be well if\nmany of us, in reading that text, \"The kingdom of God is NOT meat and\ndrink,\" had even got so far as to the understanding that it was at\nleast _as much_, and that until we had fed the hungry, there was no\npower in us to inspire the unhappy.\n\n  Ever affectionately yours,\n\n  J. RUSKIN.\n\nI will write my feeling about the pieces of the Life of Christ you\nhave sent me, in a private letter. I may say at once that I am sure it\nwill do much good, and will be upright and intelligible, which how few\nreligious writings are!\n\n    [Footnote 1: \"Modern Painters.\"]\n\n    [Footnote 2: Referring to the closing sentence of the third\n    paragraph of the fifth letter, which _seemed_ to express what\n    I felt could not be Mr. Ruskin's full meaning, I pointed out\n    to him the following sentence in \"Modern Painters:\"--\n\n    \"When, in the desert, Jesus was girding Himself for the work\n    of life, angels of life came and ministered unto Him; now,\n    in the fair world, when He is girding Himself for the work of\n    death, the ministrants come to Him from the grave; but from\n    the grave conquered. One from the tomb under Abarim, which\n    _His_ own hand had sealed long ago; the other from the rest\n    which He had entered without seeing corruption.\"\n\n    On this I made a remark somewhat to the following effect: that\n    I felt sure Mr. Ruskin regarded the loving work of the Father\n    and of the Son to be _equal_ in the forgiveness of sins and\n    redemption of mankind; that what is done by the Father is\n    in reality done also by the Son; and that it is by a mere\n    accommodation to human infirmity of understanding that\n    the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed to us in language,\n    inadequate indeed to convey divine truths, but still the only\n    language possible; and I asked whether some such feeling was\n    not present in his mind when he used the pronoun \"His,\" in\n    the above passage from \"Modern Painters\" of the Son, where it\n    would be usually understood of the Father; and as a corollary,\n    whether, in the letter, he does not himself fully recognize\n    the fact of the redemption of the world by the loving\n    self-sacrifice of the Son in entire concurrence with the\n    equally loving will of the Father. This, as well as I\n    can recollect, is the origin of the passage in the second\n    paragraph in the seventh letter.--_Editor of Letters._]\n\n\nVIII.\n\n  BRANTWOOD, _9th August, 1879_.\n\nI was reading the second chapter of Malachi this morning by chance,\nand wondering how many clergymen ever read it, and took to heart the\n\"commandment for _them_.\"\n\nFor they are always ready enough to call themselves priests (though\nthey know themselves to be nothing of the sort) whenever there is any\ndignity to be got out of the title; but, whenever there is any good,\nhot scolding or unpleasant advice given them by the prophets, in that\nself-assumed character of theirs, they are as ready to quit it as\never Dionysus his lion-skin, when he finds the character of Herakles\ninconvenient.\n\n\"Ye have wearied the Lord with your words,\" (yes, and some of His\npeople, too, in your time): \"yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied Him?\nWhen ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the\nLord, and He delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?\"\n\nHow many, again and again I wonder, of the lively young ecclesiastics\nsupplied to the increasing demand of our west-ends of flourishing\nCities of the Plain, ever consider what sort of sin it is for which\nGod (unless they lay it to heart) will \"curse their blessings, and\nspread dung upon their faces,\" or have understood, even in the dimmest\nmanner, what part _they_ had taken, and were taking, in \"corrupting\nthe covenant of the Lord with Levi, and causing many to stumble at the\nLaw.\"\n\nPerhaps the most subtle and unconscious way in which the religious\nteachers upon whom the ends of the world are come, have done this, is\nin never telling their people the meaning of the clause in the Lord's\nPrayer, which, of all others, their most earnest hearers have oftenest\non their lips: \"Thy will be done.\" They allow their people to use\nit as if their Father's will were always to kill their babies, or do\nsomething unpleasant to them, instead of explaining to them that\nthe first and intensest article of their Father's will was their own\nsanctification, and following comfort and wealth; and that the\none only path to national prosperity and to domestic peace was to\nunderstand what the will of the Lord was, and to do all they could\nto get it done. Whereas one would think, by the tone of the eagerest\npreachers nowadays, that they held their blessed office to be that,\nnot of showing men how to do their Father's will on earth, but how to\nget to heaven without doing any of it either here or there!\n\nI say, especially, the most eager preachers; for nearly the whole\nMissionary body (with the hottest Evangelistic sect of the English\nChurch) is at this moment composed of men who think the Gospel they\nare to carry to mend the world with, forsooth, is that, \"If any man\nsin, he hath an Advocate with the Father;\" while I have never yet, in\nmy own experience, met either with a Missionary or a Town Bishop who\nso much as professed himself \"to understand what the will of the Lord\"\nwas, far less to teach anybody else to do it; and for fifty preachers,\nyes, and fifty hundreds whom I have heard proclaiming the Mediator\nof the New Testament, that \"they which were called might receive the\npromise of eternal inheritance,\" I have never yet heard so much as\n_one_ heartily proclaiming against all those \"deceivers with vain\nwords\" (Eph. v. 6), that \"no covetous person which is an idolator hath\n_any_ inheritance in the kingdom of Christ, or of God;\" and on myself\npersonally and publicly challenging the Bishops of England generally,\nand by name the Bishop of Manchester, to say whether usury was, or was\nnot, according to the will of God, I have received no answer from any\none of them.[1]\n\n  _13th August._\n\nI have allowed myself, in the beginning of this letter, to dwell on\nthe equivocal use of the word \"Priest\" in the English Church (see\nChristopher Harvey, Grosart's edition, p. 38), because the assumption\nof the mediatorial, in defect of the pastoral, office by the clergy\nfulfils itself, naturally and always, in their pretending to absolve\nthe sinner from his punishment, instead of purging him from his sin;\nand practically, in their general patronage and encouragement of all\nthe iniquity of the world, by steadily preaching away the penalties\nof it. So that the great cities of the earth, which ought to be the\nplaces set on its hills, with the Temple of the Lord in the midst of\nthem, to which the tribes should go up,--centres to the Kingdoms\nand Provinces of Honour, Virtue, and the Knowledge of the law of\nGod,--have become, instead, loathsome centres of fornication and\ncovetousness--the smoke of their sin going up into the face of Heaven\nlike the furnace of Sodom, and the pollution of it rotting and raging\nthrough the bones and the souls of the peasant people round them, as\nif they were each a volcano whose ashes broke out in blains upon man\nand upon beast.\n\nAnd in the midst of them, their freshly-set-up steeples ring the crowd\nto a weekly prayer that the rest of their lives may be pure and holy,\nwhile they have not the slightest intention of purifying, sanctifying,\nor changing their lives in any the smallest particular; and their\nclergy gather, each into himself, the curious dual power, and\nJanus-faced majesty in mischief, of the prophet that prophesies\nfalsely, and the priest that bears rule by his means.\n\nAnd the people love to have it so.\n\n  BRANTWOOD, _12th August_.\n\nI am very glad of your little note from Brighton. I thought it\nneedless to send the two letters there, which you will find at home;\nand they pretty nearly end all _I_ want to say; for the remaining\nclauses of the prayer touch on things too high for me. But I will send\nyou one concluding letter about them.\n\n    [Footnote 1: Fors Clavigera, Letter lxxxii., p. 323.]\n\n\nIX.\n\n  BRANTWOOD, _19th August_.\n\nI retained the foregoing letter by me till now, lest you should think\nit written in any haste or petulance; but it is every word of it\ndeliberate, though expressing the bitterness of twenty years of vain\nsorrow and pleading concerning these things. Nor am I able to write,\notherwise, anything of the next following clause of the prayer;--for\nno words could be burning enough to tell the evils which have come on\nthe world from men's using it thoughtlessly and blasphemously, praying\nGod to give them what they are deliberately resolved to steal. For all\ntrue Christianity is known--as its Master was--in breaking of bread,\nand all false Christianity in stealing it.\n\nLet the clergyman only apply--with impartial and level sweep--to his\ncongregation, the great pastoral order: \"The man that will not work,\nneither should he eat;\" and be resolute in requiring each member\nof his flock to tell him _what_--day by day--they do to earn their\ndinners;--and he will find an entirely new view of life and its\nsacraments open upon him and them.\n\nFor the man who is not--day by day--doing work which will earn his\ndinner, must be stealing his dinner; and the actual fact is that the\ngreat mass of men, calling themselves Christians, do actually live by\nrobbing the poor of their bread, and by no other trade whatsoever: and\nthe simple examination of the mode of the produce and consumption of\nEuropean food--who digs for it, and who eats it--will prove that to\nany honest human soul.\n\nNor is it possible for any Christian Church to exist but in pollutions\nand hypocrisies beyond all words, until the virtues of a life moderate\nin its self-indulgence, and wide in its offices of temporal ministry\nto the poor, are insisted on as the normal conditions in which,\nonly, the prayer to God for the harvest of the earth is other than\nblasphemy.\n\nIn the second place. Since in the parable in Luke, the bread asked for\nis shown to be also, and chiefly, the Holy Spirit (Luke xi. 13), and\nthe prayer, \"Give us each day our daily bread,\" is, in its fulness,\nthe disciples', \"Lord, evermore give us _this_ bread,\"--the\nclergyman's question to his whole flock, primarily literal: \"Children,\nhave ye here any meat?\" must ultimately be always the greater\nspiritual one: \"Children, have ye here any Holy Spirit?\" or, \"Have ye\nnot heard yet whether there _be_ any? and, instead of a Holy Ghost the\nLord and Giver of Life, do you only believe in an unholy mammon, Lord\nand Giver of Death?\"\n\nThe opposition between the two Lords has been, and will be as long\nas the world lasts, absolute, irreconcileable, mortal; and the\nclergyman's first message to his people of this day is--if he be\nfaithful--\"Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.\"\n\n  Ever faithfully yours,\n\n  J. RUSKIN.\n\n\nX.\n\n  BRANTWOOD, _3rd September_.\n\nDEAR MR. MALLESON,--I have been very long before trying to say so much\nas a word about the sixth clause of the Pater; for whenever I began\nthinking of it, I was stopped by the sorrowful sense of the hopeless\ntask you poor clergymen had, nowadays, in recommending and teaching\npeople to love their enemies, when their whole energies were already\ndevoted to swindling their friends.\n\nBut, in any days, past or now, the clause is one of such difficulty,\nthat, to understand it, means almost to know the love of God which\npasseth knowledge.\n\nBut, at all events, it is surely the pastor's duty to prevent his\nflock from _mis_understanding it; and above all things to keep them\nfrom supposing that God's forgiveness is to be had simply for the\nasking, by those who \"wilfully sin after they have received the\nknowledge of the truth.\"\n\nThere is one very simple lesson also, needed especially by people in\ncircumstances of happy life, which I have never heard fully enforced\nfrom the pulpit, and which is usually the more lost sight of, because\nthe fine and inaccurate word \"trespasses\" is so often used instead of\nthe simple and accurate one \"debts.\" Among people well educated and\nhappily circumstanced it may easily chance that long periods of their\nlives pass without any such conscious sin as could, on any discovery\nor memory of it, make them cry out, in truth and in pain,--\"I have\nsinned against the Lord.\" But scarcely an hour of their happy days can\npass over them without leaving--were their hearts open--some evidence\nwritten there that they have \"left undone the things that they ought\nto have done,\" and giving them bitterer and heavier cause to cry,\nand cry again--for ever, in the pure words of their Master's prayer,\n\"Dimitte nobis _debita_ nostra.\"\n\nIn connection with the more accurate translation of \"debts\" rather\nthan \"trespasses,\" it would surely be well to keep constantly in the\nmind of complacent and inoffensive congregations that in Christ's\nown prophecy of the manner of the last judgment, the condemnation is\npronounced only on the sins of omission: \"I was hungry, and ye gave me\nno meat.\"\n\nBut, whatever the manner of sin, by offence or defect, which the\npreacher fears in his people, surely he has of late been wholly remiss\nin compelling their definite recognition of it, in its several and\npersonal particulars. Nothing in the various inconsistency of human\nnature is more grotesque than its willingness to be taxed with any\nquantity of sins in the gross, and its resentment at the insinuation\nof having committed the smallest parcel of them in detail. And the\nEnglish Liturgy, evidently drawn up with the amiable intention of\nmaking religion as pleasant as possible, to a people desirous of\nsaving their souls with no great degree of personal inconvenience, is\nperhaps in no point more unwholesomely lenient than in its concession\nto the popular conviction that we may obtain the present advantage,\nand escape the future punishment, of any sort of iniquity, by\ndexterously concealing the manner of it from man, and triumphantly\nconfessing the quantity of it to God.\n\nFinally, whatever the advantages and decencies of a form of prayer,\nand how wide soever the scope given to its collected passages, it\ncannot be at one and the same time fitted for the use of a body\nof well-taught and experienced Christians, such as should join the\nservices of a Church nineteen centuries old,--and adapted to the needs\nof the timid sinner who has that day first entered its porch, or of\nthe remorseful publican who has only recently become sensible of his\ncall to a pew.\n\nAnd surely our clergy need not be surprised at the daily increasing\ndistrust in the public mind of the efficacy of Prayer, after having so\nlong insisted on their offering supplication, _at least_ every Sunday\nmorning at eleven o'clock, that the rest of their lives hereafter\nmight be pure and holy, leaving them conscious all the while that they\nwould be similarly required to inform the Lord next week, at the same\nhour, that \"there was no health in them!\"\n\nAmong the much rebuked follies and abuses of so-called \"Ritualism,\"\nnone that I have heard of are indeed so dangerously and darkly\n\"Ritual\" as this piece of authorized mockery of the most solemn act of\nhuman life, and only entrance of eternal life--Repentance.\n\n  Believe me, dear Mr. Malleson,\n\n  Ever faithfully and respectfully yours,\n\n  J. RUSKIN.\n\n\nXI.\n\n  BRANTWOOD, _14th September, 1879_.\n\nDEAR MR. MALLESON,--The gentle words in your last letter referring\nto the difference between yourself and me in the degree of hope with\nwhich you could regard what could not but appear to the general mind\nUtopian in designs for the action of the Christian Church, surely\nmight best be answered by appeal to the consistent tone of the prayer\nwe have been examining.\n\nIs not every one of its petitions for a perfect state? and is not\nthis last clause of it, of which we are to think to-day--if fully\nunderstood--a petition not only for the restoration of Paradise, but\nof Paradise in which there shall be no deadly fruit, or, at least, no\ntempter to praise it? And may we not admit that it is probably only\nfor want of the earnest use of this last petition that not only the\npreceding ones have become formal with us, but that the private and\nsimply restricted prayer for the little things we each severally\ndesire, has become by some Christians dreaded and unused, and by\nothers used faithlessly, and therefore with disappointment?\n\nAnd is it not for want of this special directness and simplicity of\npetition, and of the sense of its acceptance, that the whole nature of\nprayer has been doubted in our hearts, and disgraced by our lips; that\nwe are afraid to ask God's blessing on the earth, when the scientific\npeople tell us He has made previous arrangements to curse it; and\nthat, instead of obeying, without fear or debate, the plain order,\n\"Ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full,\" we sorrowfully\nsink back into the apology for prayer, that \"it is a wholesome\nexercise, even when fruitless,\" and that we ought piously always to\nsuppose that the text really means no more than \"Ask, and ye shall\n_not_ receive, that your joy may be _empty_?\"\n\nSupposing we were first all of us quite sure that we _had_ prayed,\nhonestly, the prayer against temptation, and that we would thankfully\nbe refused anything we had set our hearts upon, if indeed God saw that\nit would lead us into evil, might we not have confidence afterwards\nthat He in whose hand the King's heart is, as the rivers of water,\nwould turn our tiny little hearts also in the way that they should go,\nand that _then_ the special prayer for the joys He taught them to seek\nwould be answered to the last syllable, and to overflowing?\n\nIt is surely scarcely necessary to say, farther, what the holy\nteachers of all nations have invariably concurred in showing,--that\nfaithful prayer implies always correlative exertion; and that no man\ncan ask honestly or hopefully to be delivered from temptation, unless\nhe has himself honestly and firmly determined to do the best he can\nto keep out of it. But, in modern days, the first aim of all Christian\nparents is to place their children in circumstances where the\ntemptations (which they are apt to call \"opportunities\") may be as\ngreat and as many as possible; where the sight and promise of \"all\nthese things\" in Satan's gift may be brilliantly near; and where the\nact of \"falling down to worship me\" may be partly concealed by the\nshelter, and partly excused, as involuntary, by the pressure, of the\nconcurrent crowd.\n\nIn what respect the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of _them_,\ndiffer from the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory, which are God's for\never, is seldom, as far as I have heard, intelligibly explained from\nthe pulpit; and still less the irreconcileable hostility between the\ntwo royalties and realms asserted in its sternness of decision.\n\nWhether it be, indeed, Utopian to believe that the kingdom we are\ntaught to pray for _may_ come--verily come--for the asking, it is\nsurely not for man to judge; but it is at least at his choice to\nresolve that he will no longer render obedience, nor ascribe glory and\npower, to the Devil. If he cannot find strength in himself to advance\ntowards Heaven, he may at least say to the power of Hell, \"Get thee\nbehind me;\" and staying himself on the testimony of Him who saith,\n\"Surely I come quickly,\" ratify his happy prayer with the faithful\n\"Amen, even so, come, Lord Jesus.\"\n\n  Ever, my dear friend,\n\n  Believe me affectionately and gratefully yours,\n\n  J. RUSKIN.\n\n\n\n\nINDIA UNDER LORD LYTTON.\n\n\nLord Lytton is fond of public speaking, and his more solemn speeches\nare remarkable for the stream of abundant piety which runs through\nthem. Not unfrequently they have taken the form of addresses to some\nunknown power, rather than discourses delivered to a mundane audience.\nHe signalized his accession to office by one of these semi-theological\norations to the members of Council assembled to meet him at Government\nHouse, Calcutta. He said:--\n\n    \"Gentlemen, it is my fervent prayer, that a Power higher\n    than that of any earthly Government may inspire and bless\n    the progress of our counsels; granting me, with your valued\n    assistance, to direct them to such issues as may prove\n    conducive to the honour of our country, to the authority\n    and prestige of its august Sovereign, to the progressive\n    well-being of the millions committed to our fostering care,\n    and to the security of the chiefs and princes of India, as\n    well as of our allies beyond the frontier, in the undisturbed\n    enjoyment of their just rights and hereditary possessions.\"\n\nThe sequel renders it probable that by a \"power higher than any\nearthly Government,\" Lord Lytton understood nothing more remote from\nhuman ken than the will of Lord Beaconsfield. At any rate, the prayer\nwas rejected; and under the influence of a perverse destiny, the\nViceroy has been singled out to accomplish precisely those acts from\nwhich he entreated to be delivered. The \"valued assistance\" of\nhis colleagues in council he has systematically set at nought and\nrejected; the \"millions committed to his fostering care\" he has (as\nI shall show) permitted to perish of hunger under circumstances of\npeculiar cruelty; and I need not say that he has entirely failed in\nhis endeavours to preserve \"our allies beyond the frontier in\nthe undisturbed enjoyment of their just rights and hereditary\npossessions.\"\n\nIt is the story of these inconsistencies which I propose to tell in\nthe following pages. In the reading they can hardly fail to awaken\na smile; but in the acting they have brought suffering, poverty, and\ndeath upon thousands of innocent people. Throughout India they have\nshaken the confidence of the people in the humanity, justice, and\ntruthfulness of the British character; and have, as I believe, brought\nour Indian Empire to the verge of a catastrophe, from which nothing\nbut a complete and immediate reversal of policy will avail to save it.\n\nThe rule that we have set up in India is so hard and mechanical in its\ncharacter--it has so entirely failed to strike root in the affections\nof the natives--that a very brief period of misgovernment suffices to\nprovoke an insurrection. This is occasioned mainly by two causes--the\nexclusive system on which India is administered, and the absence of\nall intercommunion (in any true sense of the word) between the ruling\nand the subject races. It is not too much to say that under the\npresent system every native of ambition, ability, or education, is of\nnecessity a centre of disaffection towards British rule. For within\nthe area of British rule the ascendency of strangers makes him an\nalien in his native land without scope for his power or hopes for his\nambition; and beyond that area the possession of ability awakens the\ndistrust and unconcealed dislike of English officialism. On the other\nhand, to the great mass of the people, the English official is simply\nan enigma. Their relations with him are almost exclusively official.\nThe magistrate of a district is little more to them than a piece of\nmachinery possessing powers to kill and tax and imprison. Such pieces\nof machinery they behold, as Carlyle would say, in endless succession\n\"emerging from the inane,\" killing and taxing for a time, and then\n\"vanishing again into the inane.\" But the people know not whence they\ncome, or whither they go; their voices go for nothing in the selection\nof this human machinery which hold their fortunes in its power. The\ngreat administrative mill goes grinding on, impelled by forces of\nwhich they have no knowledge; and the people are merely the passive,\nunresisting grist which is ground up year after year. A truly\nfrightful and unnatural state of things!\n\nIt is impossible that a dominion thus constituted should be otherwise\nthan transitory. But even for a brief space its peaceful continuance\nis possible only under certain conditions. The absence of either\nloyalty or thorough understanding in those who are ruled, must be\nmade good by the plainest rectitude of purpose on the part of the\nGovernment, and thoroughly genuine and successful administration. If\nsuch a Government as we have set up in India does not adhere strictly\nto the letter and the spirit of its engagements--if it cannot insure\nthe physical well-being of its subjects--it is simply good for\nnothing; because, from its very nature, it cannot achieve anything\nmore than this. It was the first of these conditions that Lord\nDalhousie thought he might safely set at nought; and in five years\nhe brought down upon us the terrible retribution of 1857. But Lord\nDalhousie was, at least, sincerely anxious to secure the \"physical\nwell-being\" of the people. He struck at the chiefs and princes\nof India because he believed that they stood in the way of that\nwell-being. He was entirely mistaken; but nevertheless he threw down\nonly one of the pillars on which our rule is sustained, and when\nthe Mutiny came upon us, the bulk of the people remained loyal. Lord\nLytton has undermined the foundations of both pillars, and a very\nbrief continuance of his policy will bring them down with a crash.\nHow this has been accomplished I have now to relate. I begin with his\npolicy on the Frontier, because all the other transactions of which\nI shall have to speak are connected with that policy, as effects with\ntheir cause.\n\n\nThe Negotiations with Shere Ali.\n\nDespite of all that has been written and said on the subject, to most\npeople the origin of the war in Afghanistan appears involved in as\ngreat obscurity as ever. Leading Liberal politicians are in this\nbenighted condition not less than the rank and file of the Tories.\nMore people than formerly are willing to admit that the Government was\nrash and mistaken in its calculations--that the Treaty of Gundamuck\nhas not fulfilled the expectations it awakened; but a war of some\nkind, they believe, was forced upon the Government by the attitude\nof Russia and the disposition of the Ameer. This belief is entirely\nerroneous. The war was a war of deliberately planned aggression,\nentirely unjustified either by the attitude of Russia or the\ndisposition of the Ameer. Unless we perceive this we are not in a\nposition to form a sound estimate of the effect wrought in the minds\nof the princes and people of India. The wanton character of the war\nis, therefore, the first thing I must demonstrate.\n\nWhen Lord Lytton reached India, the situation in Afghanistan was as\nfollows:--The late Ameer Shere Ali had succeeded in establishing a\ndegree of order throughout Afghanistan, to which the country had\nbeen a stranger for many years. His officers were loyal and devoted;\nintrigue and rebellion had everywhere failed to make headway; and\nhe was on terms of sincere friendship with the Governor-General\nat Calcutta. There was, at this time, no fear that the Russians\nin Central Asia desired to exercise any unwarrantable influence in\nAfghanistan; on the contrary, in the despatch to Lord Northbrook's\nGovernment, in which Lord Salisbury propounded his new policy of\nestablishing a permanent Embassy at Kabul, he said--\n\n    \"I do not desire, by the observations which I have made, to\n    convey to your Excellency the impression that, in the opinion\n    of her Majesty's Government, the Russian Government have any\n    intention of violating the frontier of Afghanistan.... It is\n    undoubtedly true that the recent advances in Central Asia have\n    been rather forced upon the Government of St. Petersburg than\n    originated by them, and that _their efforts, at present, are\n    sincerely directed to the prevention of any movement which may\n    give just umbrage to the British Government_.\"\n\nThe political horizon was, therefore, cloudless at the moment selected\nby Lord Salisbury for a radical change of policy in Afghanistan. This\nvery fact would have sufficed to arouse the suspicions of the Ameer.\nLord Salisbury has since expressed his conviction that if Lord\nNorthbrook had made the proposal, the Ameer would have accepted the\npermanent Embassy, and both he and we should have been spared the\ncalamities which resulted from delay. But at the time Lord Salisbury\nsent his instructions to the Government of India he thought otherwise.\nHe had then no doubt that if the Ameer was asked in so many words to\nreceive a permanent Mission in Afghanistan, the Ameer would refuse.\nBut he thought it was possible to fasten a Mission on him by means of\na deception.\n\n    \"The first step\" Lord Salisbury wrote to the Government of\n    India, \"in establishing our relations with the Ameer on a\n    more satisfactory footing will be to induce him to receive\n    a temporary Embassy in his capital. It need not be publicly\n    connected with the establishment of a permanent Mission within\n    his dominions. There would be many advantages in ostensibly\n    directing it to some object of smaller political interest,\n    which it will not be difficult for your Excellency to find, or\n    if need be, to create. I have, therefore, to instruct you ...\n    without any delay that you can reasonably avoid, to find some\n    occasion for sending a Mission to Kabul.\"\n\nLord Northbrook, as is well known, declined to carry out this\ningenious plan for overreaching the Ameer, and breaking the pledge\nthat we had given not to force English officers upon him. He resigned\nalmost immediately after the receipt of the despatch setting forth the\nnew policy, and was succeeded by Lord Lytton. It is generally assumed\nthat Lord Lytton came to India charged with the execution of no other\npolicy than that to which Lord Northbrook had declined to assent. But\nthis assumption is incompatible with the line of action pursued by\nLord Lytton. This much, however, is clear already. The new policy,\nwhatever it was, was not forced upon the British Government, either by\nthe alienation of the Ameer or the intrigues of Russia. They entered\nupon it at a time when, by their own confession, the sky was clear.\nAfghanistan was in the enjoyment of an unprecedented quiet and\nprosperity; the Ameer was conducting his foreign policy in accordance\nwith our wishes; and the efforts of the Government of St. Petersburg\nwere \"sincerely directed to the prevention of any movement which might\ngive just umbrage to the British Government.\" So far as India was\nconcerned, the condition of the country called aloud for a policy\ndevoted to internal reform and retrenchment. The limit of endurable\ntaxation had been reached; the army imperatively needed thorough\nreorganization; and the people and the land were still being scourged\nby famine upon famine of the most appalling character.\n\nNow, if the English Cabinet had no designs in their frontier policy\nexcept to establish British agents in Afghanistan, without breach of\npre-existing arrangements, and with the free concurrence of the Ameer,\nit is plain that for such a policy concealment was unnecessary. Yet,\nuntil the actual outbreak of hostilities, the negotiations with the\nAmeer were kept hidden from the English Parliament and the nation.\nThe fact is, that in the instructions given to Lord Lytton before his\ndeparture from England, Lord Salisbury anticipates the refusal of the\nAmeer to agree to the new policy, and points out what, in that case,\nis to be done:--\n\n    \"11. If the language and demeanour of the Ameer be such as\n    to promise no satisfactory result of the negotiations thus\n    opened, his Highness should be distinctly reminded that he\n    is isolating himself at his own peril from the friendship and\n    protection it is his interest to seek and deserve....\"\n\n    \"28. The conduct of Shere Ali has more than once been\n    characterized by so significant a disregard of the wishes and\n    interests of the Government of India, that the irretrievable\n    alienation of his confidence in the sincerity and power of\n    that Government is a contingency which cannot be dismissed as\n    impossible. _Should such a fear be confirmed by the result\n    of the proposed negotiation, no time must be lost in\n    reconsidering, from a new point of view, the policy to be\n    pursued in reference to Afghanistan._\"\n\nThese instructions clearly establish the following points:--They show\nthat the new policy, whatever it was, was expected \"irretrievably\"\nto destroy the confidence of the Ameer \"in the sincerity of the\nGovernment;\" and that, in that case, the Ameer was to be informed that\nhe had forfeited our friendship and protection, and a new policy was\nimmediately to be adopted towards Afghanistan. Here, then, we have\nthe first note of war. All this time there was no pressure upon the\nBritish Government occasioned by the attitude of Russia. Our relations\nwith Russia were excellent. On the 5th May, 1876, Mr. Disraeli said in\nthe House of Commons, \"_I believe, indeed, that at no time has there\nbeen a better understanding between the Courts of St. James and St.\nPetersburg than at this present moment_, and there is this good\nunderstanding because our policy is a clear and frank policy.\" So\nhere we have the proof, that in a season of perfect calm, the Ministry\ncommenced a policy for the \"irretrievable alienation\" of the Ameer,\nand sent Lord Lytton to India in order to execute it.\n\nLord Lytton entered with zest into the spirit of these singular\ninstructions, and set to work to \"alienate\" the Ameer with the utmost\nvigour. He politely caused him to be informed that he (the Ameer) was\nan earthen pipkin between two iron pots; that if he did not come to\na \"speedy understanding\" with us, the two iron pots would combine\nto crush him out of existence altogether. \"As matters now stand,\nthe British Government is able to pour an overwhelming force into\nAfghanistan, which could be spread round him as a ring of iron, but if\nhe became our enemy, it could break him as a reed.\" \"Our only interest\nin maintaining the independence of Afghanistan is to provide for\nthe security of our own frontier.\" \"If we ceased to regard it as\na friendly State, there was nothing to prevent us coming to an\nunderstanding with Russia which would wipe Afghanistan out of the map\nfor ever.\" Would any man, I ask, address these insults and menaces to\none whose friendship and confidence he was desirous to gain? It must\nbe plain to every reasonable person that British officers could only\nthen be established in Afghanistan with safety to themselves, and\nutility to the British Government, when they were admitted with the\nfree concurrence of the Ameer and his people. A concession of this\nnature, if extorted by means of menaces and insults, would be, by\nthat very circumstance, deprived of all value. And the fact is (as the\nreader will perceive immediately) Lord Lytton was not sincere in\nthe propositions he made to the Ameer. He had no wish that the Ameer\nshould come to a \"speedy understanding\" with him; and as soon as he\nsaw that such a result was impending, he broke off all intercourse\nwith him. Lord Lytton charged the British Vakeel, Atta Mohammed Khan,\nto convey to the Ameer Shere Ali the amenities I have just quoted\nabout the pipkin, the iron pots, and the rest of it. At the same time,\nthe Vakeel was instructed to propose a meeting at Peshawur between Sir\nLewis Pelly, as the representative of the Indian Government, and Noor\nMohammed Shah, the Minister of the Ameer. The basis of negotiations\nbetween them was to be the admission of British officers to certain\nplaces in the territories of the Ameer. Unless the Ameer was prepared\nto concede this, as a preliminary condition, there was no good in his\nsending a representative to confer with Sir Lewis Pelly. Great was the\nconsternation at the Court of the Ameer when our Vakeel unfolded the\nmessage with which he was charged. They bowed before the storm; and\non December 21, 1876, Atta Mohammed Khan wrote to the Government\nof India, that the Ameer, though still disliking to receive\nEnglish officers, would on account of the insistence of the British\nGovernment, yield the point; but only after his Minister had, at\nthe conference, made representations of his views and stated all his\ndifficulties.\n\nBehold, then, the Government of India arrived at the goal of its\ndesires. The Ameer consents to receive English officers if, after\nhearing all his reasons, Lord Lytton remains convinced of the\nexpediency of that policy. But what follows? The conference is begun;\nbut while the discussions were still unfinished, Noor Mohammed Shah\nfell sick, and died; and then what was the action of Lord Lytton? I\nquote his own words:--\n\n    \"At the moment when Sir Lewis Pelly was closing the\n    conference, his Highness was sending to the Mir Akhir\n    instructions to prolong it by every means in his power; a\n    fresh Envoy was already on his way from Kabul to Peshawur;\n    and it was reported that this Envoy had authority to accept\n    eventually all the conditions of the British Government. _The\n    Viceroy was aware of these facts when he instructed our Envoy\n    to close the conference._\"\n\nThe closing of the conference was followed by the withdrawal from\nKabul of the British agency which had been established there for more\nthan twenty years, and the suspension of all intercourse between us\nand the Ameer.\n\nThere is but one conclusion possible from these strange proceedings.\nThe demands made upon the Ameer were made in the hope that he would\nrefuse to concede them, and so furnish the Indian Government with a\npretext for attacking him. The last thing which Lord Lytton desired\nwas that the Ameer should accept his demands. And, therefore, as soon\nas it became apparent that Shere Ali was prepared to do this rather\nthan forfeit the protection and friendship of the British Government,\nLord Lytton broke up the conference, which (be it remembered) he had\nhimself proposed. Lord Lytton, not Shere Ali, without provocation\nor ostensible cause, assumes towards Afghanistan \"an attitude of\nisolation and scarcely veiled hostility;\" and Lord Salisbury thus\ncomments upon the situation (October 4, 1877):--\n\n    \"In the event of the Ameer ... spontaneously manifesting\n    a desire to come to a friendly understanding with your\n    Excellency, _on the basis of the terms lately offered to, but\n    declined by him_, his advances should not be rejected. If,\n    on the other hand, he continues to maintain an attitude\n    of isolation and scarcely veiled hostility, the British\n    Government ... _will be at liberty to adopt such measures for\n    the protection and permanent tranquillity of the North-West\n    frontier of her Majesty's Indian dominions as the\n    circumstances may render expedient, without regard to\n    the wishes of the Ameer Shere Ali or the interests of his\n    dynasty_.\"\n\nHere, at last, we get at the veritable purpose of this tortuous\npolicy. As we suspected, the \"terms offered to the Ameer, and\nunhappily _not_ declined by him,\" were a mere pretence. The real\nobject was the \"protection of the North-West frontier\"--in other\nwords, the acquisition of a \"scientific frontier\"--without regard to\nthe wishes of the Ameer, or the interests of his dynasty. The Ameer\nwas to be \"irretrievably alienated\" by menacing his independence; and\nthen the \"irretrievable alienation\" was to be made the pretext for\ncarrying the menace into execution. What the \"scientific frontier\"\nwas the reader will find, if he refers to my article on \"India and\nAfghanistan,\" in the October number of this REVIEW.\n\nThe threat, however, for reasons I shall state presently, could not\nbe carried into execution at once. The negotiations at Peshawur were\ncarefully concealed from the knowledge of the public. Neither in India\nnor in England was it known that the British agency was withdrawn from\nKabul. The _Pioneer_--the official journal in India--was instructed\nto inform its readers that the Ameer was animated with feelings of\nthe utmost cordiality towards us; and Lord Lytton made a speech in the\nCouncil Chamber expounding his frontier policy. He glanced first at\nthe policy of his predecessors. His sensitive spirit was much\ngrieved by its apathetic character. It seemed to him \"atheistic,\" and\n\"inhuman,\" and \"inconsistent with our high duties to God and man as\nthe greatest civilizing Power.\" Then, warming with his subject, he set\nforth his own idea of a frontier policy in the following grandiloquent\nfashion:--\n\n    \"I consider that the safest and strongest frontier India\n    can possibly possess would be a belt of independent frontier\n    States, throughout which the British name is honoured and\n    trusted; within which British subjects are welcomed and\n    respected, because they are subjects of a Government known to\n    be unselfish as it is powerful, and resolute as it is humane;\n    by which our advice is followed without suspicion, and _our\n    word relied on without misgiving_, because the first has been\n    justified by good results, and _the second never quibbled away\n    by timorous sub-intents or tricky saving clauses_--a belt of\n    States, in short, whose chiefs and populations should have\n    every interest, and every desire, to co-operate with our own\n    officers in preserving the peace of the frontier, developing\n    the resources of their own territories, augmenting the wealth\n    of their own treasuries, and vindicating in the eyes of the\n    Eastern and Western world their title to an independence, of\n    which we are ourselves the chief well-wishers and supporters.\"\n\nIt is hardly credible that the same man who gave expression to these\nmagnificent sentiments had just caused the Ameer to be informed that\nhe did not regard the promises made to Shere Ali, by Lords Northbrook\nand Mayo, as binding upon the Government of India, because they were\n\"verbal.\" \"His Excellency the Viceroy,\" said Sir Lewis Pelly to the\nAmeer's Envoy, \"instructs me to inform your Excellency plainly, that\nthe British Government neither recognizes, nor has recognized, the\nobligation of these promises.\" And the official journal called upon\nIndia to rejoice, because one result of the conference had been the\ncancelling of these \"verbal promises and engagements,\" which the\nGovernment had found \"very embarrassing.\"\n\nIt is plain from the foregoing that Shere Ali was a doomed man long\nbefore the appearance of a Russian Mission in his capital. We did not\ndeclare war at once, simply because we were then in danger of a war\nwith Russia in Bulgaria. And the Government were still possessed\nof sufficient prudence not to attempt an invasion of Afghanistan\nsimultaneously with a campaign on the Balkans. But the sore was\ncarefully kept open by \"our attitude of isolation and scarcely veiled\nhostility;\" and if the Russian Embassy had not appeared in Kabul,\nsome other pretext for war would indubitably have been found. The\nGovernment of India--or rather Lord Lytton--affected to be greatly\nalarmed at the advent of this Russian Mission, but his subsequent\nproceedings show that he seized upon the incident with greediness\nas enabling him to carry out his long-meditated project for the\ndestruction of an old and faithful ally. A single fact will suffice to\nprove this. What I have already related shows that, up to this time,\nthe Ameer Shere Ali had given us no cause of quarrel whatever. He had\nbeen desirous, against the dictates of his own judgment, to agree\nto what was asked of him rather than forfeit the friendship of the\nEnglish Government. The estrangement between him and ourselves was\nthe result of our policy--not his. Lord Lytton was solely and wholly\nresponsible for it. The Russian Embassy, as Lord Lytton knew perfectly\nwell, was due to no overtures made by Shere Ali to the Russians in\nCentral Asia, but to the silly exhibition of seven thousand Sepoys\nat Malta, by means of which we had recently earned the ridicule of\nEurope. Moreover, as the Treaty of Berlin was an accomplished fact\nbefore the Russians had appeared in Kabul, their arrival there was\na matter of comparatively trifling significance. How, then, did Lord\nLytton act? He organized a Mission under the command of Sir Neville\nChamberlain to proceed to Kabul; and at the same time directed our\nVakeel, Gulam Hussein Khan, to go before it to Kabul, and obtain the\npermission of the Ameer for its entrance to his territories. So far\nthere is nothing to object to, but mark what follows.\n\nWhile yet Sir Neville Chamberlain with his Mission was at Peshawur,\nGulam Hussein Khan, from Kabul, reported to Sir Neville as\nfollows:--\"If Mission will await Ameer's permission, everything will\nbe arranged, God willing, in the best manner, and no room will be left\nfor complaint in the future.... Further, that if Mission starts on\n18th, without waiting for the Ameer's permission, there would be no\nhope left for the renewal of friendship or communication.\"\n\nThese reports were received by Sir Neville Chamberlain on 19th\nSeptember, and on the same day the Viceroy ordered the Mission to\nattempt to force its way through the Khyber Pass. All Europe knows\nthe sequel. The Afghan officer in charge of the fort at Ali Musjid\ndeclined to let the Mission pass; but, while obeying his orders\nfirmly, behaved, as Major Cavagnari reported, \"in a most courteous\nmanner, and very favourably impressed both Colonel Jenkins and\nmyself.\" And then was telegraphed home the shameless fiction that he\nhad threatened to fire on Major Cavagnari, and that the majesty of the\nEmpire had been insulted.\n\nIt is hard to write with calmness when one has to speak of actions\nlike these. It is, I trust, impossible for any Englishman to read of\nthem without the keenest shame and remorse. What, however, we have\nto consider at present is their effect upon the native mind. There is\nnot, we may be certain, a single native Court throughout India where\nthey have not been discussed again and again; and there is but one\nconclusion which could be drawn from them. It is, that despite of all\nwe may say, we allow neither pledges, promises, nor treaties to stand\nin our way, if we imagine that they are in opposition to the material\ninterests of the moment. There is not a native prince in India but\nwill have seen the fate of his descendants in the doom which has\nfallen upon the unhappy Shere Ali. It is a fate which no loyalty can\navert--which no treaties are powerful enough to ward off. Shere Ali\nwas loyal; Shere Ali was fenced about by treaty upon treaty: he and\nhis father had been our friends and faithful allies for more than\nforty years; but none the less, the English Government no sooner\ncoveted his territory than they determined upon his destruction. For\neighteen months was that Government engaged in secretly weaving the\ntoils around its victim, and when at last it struck, it struck with a\ncalumny upon its lips.\n\nThink, again, of the anger and the bitterness awakened by this war\nin the hearts of our Moslem subjects. A few months previously, the\nEnglish Government had made appeal to their sympathies on the ground\nthat it was upholding the integrity and independence of the Sultan's\ndominions. They now saw this very Government engaged in the unprovoked\ninvasion of an independent Muhammadan State. They made no concealment\nof their feelings; and when Major Cavagnari and his companions were\nmurdered at Kabul, the Moslems of Upper India openly expressed their\nsatisfaction. It is not too much to say, that if Sir Salar Jung had\nnot been ruling in Hyderabad, the outbreak at Kabul would have been\ninstantly followed by a similar outbreak in the Deccan. Sir Richard\nTemple, writing from Hyderabad in 1867, thus describes the state of\nfeeling existing there:--\n\n    \"This hostility\" (_i.e._, to the English Government) \"is even\n    stronger in the Muhammadan priesthood; with them it literally\n    burns with an undying flame; from what I know of Delhi in\n    1857-58, from what I am authentically informed of in respect\n    to Hyderabad at that time, I believe that not more fiercely\n    does the tiger hunger for his prey, than does the Mussulman\n    fanat\u00ecc throughout India thirst for the blood of the white\n    infidel.\"\n\nLord Lytton's treatment of Shere Ali has been, as it were, the pouring\nof oil upon this \"undying flame.\" Henceforth, it will burn more\nfiercely than ever.\n\n\nThe Famine in the North-West Provinces.\n\nI shall next proceed to show the manner in which Lord Lytton's\ninternal administration of India was affected by his policy beyond the\nfrontier. As every one knows, there have been, of late years, a\nseries of terrible famines in different parts of India. The desolating\neffects of these famines last for many years after the actual dearth\nhas terminated. Not only has the cattle been swept away, together with\nmillions of the agricultural population, but those who survive are\nwithout capital and without physical strength. The consequence is that\nlarge tracts of naturally productive land fall out of cultivation, and\nremain so for considerable periods of time. There are, moreover, no\npoor-laws in India for the relief of the starving and the destitute.\nThe administration of State relief, therefore, during such seasons\nof calamity, is a matter of imperative necessity. In keeping its\nagriculturists alive, the State is simply providing for its own\nsolvency. It sacrifices for this purpose a portion of the wealth it\nderives from the land, in order to save the remainder. A combat with\nfamine is to the State in India an act as much demanded by obvious\nexpediency, as in the interests of humanity. This relief is afforded\npartly by remissions of revenue throughout the stricken districts, and\npartly by the opening of public works where the starving and destitute\nmay find food and employment. In the winter of 1877-78 a terrible\nfamine fell upon the North-West Provinces. The cultivated land in\nthese provinces is mainly under two descriptions of crops--the rain\ncrops, and the cold weather crops. The rain crops are sown towards the\nend of June, or shortly after the rains have set in, and are reaped in\nOctober and November. From these crops the people obtain the food\non which they are to subsist during the winter. In 1877 there was\nan almost total failure of rain in the North-West Provinces, and the\nLieutenant-Governor--Sir George Couper--reported that the \"greater\npart of the crops was irretrievably ruined by a scorching west\nwind that blew for three weeks.\" The long and severe winter of the\nNorth-West had to be faced by a population destitute of food. Sir\nGeorge Couper reports as follows to the Government of India on the\n11th October, 1877:--\n\n    \"The Lieutenant-Governor is well aware of the straits to which\n    the Government of India is put at the present time for money,\n    and it is with the utmost reluctance that he makes a report\n    which must temporarily add to their burdens. _But he sees no\n    other course to adopt._ If the village communities which form\n    the great mass of our revenue payers be pressed now, they will\n    _simply be ruined_.... Cattle are reported to be dying or sold\n    to the butchers in hundreds, in consequence of the want of\n    fodder, and this will add very materially to the agricultural\n    distress and difficulties if they are called on at once to\n    meet their State obligations.\"\n\nIn making this appeal for a remission of revenue, Sir George Couper\nwas asking for no more than what had been granted by every English\nGovernment since British rule was planted in India. But then former\nGovernments had not adopted a spirited frontier policy to which\nreason, justice, and humanity had to be subordinated. This was what\nLord Lytton had done. The hunting to death of an old and faithful\nally was certain to prove a costly operation; and he would need for it\nevery farthing which could be wrung from the population of India. Sir\nGeorge Couper's appeal was therefore rejected, and he was instructed\nthat these destitute creatures were to be compelled to meet their\nState obligations at once, precisely as if there was no dearth in\nthe land. To this order Sir George Couper returned a long reply, from\nwhich we quote the following remarkable paragraphs:--\n\n    \"If the demand on the zemindars (_landlords_) is not\n    suspended, the cultivators can neither claim nor expect any\n    relaxation of the demand for rent; if pressure is put on the\n    former, they in turn must and will put the screw on their\n    tenants. All through the dark months of August and September,\n    zemindars were urged by district officers to deal leniently\n    with their tenants, and aid them by all means in their power.\n    Many nobly responded to the call, and it would be rather\n    inconsistent to subject them now to a pressure which may\n    compel them to deal harshly with their tenants. These remarks\n    are offered in no captious spirit.... His Honour trusts that\n    the realizations will equal the expectations of the Government\n    of India, but if they are disappointed, his Excellency the\n    Viceroy ... may rest assured _that it will not be for want of\n    effort or inclination to put the necessary pressure on those\n    who are liable for the demand_.\"\n\nIs not this passing strange? Sir George knows that these people are\nin a state of the direst distress; their cattle dying by hundreds,\nthemselves penniless and foodless; if this demand is made upon\nthem, he has reported that they will \"simply be ruined;\" but at\nthe exhortations of Lord Lytton he sets to work cheerfully. Neither\ninclination nor effort shall be wanting in him to make the people\nexperience to the full the agony and the bitterness of famine. Thus\nit is that a prayerful Viceroy, with the \"valued assistance\" of his\ncolleagues, provides for the \"well-being of the millions committed to\nhis fostering care.\"\n\n\"I have tried,\" writes one despairing district officer, \"to stave off\ncollecting, but have received peremptory orders to begin. This will\nbe the last straw on the back of the unfortunate zemindars.... A more\nsuicidal policy I cannot conceive. I have done what I could to open\nthe eyes of the Commissioners and the Lieutenant-Governor as to the\nstate of the place, but without avail. I have nothing to do but to\ncarry out the orders of Government, which means simply ruin.\" \"The\nexaction of the land revenue in Budaon,\" writes another, \"and, I\nbelieve, in other districts as well, involved a direct breach of faith\nwith the zemindars, which has had the very worst effect on the minds\nof the native community.... The people are loud in their complaints of\nthe faithlessness of Government, and, to my mind, with ample reason.\"\n\nBut the Government of India having decreed the collection of the land\nrevenue, were now compelled to justify their rapacity, by pretending\nthat there was no famine calling for a remission. The dearth and the\nfrightful mortality throughout the North-West Provinces were to be\npreserved as a State secret like the negotiations with Shere Ali. By\nthis means it was hoped that the famine would work itself out, the\ndead be decently interred out of human sight, and Lord Lytton obtain\nthe funds for his hunting expedition without an unpatriotic opposition\nbecoming cognizant of the facts either in India or in England. It is a\nstriking illustration of the enormous space which divides us from\nthe people of India, that such a scheme should have been thought\npracticable, but stranger still--it was very near to success. An\naccident may be said to have defeated it. During all that dreary\nwinter famine was busy devouring its victims by thousands. At the\nlowest computation more than a quarter of a million perished of actual\nstarvation. The number would have to be doubled if it included all\nthose who perished of disease, the consequence of insufficient food\nand exposure to cold; for, in the desperate endeavour to keep their\ncattle alive, the wretched peasantry fed them on the straw which\nthatched their huts, and which provided them with bedding. The winter\nwas abnormally severe, and without a roof above them or bedding\nbeneath them, scantily clad and poorly fed, multitudes perished of\ncold. The dying and the dead were strewn along the cross-country\nroads. Scores of corpses were tumbled into old wells, because the\ndeaths were too numerous for the miserable relatives to perform the\nusual funeral rites. Mothers sold their children for a single scanty\nmeal. Husbands flung their wives into ponds, to escape the torment\nof seeing them perish by the lingering agonies of hunger. Amid\nthese scenes of death the Government of India kept its serenity and\ncheerfulness unimpaired. The journals of the North-West were persuaded\ninto silence. Strict orders were given to civilians, under no\ncircumstances to countenance the pretence of the natives that they\nwere dying of hunger. One civilian, a Mr. MacMinn, unable to endure\nthe misery around him, opened a relief work at his own expense. He\nwas severely reprimanded, threatened with degradation, and ordered to\nclose the work immediately.\n\nAll this time, not a whisper of the tragedy that was being enacted in\nthe North-West Provinces had reached Calcutta. The district officials\ndared not communicate to the press what they knew, and in India there\nare hardly any other means of obtaining information. But in the month\nof February Mr. Knight, the proprietor of the Calcutta _Statesman_,\nhad occasion to visit Agra. He was astonished to find all around him\nthe indications of an appalling misery. He began to investigate\nthe matter, and gradually the truth revealed itself. A quarter of a\nmillion of British subjects had perished of hunger, pursued even to\ntheir graves by the pitiless exactions of the Government.\n\nMr. Knight made known in the columns of the _Statesman_ what he\nhad seen, and what he had learned from others in the course of his\ninquiries. The guilty consciences of those who were responsible for\nthis vast suffering smote them. Lord Lytton and Sir George Couper felt\nthat it was necessary to extinguish Mr. Knight--and that speedily. Sir\nGeorge Couper accordingly drew up a long Minute, vindicating himself\nfrom the attacks of Mr. Knight; and this Minute was duly acknowledged\nin laudatory terms by the Government of India. The Viceroy in Council\ncharacterized the Minute as \"a convincing statement of facts,\" and\nthen added that the Government of India needed no such statement to\nconvince it that the \"Lieutenant-Governor had exercised forethought in\nhis arrangements, and had shown humanity in his orders throughout the\nrecent crisis.\" The mortality which Lord Lytton \"deplored\" with \"a\ndeep and painful regret,\" in so far \"as it was directly the result of\nfamine, was caused rather by the unwillingness of the people to leave\ntheir homes than by any want of forethought on the part of the local\ngovernment in providing works where they might be relieved.\" Lord\nLytton \"unhesitatingly accepted the statement of the local government\nthat no one who was willing to go to a relief work need have died of\nfamine, and it is satisfactorily shown in his Honour's Minute that the\nrelief wage was ample.\"\n\nThis eulogy on Sir George Couper and all his doings was published on\nMay 2, 1878, after Mr. Knight had begun publishing his revelations in\nthe _Statesman_. It is to be noted that neither Sir George Couper nor\nthe Government of India denies that the famine has been sore in the\nland and the mortality excessive. But on February 28--two months\npreviously, and before Mr. Knight had commenced his inconvenient\ndisclosures--Sir George Couper reported to the Government of India\nthat \"it may be questioned whether it will not be found hereafter\nthat the comparative immunity from cholera and fever which, owing\napparently to the drought, the Provinces have enjoyed during the past\nyear, will not compensate for the losses caused by insufficient food\nand clothing, and _make the mortality generally little, if at all,\nhigher than in ordinary years_.\" At the time when this letter was\nwritten, the official mortuary returns showed that the mortality in\nthe North-West was seven and eight times in excess of what it was\nin ordinary years. There can, therefore, be no question that the\nconfession of that \"terrible mortality\" which Lord Lytton so deeply\n\"deplored,\" was wrung from Sir George Couper by the publication of Mr.\nKnight's letters. But for them, the official record would have stated\nthat the \"mortality was little, if at all, higher than in ordinary\nyears.\" This record is sufficient proof that no adequate arrangements\nwere made to meet a calamity which, according to Sir George Couper,\ndid not exist--at least, not until Mr. Knight insisted that it did. At\nthe same time, it will be as well to give the proof of this in detail,\nin order to show what the Government of India is capable of saying.\n\nIn one of his letters to the _Statesman_, Mr. Knight averred that\nthere were \"no relief works worthy of the name till about January\n20, and no works sufficient for the people's need till the middle of\nFebruary.\" Sir George Couper replies to this charge as follows:--\"The\nreports already submitted to the Government are, I think, amply\nsufficient to acquit me of this charge.... In October, Colonel Fraser\nwas again deputed to visit the head-quarters of each division, and, in\nconsultation with the district officers, settle what works should be\nundertaken to give employment to the poor when the inevitable pressure\nbegan.\" Here Sir George Couper affirms that so far back as October\nhe had foreseen the \"inevitable pressure,\" and made all the necessary\narrangements. Nevertheless we find him, so late as November 23,\nreporting as follows to the Government of India:--\n\n    \"_Although the danger of widespread famine ... has happily\n    passed away_, it is a matter of extreme importance that\n    well-considered projects for great public works should be\n    ready in case of future necessity.... _Very few projects of\n    this character have been completed for these provinces_,\n    and the Lieutenant-Governor thinks no time should be lost in\n    preparing them.... There can be no doubt that the want of such\n    projects would have been felt as a most serious difficulty\n    by this Government if relief works on a large scale had been\n    necessary in the present season.\"\n\nThus, we find that up to the close of November no large relief works\nhad been sanctioned, because the \"danger of widespread famine had\nhappily passed away.\" Allowing for official delays, this would make\nthe date when \"relief works worthy of the name\" were opened tally with\nthe time stated by Mr. Knight--namely, January 20. What, again, Sir\nGeorge Couper could mean by reporting on November 23, that \"danger\nof widespread famine has happily passed away,\" is perplexing, for on\nNovember 26, or just three days subsequently, he writes as follows:--\n\n    \"It appears to his Honour that the Government of India fail to\n    realize the extent of the damage caused _by the unparalleled\n    failure of the rain this year_.... The rain did not come until\n    6th October, by which time _the greater part of the crops was\n    irretrievably ruined_.... It is a mistake to suppose that the\n    autumn crop has escaped in the greater part of the Benares\n    and Allahabad divisions, and in the south-eastern districts of\n    Oudh.... _The rice crops_, which are largely grown in most\n    of the districts in these divisions, _have almost entirely\n    perished_, and of other crops, the area sown is much less than\n    usual.\"\n\nOn October 11 Sir George Couper reported that if the land revenues\nwas exacted the village communities would be ruined. On November 26 he\nreported that the crops had been \"irretrievably ruined.\" Nevertheless,\non November 23, he reported that no large relief works had been\nsanctioned because \"the danger of widespread famine had passed away.\"\nIt follows, from this last report, that for whatever other purpose\nColonel Fraser may have been deputed to visit the head-quarters\nof each division, it was not to make satisfactory provision for a\nwidespread famine. No. As Sir George Couper was well aware at the time\nhe penned his reply to Mr. Knight, the object of Colonel Fraser's tour\nwas precisely the opposite of this. These were the instructions he was\ncharged to enjoin upon civil officers and executive engineers:--\n\n    \"_Please discourage relief works in every possible way._ It\n    may be, however, that when agricultural operations are over,\n    some of the people may want work. This, however, except on\n    works for which there is budget provision, should only be\n    given if the collector is satisfied that without it the people\n    would actually starve. _Mere distress is not a sufficient\n    reason for opening a relief work._ And if a relief work be\n    started, task-work should be rigorously exacted, _and the\n    people put on the barest subsistence wage_; so that we may\n    be satisfied that if any other kind of work were procurable\n    elsewhere, they would resort to it.\"\n\nIn accordance with the letter and spirit of these instructions the\nfamine-stricken multitudes were literally starved off such scanty\nworks as were open. The \"barest subsistence wage\" was fined down,\nsmaller and smaller, until the people abandoned the works in despair,\nand returned to their villages to die. Nay, in some places, the\npublic works which had been duly sanctioned in the yearly budget were\ntransformed into relief works; and the labourers upon them, instead of\nbeing paid at the ordinary market rates, were reduced to the \"barest\nsubsistence wage, task-work being rigorously exacted.\" A beneficent\nbut economical Government took advantage of the dire extremity to\nwhich its subjects were reduced to reap this unexpected profit out of\ntheir miseries. None the less, \"the Viceroy in Council unhesitatingly\naccepts the statement of the local government, that no one who was\nwilling to go to a relief work need have died of famine.\"\n\n\nThe License Tax.\n\nThe foregoing is an illustration of the manner in which an Imperial\nViceroy secures \"the progressive well-being of the multitudes\ncommitted to his fostering care.\" I purpose now to illustrate the\nmanner in which the same Imperial functionary deals with the finances\n\"committed to his fostering care.\" The position of \"isolation and\nscarcely veiled hostility\" which, without any provocation, Lord Lytton\nhad assumed towards the Ameer of Afghanistan rendered a war against\nthat sovereign a mere question of time and opportunity. Meanwhile,\nfunds were necessary for its prosecution in addition to those which\nhad been obtained from the starving population of the North-West.\nAccordingly, in his Budget statement for 1878-79, Sir John Strachey\nannounced that the Indian Government had arrived at the conclusion\nthat they ought to regard famines as normal occurrences for which\nprovision should be made in the budgets of each year. Famine\nexpenditure could not be estimated at a smaller sum than a million\nand a half annually. This sum he now proposed to raise by means of a\nLicense Tax on trades and dealings, to be levied throughout India, and\nwhich, it was estimated, would yield \u00a3700,000. The remainder of the\nsum required was to be obtained by a tax on the agricultural classes\nin Northern India and Bengal alone. The peculiar incidence of these\ntaxes was justified on the ground that the classes taxed were the same\nclasses which, in periods of famine, had to be supported by the State.\nIt was therefore only just that they should provide the fund which was\nto insure them against famine. This money was in fact a sum raised\nfor a special purpose, at the expense of certain classes, for whose\nbenefit it was to be exclusively applied. This was acknowledged by\nLord Lytton with his usual superabundance of emphasis:--\n\n    \"_The sole justification_ for the increased taxation which has\n    just been imposed upon the people of India, for the purpose\n    of insuring this Empire against the worst calamities of future\n    famine ... is the pledge we have given that a sum not less\n    than a million and a half sterling, which exceeds the amount\n    of the additional contributions obtained from the people\n    for this purpose, shall be annually applied to it. We have\n    explained to the people of this country that the additional\n    revenue raised by the new taxes is required, not for luxuries,\n    but the necessities of the State; not for general purposes,\n    but for the construction of a particular class of public\n    works; and we have pledged ourselves not to spend one rupee of\n    the special resources, thus created, upon works of a different\n    character.... The pledges which my financial colleague was\n    authorized to give, on behalf of the Government, were explicit\n    and full as regards these points.... _For these reasons, it is\n    all the more binding on the honour of the Government to redeem\n    to the uttermost, without evasion or delay, those pledges, for\n    the adequate redemption of which the people of India have,\n    and can have, no other guarantee than the good faith of their\n    rulers._\"\n\nThe ink which recorded this solemn pledge was hardly dry before it had\nbeen broken. The predetermined war with Shere Ali began in the wanton\nmanner I have told, and the question of cost was mentioned in the\nHouses of Parliament. The British Imperialist glories in war when the\nchances are all in his favour, but he has an invincible objection to\npaying the costs of such transactions. And they are costly. It was\ntherefore very necessary so to arrange matters, that while the\nglory of hunting an ally to death should be appropriated by British\nImperialism, the expenses of the chase should be defrayed by India.\nAccordingly, towards the end of November, Lord Cranbrook informed the\nHouse of Lords that India was in possession of a surplus more than\nsufficient to defray the costs of the war:--\n\n    \"I am bound to say, that _after looking very carefully into\n    the financial condition of India_, I believe it will not\n    be necessary, at least in the initial steps, to call on the\n    revenues of England. I am in possession of facts which, I\n    think, would convince your Lordships that, _without unduly\n    pressing on the resources of India_, there will be no\n    necessity to call on the English revenues--at least during the\n    present financial year. It was announced by my noble friend in\n    another place the other night that, _including the \u00a31,500,000\n    of new taxes_, the surplus of Indian revenue will amount to\n    \u00a32,136,000.\"\n\nA fortnight later the \"facts\" of which Lord Cranbrook professed to\nbe in possession were discovered not to be facts, and the surplus was\nreduced by Mr. Stanhope to a million and a half--in other words, to\nexactly the sum which Lord Lytton had solemnly pledged his honour to\napply to no purpose except that of insuring India against the\nravages of famine. On the most elastic system of interpretation, the\nacquisition of a fictitious \"scientific frontier\" cannot be made to\nappear as a fulfilment of this pledge. However, on the faith of the\nsurplus thus created by Lord Cranbrook and Mr. Stanhope, Parliament\nvoted that the expenses of the Afghan war should be charged upon\nIndia. Mr. Stanhope said,--\" The surplus being of the amount he had\nmentioned, it must be perfectly obvious that the Indian Government\ncould pay the whole cost of the war during the present year, without\nadding a shilling to the taxation or the debt of the country.\"\n\nThe intention here is sufficiently obvious. Lord Cranbrook and Mr.\nStanhope were quite prepared to disregard the pledges given to\nthe people of India, and apply the Famine Insurance Fund to an\nillegitimate purpose. They had all the will to do this, but their\ndesires were frustrated by the fact that there was no such fund in\nexistence. It had already been spent and disappeared. Lord Lytton thus\ncalmly announces its extinction in the Budget resolution of March,\n1879:--\n\n    \"The insurance provided against future famines has virtually\n    ceased to exist, and the difficulties in the way of fiscal\n    and commercial and administrative reform have been greatly\n    aggravated. Nor can it be in any way assumed that the\n    evil will not continue and go on increasing. Under such\n    circumstances, it is extremely difficult to follow any settled\n    financial policy; for the Government cannot even approximately\n    tell what income will be required to meet the necessary\n    expenditure of the State.... For the present the\n    Governor-General in Council thinks it wise to abstain from\n    imposing any fresh burdens on the country, and to accept the\n    temporary loss of the surplus by which it was hoped that an\n    insurance against famine had been provided.\"\n\nThat is, that the Government of India having \"pledged itself not\nto spend one rupee of these special resources,\" except \"for the\nconstruction of a particular class of public works\"--having declared\nthat \"the sole justification for the increased taxation\" is that it\nshould be devoted to a particular end--no sooner gets the money into\nits possession than it expends the entire sum on something else,\nand then \"thinks it wise\" not to discuss the matter any further. The\nGovernment is very sorry; it really wanted to make an Insurance Fund\nagainst famine; but it finds that it \"cannot even approximately tell\nwhat income will be required to meet the necessary expenditure of the\nState.\" Under such circumstances the Government finds it extremely\ndifficult to follow \"any settled financial policy,\" except that of\nspending every shilling which it can get possession of. Thus it is\nthat an Imperial Government \"redeems to the uttermost\" the honour of\nthe British nation, and strengthens the confidence of India in \"the\ngood faith of her rulers.\"\n\n\nThe Cotton Duties.\n\nI come, lastly, to the action of the Indian Government in respect to\nthe Cotton Duties. It is, I fancy, generally supposed in England that\nthe duty on imported cotton was designedly protective--_i.e._, that\nit had from the beginning been imposed with the intention of favouring\nthe Indian manufacturer at the expense of Manchester. This is a\nmistake. The duty was imposed at a time when there were no Indian\nmanufactures to compete with those from England, simply as a source\nof revenue. In India there is a great difficulty in so arranging the\nincidence of taxation that the well-to-do classes shall contribute\ntheir proper share to the necessities of the State. A light duty\non imported cotton--as being the universally used material for\ndress--enabled the Government to reach these classes in a manner that\nwas effective without being burdensome. Even now that mills are at\nwork in India, by far the larger part of these duties had nothing\nprotective in their character, because there is in India no\nmanufacture of the finer sorts of cotton. Whether, however, the duty\nwas or was not protective in its character, both the Indian Government\nand the House of Commons had repeatedly given pledges that the duty\nshould not be repealed until the Indian finances were in a position\nto justify the loss of revenue thereby occasioned. Lord Lytton, who\nthroughout his viceroyalty has made a point in all important matters\nof making a confession of political faith exactly the opposite of his\nsubsequent political action, expressed himself on the subject of the\nCotton Duties with his usual copiousness. In reply to an address from\nthe Calcutta Trades' Association, shortly after his arrival in India,\nhe said:--\n\n    \"I think that no one responsible for the financial\n    administration of this Empire would at present venture to\n    make the smallest reduction in any of its limited sources of\n    income. Let me, however, take this opportunity of assuring you\n    that, so far as I am aware, the abolition or reduction of\n    the Cotton Duties, at the cost of adding one sixpence to the\n    taxation of this country, has never been advocated, or even\n    contemplated by her Majesty's Secretary of State for India....\n    It is due to myself, and the confidence you express in my\n    character, that I should also assure you, on my own behalf,\n    that nothing will ever induce me to tax the people of India\n    for any exclusive benefit to their English fellow-subjects.\"\n\nA short time previously he had told the Bombay Chamber of Commerce\nthat \"he was of opinion that, with the exception of about forty\nthousand pounds sterling, the duties were not protective, because\nManchester had no Indian competitors in finer manufactures. He thought\nthe \u00a3800,000 collected yearly as duty, on finer fabrics, a fair item\nof revenue. With regard to the duty on coarse goods, he thought it\nprotective, because Bombay mills competed with Manchester; but he\ndid not see how it could be abolished, because it would lead to\nirregularities in order to evade duty.\"\n\nThese assurances were given in 1876. In 1879, when the finances of\nIndia were in a state of almost hopeless embarrassment--when the\nFamine Insurance Fund had been misappropriated in the way I have\nrelated--when the Indian Government frankly acknowledged that it\nwas beyond their power to estimate their future expenditure, even\napproximately, the Indian Government deliberately sacrificed revenue\nto the amount of \u00a3200,000 derived from this source. The motives which\npersuaded them to this sacrifice may have been as pure as driven snow;\nbut with Lord Lytton's assurances fresh in their memories, I need\nnot say that their motives were not so interpreted by those in India.\nThere the explanation given was this:--The war in Afghanistan, from\nwhich so much had been expected, had resulted, not in success, but\nignominious failure. The Government had been compelled to patch up\na peace without a single element of permanence in it. Despite of the\nchoral odes which Ministers sang together on the occasion of this\npeace, it was impossible that they could have been wholly blind to the\nreal character of the Treaty of Gundamuck. They felt that discovery\ncould not be long delayed, and, like the steward who had wasted his\nmaster's goods, they hastened to make themselves friends of the mammon\nof unrighteousness. While, therefore, the war was still nominally\nunfinished, they sought to propitiate Manchester by throwing its\nmerchants this sop of \u00a3200,000. Like Canning's famous policy of\ncalling on the New World to redress the balance of the Old, the\nprestige of Imperialism, damaged by the failure in Afghanistan, was to\nbe re-established in Manchester at the expense of the Indian taxpayer.\n\nIf the Indian Government had any better reason than this for their\npartial repeal of the Cotton Duties, it is a pity that they did not\ncommunicate it to the world. The reason which they did condescend to\ngive was simply this--that the finances of the Empire were so heavily\nembarrassed, and in such confusion, that it was a matter of no\nconsequence if they become still further involved to the extent of\n\u00a3200,000. I give the actual words, that I may not be suspected of\ncaricaturing the Government:--\n\n    \"The difficulties caused by the increased loss by exchange\n    are great, but they will not practically be aggravated to an\n    appreciable extent by the loss of \u00a3200,000. If the fresh fall\n    in the exchange should prove to be temporary, such a loss will\n    possess slight importance. If, on the other hand, the loss\n    by exchange does not diminish ... it will become necessary to\n    take measures of a most serious nature for the improvement of\n    the financial position; but the retention of the import duties\n    on cotton goods will not thereby be rendered possible. On\n    the contrary, such retention will become more difficult than\n    ever.\"\n\nAccording to the Government of India, it was the peculiarity of\nthese \u00a3200,000 to be simply an incumbrance, happen what might. If the\nexchange did _not_ fall, they were reduced to insignificance; if it\ndid fall, their retention became more difficult than ever. The reader\nwill not be surprised to learn that these enigmatic propositions were\nnot accepted in India as a sufficient justification of the act they\nwere supposed to explain.\n\nDespotic as an Indian Viceroy is, there are even in India certain\nConstitutional checks on his authority, as, for instance, the Members\nof Council, the Vernacular and the English press. How was it, the\nreader may ask, that these constitutional checks were evaded; for it\ncannot be that they all concurred in such a policy as I have described\nin the foregoing pages? The principal means of evasion was secrecy.\nThe negotiations with Shere Ali were kept sedulously hidden from the\npublic knowledge, and their nature was only to be dimly inferred from\nthe devout and philanthropic orations of the Viceroy himself. The same\ncourse was adopted with respect to the North-West famine; and but\nfor the accident of Mr. Knight's visit to Agra, the truth would have\nremained hidden to this day. But Lord Lytton did not trust to secrecy\nalone. The vernacular press was gagged by a Press Act, which was\nhurried through Council, and made a law in the course of a few hours.\nThe English press could not be gagged precisely in this fashion,\nbut it was very ingeniously drugged through the agency of a curious\nfunctionary, styled the Press Commissioner. When Mr. Stanhope\nwas questioned in the House regarding the special duties of this\nnondescript official, he replied that he had been appointed to\nsuperintend the working of the Vernacular Press Act. Actually, he\nwas in operation for several months before that Act had come into\nexistence, and never has had any duties in connection with it. The\nPress Commissioner is attached to the personal staff of the Viceroy,\nand may be regarded as a kind of official bard, whose duty it is to\nchant the praises of his master, and advertise his political wares.\nThe description of Lord Lytton as a \"specially-gifted Viceroy\" is\nbelieved in India to have proceeded from the affectionate imagination\nof the Press Commissioner. But, besides this, he is a channel of\ncommunication between the Government of India and the Indian press.\nWhen he was first called into existence, India was informed that a\nnew era was about to begin, in the relations between the press and the\nGovernment. The Government, anxious that its policy should be fully\ndiscussed by an intelligent press, had appointed a Press Commissioner,\nwhose duty it would be to keep editors supplied with accurate\ninformation, from the very fountain-head, of all that Government was\ndoing, or intended to do. It is unnecessary to say that the Press\nCommissioner has done nothing of the kind. The greater part of the\nmatter he communicates to the press is simply worthless, and wholly\ndevoid of interest to any sane person. If anything of importance\noccurs which the Government desires to keep secret, but which it fears\nwill leak out, the Press Commissioner communicates the matter to the\neditors \"confidentially,\" and then it is understood that they are in\nhonour bound not to allude to the subject in their papers. At distant\nintervals, however, the Press Commissioner, of necessity, allows some\ninteresting scraps of information to escape from him; and it is by\nmeans of these that the English press is drugged. Any newspaper which\noffends the Government by criticism of too harsh a character is liable\nto have the supply of such morsels suspended until it gives evidence\nof amendment. And as there is in India, among the readers of\nnewspapers, quite an insatiable craving for these morsels of official\ngossip, it would be extremely prejudicial to the circulation of a\nnewspaper if they no longer appeared in its columns. The vengeance\nof Lord Lytton and the Press Commissioner has already fallen upon\none journal. The Calcutta _Statesman_, having poured ridicule on this\nPress Commissioner, has been deprived of his ministrations. In brief,\nthe Press Commissionership is simply an agency for bribing the English\nPress, which costs the Indian taxpayer the sum annually of \u00a35000.\nBut the most effective check on the arbitrary authority of the\nGovernor-General is furnished by his Council. These are selected as\nmen of long Indian experience, in order to aid the Governor-General\nwith their advice and special knowledge. The last Governor-General\nwho set at nought the advice and remonstrances of his Council was Lord\nAuckland, when he plunged into the disastrous war in Afghanistan. Lord\nLytton, who in other respects has so carefully trod in the footsteps\nof his predecessor, did not fail to imitate him in this. His frontier\npolicy was carried out in spite of the opposition of the three most\nexperienced members of his Council; his repeal of the Cotton Duties in\nthe face of their unanimous opposition, with the single exception of\nSir John Strachey. Thus it is that, under Lord Lytton, British rule\nin India has become a tawdry and fantastic system of personal rule. It\nmight perhaps do well enough if an Empire could be governed by means\nof ceremonies, speeches, and elegantly written despatches--\"fables in\nprose,\" they might very fitly be called. But an Empire cannot be so\ngoverned, and the result of the experiment has been an amount of\nhuman suffering appalling to contemplate. The Indian air is \"full of\nfarewells for the dying and mournings for the dead,\" and the path of\nthe Government can be traced in broken pledges and dead men's bones.\nThese bones are as dragon's teeth, which Lord Lytton is sowing\nbroadcast all over India and Afghanistan, and they will assuredly\nbe changed into armed men if the hand of the sower be not promptly\nstayed.\n\n    \"Nothing,\" writes Sir Alexander Arbuthnot, one of the Indian\n    Members of Council, \"would have induced me to have been a\n    party to the imposition of restrictions on the press, if I\n    could have foreseen that within a year of the passing of the\n    Vernacular Press Act the Government of India would be embarked\n    on a course which, in my opinion, is as unwise and ill-timed\n    as it is destructive of the reputation for justice upon which\n    the prestige and political supremacy of the British Government\n    in India so greatly depend. And here I must remark that\n    the slight value which in some influential quarters is\n    now attached to the popularity of our rule with our native\n    subjects, has for some time past struck me as a source of\n    grave political danger. _The British Empire in India was not\n    established by a policy of ignoring popular sentiment, and\n    of stigmatizing all views and opinions which are opposed\n    to certain favourite theories, as the views and opinions of\n    foolish people. Nor will our rule be long maintained if such a\n    policy is persisted in._\"\n\n  ROBERT D. OSBORN.\n\n\n\n\nON THE UTILITY TO FLOWERS OF THEIR BEAUTY.\n\n\nThe question which I propose to consider in this paper is how far the\nbeauty of blossoms can be accounted for by the utility of this beauty\nto the plant producing them. It is manifestly only one particular case\nof a larger inquiry whether the beauty which Nature exhibits can be\naccounted for by its utility.\n\nThese questions connect themselves with some of the highest points\nof the philosophy of the universe. Is the system of the universe\nintellectual, or is it purely material? Is there an ordering mind, or\nis there merely blind and struggling matter? Are there final causes as\nwell as material causes, or are there material causes only?\n\nThese questions have been asked and answered in opposite senses, from\nthe first dawn of philosophy to the present hour; and during all that\nperiod of time the battle has been raging--and has spread, too, over\nthe whole realm of Nature. Scarcely any branch of natural science\nexists which has not furnished materials for at least a skirmish; so\nthat it requires an experienced and impartial eye to be able rightly\nto understand the true fortunes of the contest over the whole field\nof battle. True it is, that for every man the question between the two\ntheories has to be decided by somewhat simpler considerations than any\nsuch survey. Something in every man seems inevitably to determine him\ntowards either the intellectual or the material theory of things.\n\nThe existence of beauty in the world is a very remarkable fact. On\nthe theory of a Divine and beneficent Creator, this fact has seemed\nno difficulty; but the theory of a mere blind fermentation of matter\ngives no account of it, except as a mere accident, which, on the\ndoctrine of chances, should be perhaps a very rare and unusual\naccident. Hence the existence of beauty has from of old been a\nfavourite theme of the theistic believers. \"Let them know how much\nbetter the Lord of them is,\" says the author of the Wisdom of Solomon,\nspeaking of the works of Nature, \"for the first Author of beauty hath\ncreated them ... for by the greatness and beauty of the creatures\nproportionably the Maker of them is seen.\"[1] The same familiar view\nhas lately been presented by the Duke of Argyll in his \"Reign of\nLaw\":[2]--\n\n    \"It would be to doubt the evidence of our senses and of our\n    reason, or else to assume hypotheses of which there is no\n    proof whatever, if we were to doubt that mere ornament, mere\n    variety, are as much an end and aim in the workshop of Nature\n    as they are known to be in the workshop of the goldsmith and\n    the jeweller. Why should they not? The love and desire of\n    these is universal in the mind of man. It is seen not more\n    distinctly in the highest forms of civilized art than in the\n    habits of the rudest savage, who covers with elaborate carving\n    the handle of his war-club or the prow of his canoe. Is it\n    likely that this universal aim and purpose of the mind of man\n    should be wholly without relation to the aims and purposes of\n    his Creator? He that formed the eye to see beauty, shall He\n    not see it? He that gave the human hand its cunning to work\n    for beauty, shall His hand never work for it? How, then, shall\n    we account for all the beauty of the world--for the careful\n    provision made for it where it is only the secondary object,\n    not the first?\"\n\nBut even if beauty be always associated with utility and have in fact\nbeen brought about by its utility, it may nevertheless have been an\nobject in the mind of a Divine artificer, who may have been minded\nto use the one as a means and end to the other. We may therefore,\nI think, approach the subject with a perfect freedom from any\ntheological bias.\n\nThe whole subject will, I believe, be felt by some persons to be a\npiece of moonshine,--the whole discussion fit for cloudland, not for\nthis practical solid world of ours.\n\nBeauty, such persons would say, is not a real thing, an objective\nfact: it is a part of man, not of the world--it is in him who sees,\nnot in the thing seen: it is seen by one man in one thing--by another\nman in another.\n\nTo this it seems a sufficient answer to say that the relation of\nany one external thing to any one mind which produces the peculiar\ncondition which we call the perception of beauty, is _a_ fact, and,\nlike every other single fact, must have an adequate cause. But when we\nfind that there are forms of beauty, such as the beauty of sunlight,\nwhich operate alike on all men, and, it would seem, on all sensitive\nbeings--when we find that the brilliant flowers which attract the\nchild in the field or the lady in the drawing-room, attract the\ninsect tribes--we feel ourselves in the presence of a great body of\npersistent relations, which it is impossible to pass over as unreal or\nas unimportant.\n\nBut, again, there is ugliness in the world; and one ugly thing, it is\nsuggested, destroys all your deductions from beauty. This, no doubt,\nis a very important fact for any one to grapple with who proposes\nto give any theoretical explanation of the presence of beauty in the\nuniverse; but for me, who am only inquiring whether and how far beauty\nis useful, it is not really material, because there can be no doubt\nthat beauty, as well as ugliness, exists in the world. This much I\nwill say in passing, that, to my mind, the balance of things is in\nfavour of beauty and against ugliness--the tendency is in favour of\nbeauty, not ugliness, and that tendency may be a very important thing\nto think of.\n\nFurthermore, the fact that we recognize ugliness seems to make our\nrecognition of beauty more important; for it shows that the\nperception of beauty is not mere habit, and that we have an inward\nand independent judgment on the matter--we are able to approve the one\nthing on the score of beauty, and to reject the other as ugly.\n\nEven allowing fully for the existence of ugliness, it must be conceded\nthat the world around us presents a vast mass of beauty--complex,\ndiverse, commingled, and not easily admitting of analysis. It is\ncommon alike to the organic and the inorganic realms of Nature. The\npageants of the sky at morning, noon, and night, the forms of the\ntrees, the beauty of the flowers, the glory of the hills, the awful\nsublimity of the stars--these, and a thousand things in Nature, fill\nthe soul with a sense of beauty, which the art neither of the poet,\nnor of the philosopher, nor of the painter can come near to depict. We\nare moved and overcome, sometimes by this object of beauty, sometimes\nby that, but yet more by the complex mass of glory of the universe.\n\n  \"For Nature beats in perfect tune,\n  And rounds with rhyme her every rune;\n  Whether she work on land or sea,\n  Or hide underground her alchemy.\n  Thou canst not wave thy staff in air,\n    Or dip thy paddle in the lake,\n  But it carves the bow of beauty there,\n    And ripples in rhyme the oar forsake.\"\n\nAs yet no attempt has been made to show the utility of this\npromiscuous and multitudinous crowd of beauties--and it seems not\nlikely that such an attempt can yet be made with success: and the\nphenomena of Nature are therefore likely for a long time to come to\nimpress most men with the sense of beauty for beauty's sake. But in\nrespect of certain particular and separable instances, the attempt has\nrecently been made to show that the beauty exhibited is useful to the\nstructure exhibiting it, and consequently that it may be accounted\nfor by the strictly utilitarian principle of the survival of the\nfittest,--one instance in which this has been most notably attempted\nbeing in respect of the beauty of flowers. Let us consider how far\nbeauty can thus be accounted for in this particular case.\n\nThere will be a great advantage in this course; for beauty is a\nthing about which it is not very easy to argue: it is too subtle, too\nevanescent, too disputable, to afford an easy material for the logical\nor scientific crucible; and these difficulties we shall best surmount\nby in the first place isolating certain beautiful things for our\nconsideration, and limiting to them our inquiry into how far each of\nthe rival theories is sufficient to explain their existence. We shall\nthus try to narrow the great controversy to very definite and distinct\nissues.\n\n    \"Flowers,\" says Mr. Darwin,[3] \"rank amongst the most\n    beautiful productions of Nature, and they have become,\n    through natural selection, beautiful, or rather conspicuous in\n    contrast with the greenness of the leaves, that they might\n    be easily observed and visited by insects, so that their\n    fertilization might be favoured. I have come to this\n    conclusion, from finding it an invariable rule that when a\n    flower is fertilized by the wind it never has a gaily-coloured\n    corolla. Again, several plants habitually produce two kinds of\n    flowers: one kind open and coloured, so as to attract insects;\n    the other closed and not coloured, destitute of nectar, and\n    never visited by insects. We may safely conclude that, if\n    insects had never existed on the face of the earth, the\n    vegetation would not have been decked with beautiful flowers,\n    but would have produced only such poor flowers as are now\n    borne by our firs, oaks, nut and ash trees, by the grasses, by\n    spinach, docks, and nettles.\"\n\nNo one can doubt who watches a meadow on a summer's day that insects\nare attracted by the scent and the colours of the flowers. The whole\nfield is busy with their jubilant hum. These little creatures have the\nsame sense of beauty that we have. What room there is for thought in\nthat fact! There is a subtle bond of mental union between ourselves\nand the creatures whom we so often despise. There is a joy widespread\nand multiplied beyond our highest calculation. What a deadly blow to\nthat egotism of man which thinks of all beauty as made for him alone!\n\nBut I return to the argument. We have presented to our notice three\nkinds of attraction which operate upon insects--the conspicuousness\nof colour and form, the beauty of the smell, and the pleasant taste of\nthe honey. No one, as I have said, who watches a meadow or a garden on\na summer's day can for a moment doubt the operation of these\ncauses, or question the direct action of insects in producing the\nfertilization of flowers. In that sense the beauty of a flower is\nclearly of direct use to the flower which exhibits it. It is better\nfor it that it should be fertilized by insects than not fertilized at\nall; but is it better for it to be fertilized by insects than by the\nwind, or by some other agency, if such exist?\n\nThis shall be the subject of inquiry. But before we can answer it,\nwe must go a little afield and collect some other of the facts of the\ncase.\n\nThe conclusion that beauty is useful for the fertilization of the\nflower does not rest merely on the general phenomena of a summer\nmeadow. It is confirmed by many other observations. Flowers are\nnot merely attractive in themselves; they are frequently rendered\nattractive by their grouping. Sometimes flowers individually small are\ngathered into heads, or spikes, or bunches, or umbels, and so\nproduce a more conspicuous effect than would result from a more equal\ndistribution of the flowers; sometimes yet more minute flowers or\nflorets are gathered together into what appears a single flower, and\noften have the outer florets so modified both in shape and colour as\nto produce the general effect of one very brilliant blossom, as in the\ndaisy or the marigold.\n\nSometimes the same result is produced by \"the massing of small flowers\ninto dense cushions of bright colour.\"[4] This, as is well known, is\nof common occurrence with Alpine flowers; and this mode of growth, as\nwell as the great size of many Alpine blossoms as compared with that\nof the whole plant, and the great brilliance of Alpine plants as\ncompared with their congeners of the lowlands, have all been explained\nby reference to the comparative rarity of insects in the Alpine\nheights, and the consequent necessity, if the plants are to survive,\nthat they should offer strong attractions to their needful friends.[5]\nA similar explanation has been offered for the brilliant colours of\nArctic flowers.[6]\n\nFurthermore, this curious fact exists, that of flowering plants a\nlarge number do not ripen or put forward their pistils and stamens at\nthe same periods of their growth: in some cases the pistil is ready\nto receive the pollen whilst the anthers are immature and not ready to\nsupply it: such are called proterogynous. In other cases the anthers\nare ripe before the pistil is ready to receive the pollen: these are\nproterandrous. In either case the same event happens--that the ovules\ncan never be fertilized by the pollen of the same blossom, nor without\nsome foreign agency, generally that of insects.\n\nLastly, there is a large number of plants, including a great\nproportion of those with unsymmetrical blossoms, of which the\nflowers have been shown to be specially adapted by various mechanical\ncontrivances for insect agency. Nothing, as is well known, is more\nmarvellous than the variety and subtlety of the arrangements for\nthe purpose which exist in orchidaceous plants, as explained by the\npatience and genius of Mr. Darwin.\n\nIn view of these facts it would be impossible to deny that\nconspicuousness is one of the agencies in force for the fertilization\nof flowers; that, to use the recent language of Mr. Darwin, \"flowers\nare not only delightful for their beauty and fragrance, but display\nmost wonderful adaptations for various purposes.\"[7]\n\nSo far we have considered the evidence which is affirmative, and in\nfavour of the explanation of the existence of beauty in flowers; we\nhave found clearly that beauty, or rather conspicuousness, is in many\ncases useful to the plant. But beauty is by no means the only agency\nin this necessary process. On the contrary, the agencies actually in\noperation are very numerous.\n\nAs Mr. Darwin points out in the passage I have cited, and still more\nat large in his work \"On the Different Forms of Flowers,\" a large\nproportion of existing plants are fertilized by the action of the\nwind; and again, many plants bear two kinds of flowers, the one\nconspicuous and attractive to insects, the other inconspicuous and\nwhich never open to admit the activity either of insects or of the\nwind. Moreover, there are various other agencies called into play.\nSome plants, such as the _Hypericum perforatum_, one of the\ncommonest of the St. John's Worts, and probably the bindweed, are,\nit seems, fertilized by the withering of the corolla, which naturally\nbrings the stamens into contact with the style, and so transfers the\npollen grains from the one to the other.[8] Other plants, again,\nsuch as the common centaury (_Erythr\u00e6a centaurium_) and the _Chlora\nperfoliata_, are fertilized by the closing of the corolla over the\nanthers and stigma, not in the death but in the sleep of the plant.[9]\nIn the brilliant autumnal _Colchicum_, and in the _Sternbergia_,\nagain, according to Dr. Kerner, Nature has recourse to a more complex\nmachinery: the corolla first closes over the anthers, which are at\na lower level than the stigma, and takes off some of the pollen; a\ngrowth of the corolla carries the pollen dust to the level of the\nstigma, and a second closing of the corolla transfers the pollen\nto the stigmatic surface. The pollen has been made to ascend to its\nproper place by an arrangement which reminds one of the man-engine of\na Cornish mine.[10] A similar arrangement is described as occurring in\nthe bright-flowered _Pedicularis_.[11]\n\nLet us take another group of beautiful flowers which adorn our\ngreenhouses and our tables: I mean the _Asclepiad\u00e6_, to which the\n_Stephanotis_ and the _Hoya_ belong. The former is distinguished\nby the beauty of its scent as well as of its flowers. Both present\nflowers not merely conspicuous in themselves from their size, form,\nand colour, but conspicuous also by reason of their grouping. Here,\nif anywhere, we should expect that beauty should justify itself by its\nutility. But the facts appear to be just the other way. The pollen\nis collected together into waxy masses, which are arranged in a very\npeculiar manner on the pistil; and the pollen tubes pass from the\npollen grains whilst still enclosed within the anthers, and so bring\nabout fertilization without the intervention of insect agency. It is\ndifficult to suppose the _Asclepiad\u00e6_ can have become beautiful for\nthe sake of an agency of which they never avail themselves.\n\nOur common Fumitory has not very conspicuous flowers, but still they\nhave considerable attractiveness of form and still more of colour, due\nboth to the individual blossom and to their grouping together; and yet\n_Fumaria_ is said to be self-fertile.[12]\n\nA much more brilliantly coloured member of the same family is the\n_Dicentra (Diclytra) spectabilis_, so familiar in our gardens. Any\none who examines the flowers of this species will continually find the\npollen grains transferred to the stigma without the slightest trace\nof the flower ever having opened so as to allow of insect agency.\nDr. Lindley[13] has given an account of the mechanism for\nself-fertilization; and this flower has recently been the subject\nof an elaborate study by the German botanist, Hildebrand,[14] and\nhe concurs in the view that the anthers inevitably communicate their\npollen to the pistil, and that as the result of a very complicated and\nsubtle arrangement of the parts, which it would be useless to attempt\nto describe without diagrams. But he believes that in addition to the\narrangements for self-fertilization, another arrangement exists for\nproducing cross-fertilization by insects; but as the plant has never\nproduced seed under his observation, he is unable to tell whether\none mode of fertilization is more useful than the other. I think the\nevidence of the self-fertilization is far clearer than that of the\ncross-fertilization.\n\nNow, if the _Dicentra_ has become beautiful in order to attract\ninsects, it must have done so through a long series of developments,\nfor its adaptation to their agency is of the most complex kind. It is\ndifficult to suppose either that, side by side with this development\nfor cross-fertilization, there has been also developed another\ncomplex arrangement for self-fertilization, or that an earlier complex\narrangement for self-fertilization should have survived through the\nchanges necessary to render the flower fit for insect fertilization.\nThe co-existence in one organism of two complex schemes for different\nobjects, and the interlacing of those two schemes in one beautiful\nflower (which, if Hildebrand be right, occurs in the _Dicentra_), seem\nto be things very improbable if the beautiful flower has become what\nit is in the pursuit of one only of those objects. These speculations\nmay be premature as regards the particular flower; but the\nco-existence of two modes of fertilization is not peculiar to\n_Dicentra_ and seems to furnish material for important reflection.\n\nYet one more plant must be considered. The _Loasa aurantiaca_ is\na creeper which grows freely in our gardens, and has large and\nbrilliantly coloured scarlet flowers turned up with yellow. Its\nseeds set freely in cultivation. The means by which fertilization is\neffected are--unless my observations have misled me--very peculiar.\nWhen the flower first unfolds, the numerous stamens are found\ncollected together in bundles in depressions or folds of the petals;\nafter a while the anthers begin to move, and one after the other the\nstamens pass upwards from their nests in the petals, and gather in\na thick group round the style; subsequently a downward and backward\nmovement begins, which brings the anthers against the pistils, and\nrestores the stamens nearly to their old position, but with exhausted\nand faded anthers. I have never seen any insects at work on the\nflowers, and yet I find the plant to be a free seeder.\n\nSo long ago as 1840 M. Fromond enumerated several conspicuous flowers\nin which, according to his observations, fertilization was effected\nwithout the agency of either the wind or insects.[15] And much more\nrecently an American writer, Mr. Meehan, has given a list of eleven\ngenera, amongst others, in which he has observed the pistils covered\nwith the pollen of the plant before the flower has opened, and in the\none case which he submitted to the microscope, it was found that\nthe pollen tubes were descending through the pistil towards the\novarium.[16] Amongst the genera he names were _Westaria_, _Lathyras_,\n_Ballota_, _Circes Genista_, _Pisum_, and _Linaria_.\n\nThe instances which I have given are mostly from plants familiar\nin our fields, our gardens, or our greenhouses. They are, I think,\nsufficient to make us pause before we conclude that all conspicuous\nflowers are fertilized by insect agency. It may be that Bacon's\nwarning to attend as carefully to negative as to affirmative instances\nhas been a little forgotten. Moreover, these instances seem to\nshow that it would be a great error to suppose that all flowers are\nfertilized either by insects or by the wind; and it is probable\nthat the more the subject is considered the more complex will the\narrangements for fertilization be found to be.\n\nThe agencies to which I have last referred exist, it will be observed,\nin beautiful and conspicuous flowers; and yet act independently of\nthat beauty and that conspicuousness: so that in each instance\nthese facts are, on the utilitarian theory, unexplained and residual\nphenomena. They, therefore, demand earnest inquiry. For the existence\nof a single residual phenomenon is notice to the inquirer that he has\nnot got to the bottom of his subject; that his theory is either not\nthe truth or not the whole truth.\n\nDo the facts justify us in concluding that insect fertilization is\nmore beneficial to the plant than fertilization by the wind or any\nother agency? Do they afford any sufficient cause for that change from\nthe one mode of fertilization to the other which has been suggested?\nThe facts bearing on these questions are very remarkable; for, as we\nhave already seen, many plants produce two kinds of blossom, the one\nconspicuous and the other inconspicuous; the one visited by insects,\nthe other self-fertilizing. Recent observation shows that these\ncleistogamous flowers, as they are called, are present in a great\nvariety of plants.[17] In the violet they are found to exist, being\nseen in the summer and autumn, when all the more brilliant flowers\nhave gone. The one flower has everything in its favour--honey and a\nbeauty of colour and of smell that has passed into a proverb--and it\nopens its blue wings to the visits of the insect tribe in the season\nof their utmost jollity and life. The other has everything against\nit: it is inconspicuous, scentless, ugly, and closed. And yet, which\nsucceeds the better? which produces the more seed? The cleistogamous,\nand not the brilliant flowers: the victory is with ugliness, and not\nwith beauty.\n\nThe same is true of the _Impatiens fulva_. This is an American plant,\nclosely akin to the balsam of our gardens, which has now thoroughly\nestablished itself on the banks of some of our rivers, as the Wey,\nand the tributary stream that runs through Abinger and Shere. It has\nattractive flowers hung on the daintiest flower-stalks. It has also\nlittle green flowers that never open and almost escape attention;\nand yet they, and not the large flowers, are the great source of seed\nvessels to the plant--the great security that the life of the race\nwill be continued.[18] Again, ugliness has borne away the palm of\nutility from beauty.\n\nSo, too, in America the same happens with the _Specularia perfoliata_:\nin shady situations all its flowers are said to be cleistogamous, and\nto be wonderfully productive and strong.[19]\n\nThe conditions of the problem in these cases are such as to make them\nof the last importance in our inquiry into the utility of beauty;\nfor in each case we are comparing a conspicuous and an inconspicuous\nflower in the very same plant. The conditions seem to exclude the\npossibility of error in the result.\n\nTwo explanations have been suggested of the origin of these\ncleistogamous flowers: according to the one, they are the earliest\nform of the flowers; according to the other view, they are degraded\nforms of the more beautiful flowers.[20] For our purpose, it is\nimmaterial whether of the two explanations is correct; for either the\ndevelopment of beauty has diminished the utility of the flower, or the\nloss of beauty has increased the utility: in either event, utility and\nbeauty are dissociated the one from the other.\n\nAnother experiment Nature presents us with, in which the conditions\nare nearly, if not quite, as rigorously exclusive of error. The vast\nmajority of orchidaceous plants are, as already mentioned, dependent\non insect agency, for fertilization, and present a marvellous variety\nof contrivances for effecting cross-fertilization through their\nactivity. But one of our orchids (the Bee orchis) is self-fertilized.\nI hardly know anything in vegetable life more striking or beautiful\nthan to see its delicate pollinaria at a certain stage of its\ninflorescence descending on to the stigmatic surface and so yielding\ntheir pollen grains to the fertilization of their own blossom; and yet\nthe Bee orchis has been found by observers to be as free a seeder as\nany of its tribe. Here the beauty and conspicuousness of the blossom,\nwhich are very great, are, as far as can be seen, useless; the plant\ngains nothing by the attractiveness which it offers, and the colouring\nand ornamentation of the blossom are, on the theory of utility,\nresidual phenomena.\n\nIt is difficult to imagine that the change from wind or\nself-fertilization can, so to speak, commend itself to the flower on\nthe score either of economy or success. If the anemophilous blossom\nmust produce somewhat more pollen than the entomophilous, it saves\nthe great expenditure of material and vital force requisite for the\nproduction of the large and conspicuous corolla. The one is fertilized\nby every wind that blows; the other, especially in the case of\nhighly-specialized flowers like the orchids, may be incapable of\nfertilization except by a very few insects. The celebrated Madagascar\norchid _Angr\u00e6cum_ can be fertilized, it is said, only by a moth with\na proboscis from ten to fourteen inches long--a moth so rare or\nlocal that it is as yet known to naturalists only by prophecy. It\nis difficult to suppose that it would be beneficial for the plant's\nchance of survival to exchange as the fertilizing agent the universal\nwind for this most localized insect.\n\nAnd here another line of evidence comes in and demands consideration.\nThe face of Nature, as we now see it, has not been always exhibited\nby the world. The flora, like the fauna, of the world has changed: how\nhas it changed as regards the beauty of the flowers? Does it give any\ntestimony to that _becoming_ beautiful of the flowers of plants to\nwhich Mr. Darwin refers? The answer is not a very certain one,\nby reason of the imperfection of the geological record, of the\nprobability that beautiful plants, if they had existed, and had been\nof a delicate structure, would have perished and left no trace behind.\nBut so far as an answer can be given, it is in favour of the increase\nof floral beauty in the vegetable world. The earliest flower known\n(the _Pothocites Grantonii_) occurs in the coal measures; its flowers\ncannot have been other than inconspicuous in themselves, though it is\npossible that by grouping they were made more attractive to the eye;\nin the period of the growth of the coal, when this plant lived, the\nvast forests seem principally to have been composed of trees without\nconspicuous blossoms, huge club mosses and marestails, and many\nconifers; in the earlier periods of this earth we have no trace of\nconspicuous blossom, and it is not till the upper chalk that the oaks\nand myrtles and _Proteace\u00e6_ appear as denizens of the forests. In like\nmanner, if we refer to the appearance of insects on the earth, we have\nno clear trace in very early strata of those classes of insects\nwhich now do the principal work of fertilization for our conspicuous\nflowers. In the coal measures there have been found insects of the\nscorpion, beetle, cockroach, grasshopper, ant, and neuropterous\nfamilies; but of a butterfly or moth there is only evidence of great\ndoubt. It seems probable, then, and one cannot say more, that with\nthe progress of the ages, flowers, as a whole, have become more\nconspicuous and attractive. But if we inquire whether the dull flowers\nof one era have grown into the conspicuous flowers of another, the\nanswer is negative. The conifers of the coal age were anemophilous\nthen, and are anemophilous still; they show no symptom of becoming\nmore conspicuous; the same is true of the oaks of the chalk period,\nand of all other inconspicuous plants. The difference between\nconspicuous and inconspicuous flowers appears a permanent one; and the\npage of geology gives no evidence in favour of the supposed change.\n\nAnother observation must yet be made. Comparing flowers fertilized\nby insects and by the wind, it has never, so far as I can learn,\nbeen observed that the former are more certain of being set or more\nprolific than the latter; and, as already shown, the inconspicuous\nflowers are often more fertile than the conspicuous ones. What motive\nwould there be, then, for the inconspicuous flowers of the early\ngeologic periods to convert themselves into the brilliant corollas of\nour day?\n\nCarefully considered, the passage which I have cited from Mr. Darwin\ndoes not account for the beauty of the flowers of plants at all; it\naccounts only for their conspicuousness, as the writer himself points\nout; and the two things are so different, that to account for the one\nis not even to tend to account for the other. If any one will consider\nthe beauty of every inflorescence, whether conspicuous or not--a\nbeauty which the microscope always makes apparent where the unaided\neye fails to perceive it; or, again, the easily perceived beauty of\nmany inconspicuous plants; or, lastly, the beauty of many conspicuous\nplants which does not tend to their conspicuousness--he will see how\ntrue this is.\n\nFor in many conspicuous flowers there are delicate pencillings and\nmarkings which certainly do not tend to make them such, but which\nnevertheless add greatly to their beauty, as we perceive it. In the\nregularly shaped flowers these markings often start from the centre\nof the blossom like radii, and they may be conceived as guiding the\ninsects to the central store of honey. Such guidance can hardly be\nneedful, as the shape of the flower itself generally does all, and\nmore than all, that the markings can do in the way of guidance. But\nit is by no means true that all the markings lead to the centre of\nthe flower: many are transverse; many are marginal; some are by way of\nspot.\n\nAgain, take the irregularly shaped flowers, which are supposed to be\nthe exclusive subjects of insect fertilization; how infinite are the\nbeauties of the flower over and above those which make it conspicuous,\nor can assist to guide the insect. Take the orchids, for example: the\nlabellum is generally the landing-place of the insect visitors; but\nthe other flower-leaves are almost always the subjects of a vast\ndisplay of delicate beauty which cannot be accounted for by the\nnecessity of conspicuousness or guidance. All this beauty is, on the\ntheory in question, an unexplained fact.\n\nBut, again, take the grasses, which depend for fertilization\nexclusively on the wind, and have no need to woo the visits of the\ninsects. The beauty of the markings of the inflorescence of many\nof the grasses is very great, though far from conspicuous: take\nthe delicately banded flowers of our quaking grasses; take the rich\ncrimson of the foxtails; take the brilliant yellow of the Canary\n_Phaleris_; and it is impossible to refuse the attribute of beauty in\ncolour to the wind-loving grasses. And all this beauty is unexplained\non the theory in question.\n\nIt is impossible to speak of the grasses and not to have the mind\nrecalled to the beauty that resides in form as contrasted with colour.\nElegance, grace of form, characterizes most (but not all) plants,\nwhether fertilized by the wind or by insects; and yet this grace, in\nmany cases, perhaps in most, adds nothing to their conspicuousness. It\nis, on the theory in question, a piece of idle beauty; and yet it is\nall-pervading--a persistent, though not universal, characteristic of\nthe vegetable world.\n\nBut to revert to conspicuousness. It is not true to say that all\nself-fertilized plants have inconspicuous flowers. I have adduced the\n_Stephanotis_ and _Hoya_ on this point. Nor is it true to say that all\nanemophilous flowers are inconspicuous as compared with the green of\ntheir leaves. The large but delicate yellow groups of the male flowers\nof the Scotch pine (not to travel beyond very familiar plants) are\nvery conspicuous in the early summer--much more so, to my eye at\nleast, than many flowers which are supposed to stake their lives on\nattraction by being conspicuous. Hermann M\u00fcller has observed on this\nsame fact, and considers it to be clear that the display of colour can\nbe of no use to the plant, and must therefore be regarded as \"a merely\naccidental phenomenon,\"[21]--_i.e._, a phenomenon not accounted for by\nutility.\n\nThe crimson flowers of the larch, again, are certainly very\nconspicuous as well as beautiful on the yet leafless boughs; and yet\nthey owe nothing to insects.\n\nOne other remark must be made on this passage from Mr. Darwin which\nhas formed my text. It does not pretend to account for the production\nof beauty or even of conspicuousness. It only seeks to account for the\naccumulation of that quality in certain plants, and its comparative\nabsence in others. The tendency in Nature to produce beauty is a\npostulate in Mr. Darwin's theory.\n\nThe beauty of mountain blossoms has been referred to as supporting\nthe utility of beauty: it is not perfectly clear that even this can be\naccounted for merely by the need of attracting insects. It is said by\nthe American writer to whom I have already referred, Mr. Meehan, that\nthe flowers of the Rocky Mountains are beautifully coloured, produce\nas much seed as similar ones elsewhere, and yet that there is a\nremarkable scarcity of insect life--so great, I understand him to\nmean, as to render it highly improbable that the races of the flowers\ncan be perpetuated by insect agency.\n\nWe have hitherto, according to promise, been considering the beauty of\nflowers as detached from all surrounding facts, and isolated from\nall other parts of the plant. But, in fact, this beauty of the\ninflorescence of plants is only one phenomenon of a much larger class.\nThe petals and sepals are only leaves; and it is difficult to argue\nabout the character of the flower-leaves and omit from thought the\nstalk and root-leaves; and these leaves continually possess a wealth\nof beauty both of form and colour for which no intelligible utility\nhas ever been suggested. The use made of conspicuous leaves in the\nmodern style of bedding-out and the cultivation in hot-houses of what\nare called foliage plants, will recall this to every one. In many\ncases the stems of plants, often the veins of the leaves, and often\nthe backs of the leaves, are the homes of distinct and beautiful\ncolouring, for which, so far as I know, no account can be given on\nthe score of use. To enlarge our view yet a little more, the brilliant\ncolours of the fungi and of the lichens, mosses, and sea-weeds, and,\nlastly, the outburst of varied colours in the autumn--the crimson of\nthe bramble, the browns of the oaks, the red of the maple, the gold\nof the elm, \"the sunshine of the withering fern\"--all these present\nthemselves to us as so closely akin to the painted beauty of flowers\nthat we cannot think of the one without the other; and we may well\nhesitate to accept as satisfactory a theory which can offer no\nexplanation of phenomena so closely akin to those of flowers, except,\nforsooth, that they are merely accidental. Once again, to widen the\nrange of our mental vision, the beauty of the vegetable world is but a\npart of that great and complex mass of beauty from which we agreed\nto segregate it; and viewed as part of that, it must have the same\nexplanation applied to it as the other beautiful phenomena of the\nworld.\n\nIt is worth while to remember that Beauty is no outcome of a long\nperiod of evolution; it is no late event in the geologic history of\nthe world. The lowest forms of organic life no less than the highest\nare clad in beauty. Many beings that are \"simple structureless\nprotoplasm\"--to use the language of Professor Allman as President of\nthe British Association this year--\"fashion for themselves an\nouter membraneous or calcareous case, often of symmetrical form\nand elaborate ornamentation, or construct a silicious skeleton of\nradiating spicula or crystal-clear concentric spheres of exquisite\nsymmetry and beauty.\"[22]\n\nSo, too, in the Silurian period, the corals and other marine\nstructures were, no doubt, endowed with every grace which could\nplease the eye of man, if he had been there. Beauty is the invariable\ncompanion of Nature. It is difficult, therefore, to account for it\nas a result of evolution; and, as for the theory that it was made\nfor man's delectation only, a single diatom or a single fossil from a\nSilurian bed is enough to put the whole vain egotism to flight.\n\nWhat are the results fairly deducible from these observations? They\nseem to be the following:--\n\n  1. That conspicuousness is _a_ step towards fertilization in one\n  mode, and might, therefore, well be used by an artist loving at\n  once beauty and fertility.\n\n  2. That there is no such preponderating advantage in beauty as\n  should convert the ugly anemophilous flowers into the brilliant\n  entomophilous flowers.\n\n  3. That in an infinite number of cases beauty exists, but without\n  any relation to the mode of fertilization.\n\n  4. That it is maintained in many cases where the uglier and less\n  beautiful plant is more useful, as in the case of the violet.\n\n  5. That even where conspicuousness is useful, it furnishes no\n  complete account of the whole beauty of the flower.\n\nLet us apply these facts to the two rival theories. If, on the one\nhand, nothing has become beautiful but through the utility of beauty,\nbeauty will be found where it is useful and nowhere else. But we have\nfound beauty without finding utility; so that theory, on our present\nknowledge, is inadmissible.\n\nIf, on the other hand, there be an artificer in Nature who loves at\nonce utility and beauty, he may use the one sometimes as a mean to\nthe other, or he may use beauty without utility; and the presence of\nbeauty without utility is intelligible.\n\nAnd here I conclude. I see in Nature both utility and beauty; but I am\nnot convinced that the one is solely dependent on the other. I find\na grace and a glory (even in the flowers of plants) which, on the\nutilitarian theory, is not accounted for, is a residual phenomenon;\nand that in such enormous proportions that the phenomenon explained\nbears no perceptible proportion to the phenomenon left unexplained.\nWhether this be so or not, it appears to me, for the reasons I have\nalready given, that we may still entertain the same notions about the\nbeauty of the world as before. Our souls may still rejoice in beauty\nas of old. To some of us this glorious frame has not appeared a dead\nmechanic mass, but a living whole, instinct with spiritual life; and\nin the beauty which we see around us in Nature's face, we have felt\nthe smile of a spiritual Being, as we feel the smile of our friend\nadding light and lustre to his countenance. I still indulge this\nfancy, or, if you will, this superstition. Still, as of old, I feel\n(to use the familiar language of our great poet of Nature)--\n\n  \"A presence that disturbs me with the joy\n  Of elevated thoughts: a sense sublime\n  Of something far more deeply interfused,\n  Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,\n  And the round ocean, and the living air,\n  And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;\n  A motion and a spirit, that impels\n  All thinking things, all objects of all thought,\n  And rolls through all things. Therefore am I still\n  A lover of the meadows and the woods\n  And mountains; and of all that we behold\n  From this green earth: of all the mighty world,\n  Of eye, and ear.\"\n\n  EDW. FRY.\n\n    [Footnote 1: Wisdom, xiii. 3-5.]\n\n    [Footnote 2: P. 200.]\n\n    [Footnote 3: \"Origin of Species\" (4th Ed.), p. 239.]\n\n    [Footnote 4: Wallace, \"Tropical Nature,\" p. 232.]\n\n    [Footnote 5: _Ibid._ p. 232.]\n\n    [Footnote 6: _Ibid._ p. 237.]\n\n    [Footnote 7: \"Flowers and their Unbidden Guests,\" by Kerner,\n    translated by Ogle. Prefatory Letter.]\n\n    [Footnote 8: Henslow, \"On Self-Fertilization.\" Trans. Linn.\n    Society, 2nd series, \"Botany,\" i. p. 325. _Query_: Is not this\n    the case with the _Tacsonia_ of our greenhouses?]\n\n    [Footnote 9: Henslow, _ubi sup._ 329.]\n\n    [Footnote 10: Kerner, p. 11. These statements appear to\n    me, though made by a very accomplished observer, to require\n    verification. My own observations on the _Colchicum_ (which\n    have been only very imperfect) would have led me to incline to\n    a different conclusion.]\n\n    [Footnote 11: Kerner, p. 12.]\n\n    [Footnote 12: Lubbock's \"Wild Flowers in Relation to Insects,\"\n    p. 56.]\n\n    [Footnote 13: Lindley, \"Veg. King.\" 436.]\n\n    [Footnote 14: \"Ueber die Bestaubungsvorrichtungen bei den\n    Fumariaceen,\" in Pringsheim's \"Jahrbuch,\" vol. vii. part iv.\n    p. 423. 1870.]\n\n    [Footnote 15: Link, \"Report on Progress of Botany during\n    1841,\" translated by Lankester (Ray Society, 1845), p. 65.]\n\n    [Footnote 16: Meehan, \"On Fertilization by Insect Agency.\"\n    _Gardeners' Chronicle_, 11 Sept. 1875.]\n\n    [Footnote 17: For the whole subject of these most curious\n    flowers, see Mr. Darwin's book \"On the Different Forms of\n    Flowers;\" Rev. G. Henslow, Tr. Linn. Society, \"Botany,\" 2nd\n    series, vol. i. p. 317; Mr. Bennett, Journal of Linn. Society,\n    \"Botany,\" xiii. p. 147, xvii. p. 269.]\n\n    [Footnote 18: Bennett, Journal of Linn. Society, \"Botany,\"\n    xiii. p. 147.]\n\n    [Footnote 19: Meehan, \"On Fertilization,\" _ubi supra_.]\n\n    [Footnote 20: Mr. Bennett, \"On Cleistogamous Flowers,\" Linn.\n    Society's Journal, \"Botany,\" xvii. p. 278, has shown that the\n    latter is probably the correct view.]\n\n    [Footnote 21: _Nature_, ix. 461.]\n\n    [Footnote 22: _Nature_, xx. p. 386.]\n\n\n\n\nWHERE ARE WE IN ART?\n\n\n\"No doubt education is a fine thing!\" said I, meditatively, laying\ndown my thirteenth newspaper. It was a rainy November day, and the\nreading-room was nearly empty. I had been told the great fact over and\nover again in some form or other in all the \"Dailies\" and \"Weeklies.\"\nIt had been repeated in every variety of tone in the little pile of\n\"Monthlies\" at my elbow, of which I had skimmed the cream (no one\nin these days can be expected to go through the labour of a whole\narticle)! The \"Quarterlies,\" in more ponderous fashion, had reiterated\nthe sentiment. We had got hold of the right thing; all that was wanted\nwas more and more of the same. Let everybody be served alike; what is\nmeat for the gander is meat also for the goose, repeated the advocates\nof women's education, magniloquently (though not exactly in those\nwords). Let everybody learn the same thing that I am learning! How\nmuch better and wiser we are than our forefathers! How beautiful for\nus to be able to say, as in the old story of the French Minister of\nInstruction when he pulls out his watch, \"It is ten o'clock; all\nthe children in the schools in England are doing their sums. It is\nhalf-past eleven, they are all writing their copies!\"\n\n\"What everybody says must be true,\" thought I; \"the schoolmaster has\ngot the better of the world, and rules the roast despotically; but\nthen how great is the result!\" I repeated, with pride.\n\nSuch perfection was rather oppressive, and I could not help yawning a\nlittle as I went upstairs, looking round as I went. The decorations\nof the club were wonderfully fine, no doubt, but perhaps an Italian\nof the \"Cinque-cento\" would not have thought them quite successful.\nProbably, however, he would have been wrong. He was certainly much\nless \"instructed\" in art than we are. I strolled to the window, and\nlooked out at a stucco palace on either hand and over the way, with\npillars and pilasters added _ad libitum_, and a glimpse of a long wall\nwith oblong openings cut in it, stretching the whole length of\nthe street. One of the abominable regiments of black statues which\ndisfigure London stood near the corner, the nicely-finished buttons of\nwhose palet\u00f4t, and the creases of whose boots (the originals of\nwhich must have been made by Hoby), had often been my wonder, if not\nadmiration.\n\n\"Yes, there certainly is a lost art or two, which have somehow made\ntheir escape from this best of all worlds, in spite of our drilling\nand double-distilled training,\" I sighed.\n\nThere was a portfolio of photographs lying on the table, which I\nturned over abstractedly. The Venus de Milo, and the Theseus of the\nParthenon; the Raphael frescoes of the great council of the gods in\nthe Farnesina Palace at Rome; a street in Venice; Durham Cathedral;\nthe decorations of the Certosa at Pavia; some specimens of old\nJapanese porcelain; some coloured patterns of Persian shawls and\nprayer-rugs and of Indian inlaid work. Each of them was good and\nappropriate of its kind, expressing a national or individual taste and\nfeeling, or, best of all, a belief. And none of them were the results\nof education, but of a kind of instinct of art which no instruction\nhitherto has been able to give, of which it seems even sometimes to\ndeprive a race, as a savage generally loses his accurate perception\nof details and his power of memory and artistic perceptions, with\nhis delicacy of hearing and smell, as a consequence of so-called\ncivilization.\n\nThe Hindoo arranges colours for a fabric with the same certainty of\nintuition that a bird weaves his nest, or a spider its web. His blues\nand greens are as harmonious in their combinations as those of Nature\nherself; while the \"educated\" Englishman is now introducing every\nspecies of atrocity in form and colour wherever he goes, ruining\nthe beautiful native manufactures by instructions from his superior\n\"standpoint;\" forcing the workers to commit every blunder which\nhe does himself at home, in order to adapt their fabrics to\nthe abominable taste of the middle classes in England. Even the\nmissionaries, male and female, cannot hold their hands, and teach the\nchildren in schools and hareems crochet and cross-stitch of the worst\ndesigns and colours, instead of the exquisite native embroidery of\nthe past. Arsenic greens, magenta and gas-tar dyes, are introduced by\norder of the merchants into carpets and cashmere shawls; vile colours\nand forms in pottery and bad lacquer-work are growing up, by command,\nin China and Japan. There seems to be no check or stay to the\nirruption of bad taste which is swamping the whole world by our\ninfluence. The Japanese have even been recommended to make a Museum\nof their own beautiful old productions quickly, or the very memory of\ntheir existence, and of the manner in which they were made, would be\nlost.\n\nIt is commonly supposed that the taste of the French is better than\nour own, and the pretty, the bizarre, the becoming, may indeed be\nsaid to belong to their domain; but high art is not their vocation.\nA certain harmony is obtained by quenching colour, as in the \"Soupir\n\u00e9touff\u00e9,\" the \"Bismarck malade,\" the \"rose d\u00e9grad\u00e9e,\" the \"Celadon\" of\nthe S\u00e8vres china, all eighth and tenth degrees of dilution; but pure\ncolour, like that of Persia and of the East generally, they never now\ndare to dip their hands into. The gorgeous effects of their own old\npainted glass, the \"rose windows\" of the churches at Rouen and in many\nother towns of Normandy, are far beyond their present reach.\n\nThe stained glass of all countries in Europe, indeed, belonging to\nthe good times, is a feast of colour which none of the modern work\ncan approach. There is a \"Last Judgment,\" said to be from designs by\nAlbert D\u00fcrer, which was taken in a sea-fight on its road to Spain,\nand put up in a little church at Fairford, in Gloucestershire, which\ndazzles us with its splendour; and the scraps which are still to be\nfound all over England in village churches (many of which are now\nbelieved to be of home manufacture) are as beautiful as the great\nFlemish windows thirty feet high. At the present day the pigments\nused, we are told, are finer; the glass is infinitely better rolled,\nall the manufacturing processes have made wonderful progress, as\nwe proudly declare; only the results of it are utterly and simply\ndetestable--the colours of the great modern windows in Cologne\nCathedral and Westminster Abbey set one's very teeth on edge--the\ntemptation to use a stone (if it had come under one's hand) would be\nfrightfully great in front of that at the east end of Ripon.\n\nThere lies before me an old Persian rug, all out of shape and twisted\nin the weaving, but full of subtle quantities in colour, perfect in\nthe proportions of its vivid brilliancy, and a grand new Axminster\ncarpet alongside, of faultless construction, with a design as hideous\nas its colours are harsh.\n\nIt is not only now with productions destined for the English market,\nbut the degradation of art is beginning to spread all over the\nworld--the standards of \"instructed\" European taste are vitiating the\nvery well-springs of beautiful old work. The \"mantilla\" of Seville,\nand the \"tovaglia\" of the Roman peasant, are supplanted by frightful\nbonnets; the striking old costumes are disappearing alike in Brittany\nand in Algiers; in Athens and in Turkey they are giving way to\nthe abominations of Parisian toilettes for the women, while the\nchimney-pot hat is taking the place of the turban and the kalpac for\nthe men.\n\nThe picturesque quaintness of the narrow Egyptian streets dies away,\nas under a frost, under the hand of Western architects; the delicate\npierced woodwork of their projecting balconies is changed for flat\nwindows with red and green \"jalousies;\" and the Khedive builds\nminarets, it is true, but like enlarged Mordan pencil-cases. The\nharmony of the lines in an ancient Arabian fountain or mosque at\nCairo, the interlacing patterns of fretwork in the Saracenic buildings\nat Grenada, are marvellous in their exquisite variety; yet the secret\nof their construction in their own land is nearly gone, the very\ntradition of the old work seems to have perished in the race--they\ncannot even imitate their own old creations. \"Oh for a touch of a\nvanished hand!\" we say over the ruined tombs of the Memlook Sultans\nin their desolate beauty, standing lonely in the desert near Cairo, or\nthe wonderful mosques of the deserted city of Beejapore in the Bombay\nPresidency, whose photographs have lately been printed.\n\nEach nation in the old time had an expression of its thoughts in\nthe buildings in which it housed its gods, its government, and its\nindividuals, which was as distinctive as its language: a tongue,\nindeed, in stone, in colour and in form, as plain as, indeed plainer\nthan, ever words could frame.\n\nThe Egyptian, with the flat square lines of the gigantic slabs placed\nacross the forests of enormous rounded pillars closely packed, the\navenues of sphinxes and obelisks leading up (never at right angles,\ncuriously to our sense of conformity) to the temples--solemn, heavy,\nmagnificent, mysterious--with a sentiment of dignified repose, though\nlittle of beauty or proportion, but full of symbolism and suggestion\nand grandeur.\n\nThe exquisite Greek buildings, where proportion was almost like music\nin its scientific harmony of parts, so exact, so modulated, so severe,\nso lovely--with sculpture forming an almost necessary portion of the\narchitectural design when at its highest point of excellence.\n\nThe Saracenic, with its simple grace of construction and delicate\ndetail of ornament, with holy words and combinations of lines in place\nof natural forms, and soaring beauty of domes, and pierced marble\nwork.\n\nThe Middle Age Italian, with its inlaid and decorated fa\u00e7ades and\nwealth of columns, and traceries of gay-coloured stones, and contrasts\nof brilliant light and dark shadows in the deep-set windows and\ndoors,--bright and lovely like Giotto's Campanile at Florence, rising\nlike a flower over the city, or great churches like those of Orvieto\nand St. Mark's,[1] with their rich profusion of mosaic and carved\nstone and quaint modifications of brickwork.\n\nOr the buildings of the Gothic nations (our own included), which\noften, like those at Mont St. Michel, seem to have so grown out of\nthe situation--where the Art is so interwoven with Nature, that it is\nhardly possible to discover where one begins and the other ends. There\nis something also of the manner in which Nature works, in the feeling\nwith which the curves interlace, seeming almost to grow into each\nother, in a Gothic cathedral. In the perspectives of heavy round\narches of Winchester and Durham, in the upward soaring of the\nSalisbury spire, there is the same impression--they seem to have\n\"come\" so. It is like a living organism, the parts of which are as\nnatural and necessary to the whole as is the growth of a tree: like\nthe recipe of old for a poet, they seem to have been \"born, not made.\"\n\nAll these different races invented for themselves what is called a\n\"style;\" that is to say, an original manner, peculiar and adapted to\ntheir special idiosyncrasies, of fulfilling those wants which every\nnation, as soon as it emerges from the savage state, must feel and\nprovide for in some fashion.\n\nEven to descend to very inferior work--there is character and\nexpression in the old King William houses on the river-bank at\nChelsea, in the pretty little Queen Anne Square in Westminster; it\nis too neat and pretty to be high art, with its unobtrusive moulded\nbrick, its shallow projections, and the carved shells over the\ndoorways; but it is not unlike the poetry of Pope in the delicate\nfinish and adaptation of its parts, while no one can deny that it has\nan individuality which the smart new houses in Grosvenor Place are\ntotally without, where costly granite and excellent stone seem to have\nbeen employed to show the moral lesson that the best materials are of\nlittle service unless mixed \"with brains, sir,\" as Opie advised. Every\ncapital of the columns is carved by hand, but of the poorest design\nand all alike--it is hardly possible to conceive the poverty of\ninvention involved in making every house and every ornament an exact\ncopy of its neighbour, in a situation which invited picturesque\ntreatment--after too, it had been shown at the Oxford Museum that\ncarving was done both quicker and better when the workers exerted\ntheir minds in such inventions as they possessed (and some of their\nrenderings of natural forms were beautiful) than when they merely\nfollowed a stereotyped pattern.\n\nAt present we can as soon invent a new style for ourselves as a new\nanimal; we copy, we combine--that is, under the Georgian era we added\na Mahometan cupola to Roman columns in the Regent's Park; or, still\nlater, we made one pediment serve for the whole side of a Belgravian\nsquare--_i.e._, a form intended for a nicely-calculated angle over the\nfront of a temple with a particular number of columns, is stretched as\non a rack over the roofs of an acre of houses; or we build a portico\ndesigned as a shelter against the cloudless sunshine of the Greek\nclimate to darken a sunless English dwelling-house. Our last\nachievement has been to make a \"pasticcio\" of the high \"mansarde\"\nParisian roofs, with hideous little debased Italian porticoes, a\nquarter of a mile of which may be seen in the Grosvenor Gardens\ndistrict.\n\nAlso we can patch and imitate--that is, rebuild a sham antique--from\nwhich, however ingeniously done, the ineffable charm of the original\nhas escaped like a gas. Why the portico of the capital at Washington,\nor the monument on the Calton Hill at Edinburgh, whose columns\nare said to be \"an exact copy of those at Athens,\" are so utterly\nuninteresting, it would take too long to explain; but no one will deny\nthat they are mere lumps of dead stone, while the Parthenon itself,\nruined and defaced, wrecked and ill-used, still stands like a glorious\npoem in marble, which no evil treatment can deprive of its charm.\nThere is mind and soul worked into the material, and somehow\ninextricably entangled into it, which no copy, however exact, can in\nthe least reproduce.\n\nNo doubt we have improved in our street architecture; there are\nisolated specimens of red brick, a shop-front in South Audley Street,\nand one in New Bond Street, several excellent buildings in the city,\n&c, &c, legitimate adaptations of gables, dormers, and windows,\nexceedingly good of their kind; but these are not original creations,\nonly developments of what already exists.\n\nThere is one point in which our present shallow, unintelligent\neducation has wrought irreparable mischief. We have learnt so much of\nrespect for art as to desire to preserve the works of our forefathers,\nbut not so far as to find out how this is to be done. We set to work\nto \"restore\" them. Every inch of the surface of an old church is\nhistorical as to the manner of the handiwork of the men of the\ntwelfth, thirteenth, or whatever may be the century, and we proceed\nto put a new face on it, which, at the best, must certainly be that\nof the nineteenth century; we find a defaced portrait statue on an\naltar-tomb (as in a church in Devonshire), and we insert a smooth\nmask out of our own heads; we find an Early English tower with walls\nfourteen feet thick, and think a vestry would be \"nicer\" in its place,\nand the tower is therefore pulled down and rebuilt at the other end of\nthe nave (as in a church in Bucks); or a curious monument to the fifth\nson of Edward III., or a couple of kneeling figures, clad in ruffs and\nfarthingales, of an old rector and his wife, are within the communion\nrails (as in two other churches in Bucks); the incumbents do not\napprove of tombs in such \"sacred places,\" and, regardless of\nthe curious historical fact shown by the very position itself in\npre-Reformation days, they are ruthlessly rooted up, and in the latter\ncase a flaming brass to the rector's own family substituted.\n\nEven a little art education would show us that this is not\n\"restoration;\" it may be a much finer and smarter kind of work, as\nmany people seem to consider it; but the cutting down an inch of the\nsplendid carved stone porches at Chartres to a new surface is\nnot \"restoring\" that which was there before--the face of the\nfifteenth-century lady cannot be \"restored\" without a portrait which\nno longer exists--the new tower may be very \"pretty,\" but it is\ncertainly no longer a specimen of rare old Early English work. Like\nthe monks of old carefully scratching their invaluable parchment\nmanuscripts, to put in their own words and notes, we have at one fell\nswoop scratched the history of English ecclesiastical art off\nthe land, and arch\u00e6ologists are inquiring sadly for instances of\nunrestored churches, which, alas! now are scarcely to be found.\n\nWhat may be the reason why architecture, sculpture, painting, and\neven poetry--_i.e._, the combination of stone, brick, marble, metal,\ncolours, and, lastly, of metrical forms of words--should all suffer by\nthe advance of our (so-called) civilization and education, is still\na mystery; but few will be found to doubt the fact in detail, though\nthey may deny the general formula.\n\nPerhaps our self-consciousness as to our great virtues, our\n\"progress,\" our knowledge, the learning of the reason of our work, the\nintroversion of our present moods of thought, check the development\nof an idea, even if we may be fortunate enough to get hold of one.\nSelf-consciousness is fatal to art; there is a certain spontaneity\nof utterance--singing, as the birds sing, because they cannot help\nit--\"composing,\" almost as the mountains and clouds \"compose,\" by\nreason of their existence itself, not because they want to make a\npicture,--which produces natural work, grown out of the man and\nthe requirements of his nature, to which it seems, with very rare\nexceptions, that we cannot now attain.\n\nIn sculpture, a modern R.A. has acquired ten times as much anatomy\nas Phidias: dissection was unknown, and not permitted, by the Greeks.\nChemistry has produced for the painter colours which Raphael (luckily\nfor us) never dreamed of. Yet one cannot help wondering at the strange\ndaring which permits the honourable society at Burlington House to\nhang yearly the works of the ancient masters of the craft on the same\nwalls where their own productions are to figure a few weeks later, as\nif to inform the world most impressively and depressingly from how far\nwe have fallen in pictorial art; to string up our taste, as it were,\nto concert pitch--to give the key-note of true excellence, in order to\nmark the depth to which we have sunk.\n\nWe now teach drawing diligently in all European countries, and are\nsurprised that we get no Michelangelos. Did Masaccio go to a school of\ndesign, or Giotto learn \"free-hand\" manipulation? Education, as it is\ngenerally defined--meaning thereby a knowledge of the accumulation of\nfacts discovered by other people--is good for the general public, for\nordinary humanity, but not for original minds, except so far as it\nsaves them time and trouble by preventing them from reinventing\nwhat has been already done by others. True, there can be but few\n\"inventors\" (in the old Italian sense of creators) in the world at any\none moment, and training must, it will be said, be carried on for the\nuse of the many; but one might still plead for a certain elasticity in\nour teaching, a margin left for free-will among the few who will ever\nbe able to use it. And, meantime, it is allowable to lament over the\nnumber of arts we have lost, or are in danger of losing, which\ncan only be practised by the few--whose number seems ever to be\ndiminishing, under our generalizing processes of turning out as many\nminds of the same pattern as if we wanted nail-heads or patent screws\nby the million.\n\nThis is not education in its true and highest sense--_i.e._, the\nbringing forth the best that is in a man; not simply putting knowledge\ninto him, but using the variety of gifts, which even the poorest in\nendowment possess, to the best possible end. And this seems more and\nmore difficult as the stereotyped pattern is more and more enforced in\nboard-schools, endowed schools, public schools, universities; and each\nbit of plastic material, while young, is forced as much as possible\ninto the same shape, the only contention being who shall have the\nconstruction of the die which all alike are eager to apply to every\nindividual of the nation.\n\nOf all races which have yet existed there can be no doubt that the\nGreek was the one most highly endowed with artistic powers of all\nkinds; yet the Greek was certainly not, in our sense of the term,\nan educated man at all; his powers of every kind, however, were\ncultivated indirectly by the very atmosphere he lived in. His\nsensitive artistic nature found food in the forms and colours of\nthe mountains and the islands, the sea and the sky, by which he\nwas surrounded; by the human nature about him in its most perfect\ndevelopment; by every building--his temples, his tombs, his\ntheatres--every pot and pan he used, every seat he sat upon; whereas\nno man's eye can be other than degraded by the unspeakable ugliness of\nan English manufacturing town, or, what is almost worse, by the sham\nart where decoration of any kind is invented or attempted by the\nricher middle class.\n\nThe theory that soil and climate and food produce instincts of beauty,\nas well as varieties of beasts and plants, is, however, evidently at\nfault in these questions; for if this were the case at one time in the\nworld's history, why not at another? and the present inhabitants of\nGreece are as inapt as their neighbours in sculpture, painting, and\narchitecture. Nothing, even out of the workshops of Birmingham, can\nexceed the ugliness of their present productions--_e.g._, a Minerva's\nhead without a forehead, done in bead-work on canvas, fastened on to a\npiece of white marble, which was given as a precious parting gift from\nthe goddess's own city to a valued friend. There seems now a headlong\ncompetition in every country after bad art. If we ask for lace and\nembroidery in the Greek islands, or silver fillagree in Norway,--if\nwe inquire for wood-carving from Burmah, or the old shawls and pottery\nfrom Persia and the East,--the answer is always the same: we are told\nthat there is \"none such made at present.\" It is only what remains of\nthe old handmade work that is to be obtained; the present inhabitants\n\"care for none of these things.\" Sham jewellery from the \"Palais\nRoyal,\" Manchester goods, stamped leather, and the like, are what the\nnatives are seeking for themselves, while they get rid of \"all those\nugly old things\" to the first possible buyer for any price which they\ncan fetch.\n\nManufacturing an article, (whatever be the real derivation of the\nword, but) meaning the use of machinery for the multiplication of the\ngreatest number of articles at the least cost, however admirable for\nthe comfort of the million, is evidently fatal to art. When each bit\nof ironwork, every hinge, every lock scutcheon, was hammered out with\ncare and consideration by the individual blacksmith, even if he were\nbut an indifferent performer, it bore the stamp of the thought of\na man's mind directing his hand; now there is only the stamp of a\nmachine running the metal into a mould. When every bit of decorative\nwood-work was \"all made out of the carver's brain,\"--when the\nembroidery of the holiday shirt of a boatman of \"Chios' rocky isle\"\ntook half a lifetime to devise and stitch, and was intended to last\nfor generations of wearers, art found a way, however humble, through\nnimble fingers interpreting the fancies of the individual brain.\n\"Fancy work,\" as an old Hampshire woman called her stitching of the\nfronts and backs of the old-fashioned smock-frocks, each one differing\nfrom the one she made before, as her \"fancy\" led. It was always\ninteresting, and almost always beautiful.\n\nNow the hinges are cast by the ton, all of one pattern; fortunate,\nindeed, if the original be a good one (a very hopeful supposition!).\nThe sewing-machine repeats its monotonous curves of embroidery; the\nwood-carving is the result of skilfully-arranged knives and wheels\nworked by steam, which only execute forms adapted for them. The\ninitial thought of their designer must be, not what is in itself\ndesirable, but that which the machine can best produce. What is right\nin a particular place, is the natural object of the workman artist;\nhow to use what has been already cast or stamped, is the object of\nthe present ordinary builder; and what he calls \"symmetry\"--_i.e._,\nmonotony, every line repeated _ad nauseam_--is the result his\neducation aims at. Symmetry, in the sense of the repetition of the\ninfinite variety of exquisitely modulated curves in the two outlines\nof the human body, is beautiful and harmonious; but there is neither\nbeauty nor harmony in the repetition of the self-same horizontal and\nperpendicular lines of windows and doors in a London street. A feeling\nof what in music are called \"contrary motion,\" \"oblique motion,\" is\nall required in the impression produced by really fine architecture.\nYet, if the ordinary builder is asked to vary his hideous row of\nhouses by an additional window or a higher chimney, he exclaims with\nhorror at such a violation of \"symmetry,\" his sole rule of beauty\nbeing that all should look alike.\n\nThe effect, indeed, of machine-made work is to impress upon the\ntradesman mind the belief that perfection consists wholly in exact and\ncorrect repetition of a pattern, which may be said to be true in\nhis craft; whereas constant variation and development is the law\nof healthy art, the need being expressed by the design. To save the\nexpense and trouble of fresh drawings, also, as soon as a pattern\nbecomes popular in one material, it is immediately repeated _ad\nnauseam_ in every other, however incongruous. A bunch of fuchsias has\nbeen supposed to look well in a lace curtain; it is then cast in\nbrass for the end of a curtain-rod; is used for wall-papers and\nstone-carving alike. Whereas if a Japanese artist has designed a\nflight of cranes on his screen or his paper, it is impossible to\nget another exactly the same; to reproduce a sketch exactly being,\ngenerally, as every artist can tell, more laborious than to make a new\none, where the brain assists the fingers in their work.\n\nThere is another result of our present shallow \"general\" education\nwhich has a most depressing effect upon art. Every one now can read\nand write, and it would be considered an infringement of the right\nof private judgment to doubt the ability of every writer or reader to\ncriticize any work of art whatsoever. In the case of buying a kitchen\nrange or a carriage we should not trust to our own knowledge, but\nshould apply to the experienced expert; but \"every one can tell\nwhether he likes a picture or not!\"\n\nNow, good criticism in art demands at least as long and severe an\napprenticeship as that in ironmongery--the training of the eye by long\nexperience, reading, historical, scientific, mechanical--real study of\nall the various subjects connected with it; and this can be acquired\nonly by few. It has been said, with perfect truth, that it will not\ndo to depend on the fiat of artists themselves for the value of\na picture, statue, or building. With some, the admiration of the\ntechnical part of art is too great; the passionate likes and dislikes\nfor particular styles or particular men warp the judgments of others;\nand this is, perhaps, inherent in the artist nature. But this is only\nsaying that we must not go to the ironfounder for the character of\nhis kitchen range; there are other skilled opinions to be had besides\nthose of the authors of a work.\n\nAt the present time, the art of criticism has got so far beyond our\npowers of creation that it becomes more and more difficult to bring\nforth a great work of art. The hatching of eggs requires a certain\ngenial warmth to bring them to perfection; creation is a vital act,\nbut the reception which any new-fledged production is likely to meet\nwith is either the scorching fire of fault-finding or the freezing\ncold of indifference.\n\nIt was not thus that great works of old were produced; Cimabue's\npicture of the Virgin was carried in a triumphal procession through\nFlorence, from the artist's studio to the church which was to be\nhonoured by its possession. It was a worthy religious offering to\nthe goddess Mary, a subject of rejoicing to the whole city, and the\nquarter of the town where it was first seen, amid cries of delight,\nwas called the \"Borgo Allegri,\" a name which it has kept six hundred\nyears. And the sympathy of the people reacted on the artist, and\nhelped him to carry out his great conceptions. They were proud of\nhim, and he worked at his picture as a labour of love to do his nation\nhonour.\n\nNow, when a man has spent perhaps years over a religious picture,\nworking with all his heart and soul and strength, instead of its being\ntaken into a church, and seen only with the associations for which it\nis adapted, it is hung up between a smirking lady, clad in the last\nabominations of the fashion, on one side, and a \"horse and dog, the\nproperty of Blank, Esq.,\" on the other; while the artist is fortunate\nif the best of the critics, who has just glanced at it as he passes\nby, does not entirely ignore his meaning and mistake the expression\nof his idea, only discovering that \"the drawing of the toe of the\nleft foot is decidedly awkward.\" So it may be, and there are probably\nfaults in it still more considerable; yet the picture, with all these\nfaults, may be one of great merit.\n\nIs it possible to conceive the Madonna di San Sisto painted under\nsuch conditions? The cold chill of the indifferent public would have\nreacted on the artist, and quenched the fire of his inspiration. The\npicture was intended to be the incarnation of the religious feeling\nof the whole Christian world, in the divine expression of the infant\nChrist gazing into futurity, with those rapt, far-seeing eyes,--in the\nholy mother, who carries him so reverently, yet with such power and\npurity in her look and bearing. It was honoured sympathetically by all\nwho had the joy of seeing it borne as a banner through a great city as\nan act of the highest worship; not cut up into little morsels and set\non a fork by every man who can write smart articles for a penny paper,\nbestowing a little supercilious praise and much wholesome advice on\nHolman Hunt and Tennyson, on Stevens[2] and Street alike.\n\nBut the result is that the world is poorer by the want of the work\nwhich only a sense of sympathy between the artist and his public\ninspires. \"Action and reaction are equal,\" we are told, in science,\nand the artist cannot produce the best that is in him alone, any\nmore than the most finished musician can play on a dumb piano. The\nreceivers must do their share in the partnership. Mrs. Siddons once\nsaid that she lost all her power when annihilated by the coldness of\nthe cream of the cream society of a _salon_, and preferred any marks\nof emotion of an unsophisticated if intelligent audience, to the chill\nof fashionable indifference; and when we complain of the poorness\nof our art, we must remember for how large a share of this we, the\npresent public, are responsible. It may be all very well for the\nskylark to \"pour his strains of unpremeditated art\" for his own\npleasure and that of the little skylarks; but Shelley must have had\nthe hope that \"the world will listen then, as I am listening now.\"\n\nThe poet and the painter require intelligent cordial belief and\nsympathy, which is just what we have not to give, and therefore\nthe reign of the highest art is probably at an end: no Phidias or\nMichelangelo, no Homer or Shakspeare, are likely again to arise.\nThis is pre-eminently a scientific age--a time for the collection and\nco-ordination of facts; and what imagination we possess we use in the\ndiscovery of the laws by which Nature works, and in the application of\nour knowledge to the ordinary wants and comforts and pleasures of\nthe human race. Electric telegraphs, phonographs, photographs abound;\nevery possible adaptation of steam in majestic engines (almost, it\nseems, as intelligent as man), to promote our means of communication\nand locomotion over the surface of the earth, and of production in\nevery conceivable form; great ships and engines of destruction in war,\nand (curious antithesis) ingenious contrivances for the saving of pain\nin disease--everything, in short, connected with the comprehension\nand subjugation of the material world, is more and more carried to\nperfection. Yet in spite of these marvellous achievements, unless we\ncan manage to secure a supply of good art, there can be no doubt that\nthere will \"have passed away a glory from the earth\" which we can ill\nafford to lose.\n\nThere is no use in preaching what is called the common sense of the\nmatter, and telling Keats (though he may have died of consumption,\nand not of the _Edinburgh Review_) that the critique on his poems\nwas flippant and unintelligent; or one artist that the account of his\npicture was written by a man who did not understand painting, and the\nnext by a writer who had no notion of the requisites of true\npoetry. The artist is by necessity of his nature a thin-skinned,\nimpressionable being, with sensitive nerves and perceptions, without\nwhich the power of creation does not exist. He writes and paints and\nacts and sculpts--in short, composes, invents, creates--to make the\nworld feel as he is feeling. Fame is a vulgar word for the sentiment\nwhich inspires him; the longing after sympathy is a much truer\nexpression of what the true artist desires. That of his own family\nand friends is not sufficient; he wants the world at large to hear and\nunderstand and join in what he has to say, whether it be in marble or\non canvas, in music or in words. To grow such a creature to perfection\nis very rare in the history of mankind, and when our aloe does flower,\nwe should make the most of it, and feed it with food convenient. Our\nblame depresses him, even stupid,[3] unintelligent blame, more\nthan our praise elevates him; \"he is absurdly sensitive,\" says the\nhard-headed man of the world; but that is the very condition of the\nproblem with which we have to deal; if he were not so, we should not\nhave great works of art from him. He is an idealist by nature. If we\ndeclare that it is very absurd of our vines to require so much care\nand kindness, and that a little roughing and neglect will do them a\ngreat deal of good, we shall not get many grapes; and, after all, what\nwe want is grapes--results, great artistic works.\n\nIt is almost pathetic to see the nation doing the best it knows,\noffering its patronage and its public buildings, its monuments of\ngreat men and its money, and then to mark the results. It is fortunate\nthat most of the frescoes are scaling off the walls of the Houses\nof Parliament. It is fortunate that Nelson and the Duke of York are\nhoisted up so high that they cannot be scrutinized at all; it is\nfortunate that most of the public statues are generally so begrimed\nwith dirt and soot that few can make out their intention. But it is we\nwho are responsible for half at least of their failures.[4] We have,\nas a nation, neither the artistic feeling which delights in the\nbeautiful with a sort of worship, nor the sensuous religious instincts\nwhich require an outward and visible sign of our inward faith.\nTherefore our best chance of great work seems to be when the\ncommon-sense necessity is so large in its demands, that carrying it\nout even on merely utilitarian principles may give a grand result\nby the force of circumstances, almost without our will,--the very\nfulfilment of the working conditions on an enormous scale forcing\na certain grandeur on the work. As, for instance, when a viaduct is\ncarried over a deep valley and river, upon a lofty series of arches,\nas in many Welsh railways and at Newcastle, there are elements of\nstrength, durability, might, and therefore majesty, which the barest\nexecution of the requirements cannot take away. The Suspension Bridge\nhung high in the air above the ships in the Menai Straits, and that\nover the narrow hollow of the Avon, have a beauty of lightness and\ngrace all their own--Waterloo Bridge, which Canova declared to be\nworth coming to England to see--are all specimens of a kind of work\nwhich we may hope to see multiplied, and even improved upon, as\nthe adaptation of art to the common necessities of our civilization\nbecomes more common, and is taken in hand by a higher and more\neducated class of men.\n\nNothing, however, can well be more depressing than the experience of\nthe United States in respect to this question of art and education.\nHere is a country (in their own magniloquent hyperbole) \"bounded on\nthe north by the Aurora Borealis, and on the west by the setting sun,\"\n&c., &c., whose proud boast it is that every man, woman, and child\n(born on its soil) can read, write, and something more,--which has\njust celebrated its centenary of independent existence, and is in the\nvery spring-time of its national life when the \"sap is rising,\"--a\nseason which among other nations is that of their greatest artistic\nvigour, yet which has never produced a poet, painter, sculptor,[5] or\narchitect above mediocrity. Strangely as it would seem at first sight,\nit is originality which is chiefly wanting in their art; it is all an\necho of European models; they have no independent action of thought\nor interpretation of Nature. Here, again, it is probably the want\nof culture of the public which is to blame. Evidence is difficult\nto obtain on such a vast subject as the use made of the reading and\nwriting so freely imparted at the schools in the United States, but\nthere is very good testimony showing that, with the exception of great\ncentres of civilization, like Boston, the nation, as a nation, reads\nlittle but newspapers and story-books; and these clearly would produce\na soil utterly unfit for the growth of real art.\n\nLastly, let us not forget Mr. Mill's warning how much the nation,\nas well as the individual, must suffer by the stifling of original\nthought in the rigid conformity to system which our present mechanism\nof Government regulations, of centralized hard-and-fast rules, is\nbringing about in education.\n\nThe State has a right to exact a certain amount of training in the\nindividuals who compose it, but has no right whatever to interfere as\nto how that result is obtained. Every encouragement should be held\nout to original action of all kinds, tending to develop the\nfaculties--artistic, scientific, as well as practical--which remain to\nbe utilized among the millions who are now coming under an influence\nhitherto painfully narrow, rigid, and shallow in its operations,\nin spite of its magnificent promises and high-sounding notes of\nself-satisfaction.\n\n  F. P. VERNEY.\n\n    [Footnote 1: Now, alas! under sentence of \"restoration;\"\n    the age of creation in Italy appears to be over, and that of\n    destruction to have begun.]\n\n    [Footnote 2: The monument to the Duke of Wellington has never\n    received its due meed of praise. With all his faults, poor\n    Stevens was a man of true genius.]\n\n    [Footnote 3: \"Quoique les applaudissemens que j'ai re\u00e7us\n    m'aient beaucoup flatt\u00e9, la moindre critique, quelque mauvaise\n    qu'elle e\u00fbt \u00e9t\u00e9, m'a toujours caus\u00e9 plus de chagrin que toutes\n    les louanges ne m'aient fait de plaisir,\" writes Racine to\n    his son. He was silent for twelve years after the \"insucc\u00e8s\n    de Ph\u00eadre.\" \"Quoique le 'Mercure Gallant' \u00e9tait au dessous de\n    rien, les blessures qu'il fait n'en sont pas moins cruelles \u00e0\n    la sensibilit\u00e9 d'un po\u00ebte,\" adds the _Revue des Deux Mondes_.]\n\n    [Footnote 4: The group of \"Asia,\" by Foley, in Prince Albert's\n    Memorial, is one of the few exceptions to the indifferent\n    character of out-door statues in London.]\n\n    [Footnote 5: Mr. Story may perhaps be considered an exception;\n    but even the \"Cleopatra,\" and \"Sibyl\" were produced under the\n    influence of Rome.]\n\n\n\n\nLIFE IN CONSTANTINOPLE FIFTY YEARS AGO.\n\n\nIt has often been said that the Turk never changes, that he is now\njust what he was when he first appeared in Asia Minor. There is very\nlittle truth in this observation, for in fact he is like other men,\nand his character has been modified by the circumstances in which\nhe has been placed, as well as by constant intermarriage with other\nraces. He has changed in some respects for the better, and in others\nfor the worse. There is probably no important city in the world,\nunless it be Cairo, which has been so radically changed during the\nlast fifty years as the capital of the Turkish Empire. The dress, the\ncustoms, the people, the Government, have all been transformed under\nthe influence of European civilization; and these changes have exerted\nmore or less influence in all parts of the Empire.\n\nIn this impatient age, when men will hardly give a moment to the\nconsideration of anything but the future, and are always anxiously\nwaiting for to-morrow's telegrams, it is easy to forget that we cannot\nunderstand either the present or the future without constant reference\nto the past. No one can fairly judge the Turks or the Christians of\nthis Empire, or form any idea of their probable destiny, who is not\nacquainted with their condition fifty years ago, in the time of the\nlast of the Ottoman Sultans; and a brief sketch of Constantinople\nas it was at that time cannot fail to suggest some interesting\nconsiderations to those who are watching the course of events in the\nEast. As contemporary records are even more valuable than personal\nreminiscences, I shall quote freely from the private journal of a late\nEnglish resident, who was a member of the Levant Company, and,\nafter its dissolution, for many years the leading English banker in\nConstantinople, with a world-wide reputation for integrity, and\nin every way a perfect specimen of an English gentleman of the\nold school. He came to Constantinople in 1823, and his journal was\ncontinued till 1827. It has never been published.\n\nThe reigning Sultan was Mahmoud II., the Reformer, who came to the\nthrone in 1808, after the murder of Sultan Selim and the execution of\nhis brother Moustapha, and after narrowly escaping death himself. The\ninsurrection in Moldavia and Wallachia had been put down in 1821, and\nAli Pacha, the famous Albanian chief of Janina, had been treacherously\nput to death in 1822; but the war of the Greek Revolution was still\nin progress, and the battle of Navarino was not fought until 1827.\nWar was declared against Russia the same year. Halet Pacha had been\nstrangled in 1822, and Mohammed Selim Pacha was Grand Vizier. Lord\nStrangford and Mr. Stratford Canning (Lord Stratford) represented\nEngland at the Sublime Porte during this period. The relation of\nthe European Powers to the Sultan at this time cannot be better\nillustrated than by the following account of the reception of Mr.\nStratford Canning in April, 1826. The ceremony was not so humiliating\nas it was in 1621, when Sir Thomas Rowe made such vigorous but\nunavailing attempts to have it modified; when the Ambassador was\nforced down upon his knees, and compelled to kiss the earth at the\nfeet of the Sultan; when he was often beaten by the Janissaries on\nleaving the palace; or, as in the case of the Ambassador of Louis\nXIV., struck in the face by a soldier in the presence of the Grand\nVizier; but although there had been some ameliorations in the\nceremony, its significance was exactly the same in 1826 as in 1621,\nand the same religious scruples were advanced as a reason why they\ncould not be modified in favour of Giaours by the Caliph of Islam.\nThey were all the more humiliating for those who submitted to them,\nfrom the fact that there was one Power in Europe which had never\nrecognized them. Even as early as 1499 the Russian Ambassador refused\nto submit to any such degradation. In 1514 a new Ambassador was\nspecially instructed \"on no account to compromise his dignity, or\nprostrate himself before the Sultan; to deliver his letters and\npresents with his own hands, and not to inquire after his health\nunless he first inquired after that of the Czar.\" The Turks seem to\nhave had an instinctive fear of Russia even at that early day, when\nthey were strong and Russia was weak. But could Sultan Mahmoud have\nlooked forward twenty-five years, he would no doubt have treated Lord\nStratford with more respect and consideration. In 1826, however, the\nhaughty pride of the Caliph was unbroken, and he little thought that\nhis descendants would reign only by the favour of Europe.\n\n\"After having an audience of the Grand Vizier, the 10th was fixed for\nthe Ambassador's audience of the Sultan, when he, accompanied by\nall the English residents at Constantinople, left the Embassy in\nthe morning at a quarter before six, in procession, on horseback. At\nTopkhana, about five minutes' ride from the Embassy, we embarked in\nboats and crossed the harbour to Stamboul. We found horses waiting for\nus, but stopped to take coffee, pipes, sherbet, and sweetmeats, with\nthe _Tchaoush-bachi_ (a Marshal of the Palace), who preceded us to the\nentrance of the Porte, where it is usual for Ambassadors to wait under\nsome large spreading trees until the Grand Vizier passes and precedes\nthem to the seraglio. Having entered the first gate, we passed\nthrough a large open space, enclosed by low buildings, in which the\nJanissaries were drawn up to the number of three thousand. We stopped\non the farther side of the second gate, in a large square chamber\nbetween the second and third gates, within which is the cell where\nGrand Viziers and other State prisoners under sentence of death\nare confined and beheaded. After waiting here a quarter of an hour,\npermission was sent for our entrance. We passed through the third gate\ninto a large garden, in which stood the divan chamber, and the\nfront of the seraglio, both very richly painted and gilt, with roofs\nprojecting four or five feet beyond the walls. As soon as we entered\nthe garden, the Janissaries all uttered a loud shout and began running\nas quick as they could. This was for their _pilaf_, the distribution\nof which was a complete scramble. This is a farce always played off\non these occasions to impress foreigners with a respect for this\ncontemptible soldiery. We then walked forward, for we had left our\nhorses outside the second gate, to the divan chamber, where the Grand\nVizier was sitting in state, immediately opposite the entrance, on\nthe centre of a sofa, which extended along the side of the chamber,\ncovered with the richest silks, at the further ends of which, on each\nside of him, sat the judges of Anatolia and Roumelia. The chamber was\nsmall but richly decorated, the ceiling being splendidly painted and\ngilt. We walked to one side of the room without making any salutation,\n_as no notice was taken of us_. After a time, a number of Turks\nentered and ranged themselves in two rows before the judges, who went\nthrough the form of examining them and deciding their suits. This was\nintended to impress us with a high sense of their administration of\njustice. The payment of the Janissaries is also generally appointed\nto take place at the audience of an Ambassador, in whose presence are\npiled great bags of money, which are delivered to the troops, in order\nto impress foreigners with an exalted idea of Turkish opulence. This\ntedious ceremony lasted more than three hours, but it was the last\npayment before the destruction of that body. The Grand Vizier had in\nthe meantime sent a letter to the Sultan, stating in the usual form\nthat a Giaour Ambassador had come to prostrate himself at the feet of\nhis sacred Majesty. The royal answer came at length, enclosed in an\nenvelope. When this was taken off there appeared a quantity of muslin,\nin which the letter was wrapped. The Grand Vizier, taking the letter,\nkissed it and applied it to his forehead before he read it. The\ntenor of this letter was a command to _feed_, _wash_, _and clothe the\nGiaours_, and bring them to him. After the Grand Vizier had read this,\ntwo tables were laid (_i.e._, two large tin plates were laid upon\nreversed stools), one for the Vizier and the Ambassador, the other\nfor the rest of us. Washing materials were provided, and a collation\nserved. All this time the Sultan was looking at us through a latticed\nwindow. After this we went into the garden, and pelisses were\ndistributed. I was lucky enough to receive one. The Ambassador, with\nthose who had pelisses, amounting to twenty in all, then followed the\nGrand Vizier and entered the palace. At the door each of us was seized\nby two _Capoudji-bachis_, who held us by the arms and half-carried us\nthrough an outer hall, in which was drawn up a line, three deep, of\nwhite eunuchs. When we entered the throne-room, we advanced bowing.\nThe Sultan was sitting on a throne superbly decorated. His turban was\nsurmounted by a splendid diamond aigrette and feather. His pelisse\nwas of the finest silk, lined with the most costly sable fur, and his\ngirdle was one mass of diamonds. The Ambassador recited his speech\nin English, which the interpreter translated, and the Grand Vizier\nreplied to it. This ceremony lasted ten minutes, and we retired.\"\n\nThis same Mr. Stratford Canning, who waited under a tree for the\nGrand Vizier to pass, who had to sit three hours unnoticed while the\nJanissaries were paid, who was a Giaour unfit to enter the sacred\npresence of the Sultan until he had been fed by his bounty, washed,\nand clothed, is still alive, and he remained in Constantinople long\nenough to become the _Great Elchi_ who practically governed the Empire\nand kept the Sultan under his tutelage. It was an unhappy day for\nTurkey when he was removed to please the Emperor of the French.\n\nOnly two months after this audience the Sultan accomplished his\nlong-cherished plan of destroying the Janissaries, as his Viceroy in\nEgypt had fifteen years before destroyed the Mamelukes. It is not easy\nat this day to realize how large a place this body filled in the life\nof the people of Constantinople. We are accustomed to think of them as\nsoldiers, as they were in the early history of the Ottoman Turks, the\nsad tribute of Christian children exacted by the Mohammedan conqueror\nto extend the influence of Islam. But this terrible blood-tax ceased\nin 1675, and the Janissaries became a caste or a guild, entrance into\nwhich was eagerly sought by the wealthiest Mohammedan families, and\nthe majority of them seldom did any military service. In the time of\nMahmoud II. they were at once a source of terror to the Sultan and to\nthe people of the country. They were above all law, and the lives and\nproperty of the Christians especially were at their mercy. Those who\nstill remember those days can hardly speak of the Janissaries without\na shudder. They lived in constant fear of them; night and day, at\nany hour, they might enter the house, strip it of its furniture, and\ntorture the family until every place of concealment was revealed and\nevery valuable given up. They were universally feared and hated, and\nit was this fact which made it possible for the Sultan to destroy\nthem. He proceeded with caution, for he could not hope to destroy them\nby the cruel and treacherous means adopted by the Pacha of Egypt. He\nobtained a _Fetva_ from the Sheik-ul-Islam approving of the drafting\nof a certain number of Janissaries into a new military force which\nwas organized on the principle of European armies. These men\nrebelled against the strict discipline, and some of them were\nquietly strangled. Finally, on the 14th of June, 1826, the whole body\nrevolted, murdered their officers, plundered the palace of the Grand\nVizier, and prepared to attack the Sultan next day if he did not yield\nto their demands.\n\n\"They displayed a spirit of determination which they never manifested\nbut in extreme cases. All their soup-kettles were solemnly brought to\nthe Atmeidan (Hippodrome) and inverted in the centre of the area.\nSoon 20,000 men were assembled around them. The crisis had now arrived\nwhich the Sultan both feared and wished for, and he immediately\navailed himself of all those resources which he had previously\nprepared for such an event. He first ordered the small military\nforce which he had organized to hold itself in readiness to act at\na moment's notice. He then summoned a council, explained to them the\nmutinous spirit and insubordination of the Janissaries, and declared\nhis intention of either ruling without their control, or passing over\ninto Asia, and leaving Constantinople and European Turkey to their\nmercy. He proposed to them to raise the sacred standard of Mahomet,\nand summon all good Mussulmans to rally around it. This proposal\nmet with unanimous applause. The sacred relic had not been seen in\nConstantinople for fifty years before. It was now taken from the\nImperial Treasury to the Mosque of Sultan Achmet. The Ulema and the\nSoftas walked before, and the Sultan with all his Court followed it.\nPublic criers spread the solemn news all over the city. No sooner was\nit announced than thousands rushed from their homes and joined the\nprocession with fiercest enthusiasm. When they entered the mosque, the\nMufti planted the standard on the pulpit, and the Sultan, as Caliph,\npronounced an anathema against all who should refuse to range\nthemselves under it. Just at this time the artillery arrived under\nthe walls of the seraglio. The marines and gardeners joined it. Four\nofficers of rank were then sent to offer a pardon to the Janissaries\nif they would desist from their demands and disperse. The experience\nof centuries had taught them that they had only to persist in their\ndemands to have them conceded. In this conviction, they at once\nmurdered the four officers who had proposed submission to them. This\nwas done in sight of the mosque. They then peremptorily demanded that\nthe Sultan should for ever renounce his plan of innovation, and that\nthe heads of the principal officers of Government should be sent to\nthem. The Sultan then demanded and received from the Sheik-ul-Islam a\n_Fetva_ authorizing him to put down the rebellion. It was now twelve\no'clock, and a large force of the new troops had been collected who\ncould be relied upon. Orders were given to attack the Janissaries.\nThe Agha Pacha surrounded the Atmeidan, where they were tumultuously\nassembled with no apprehension of such a measure, and the first\nintimation that many of them had of their situation was a murderous\ndischarge of grape-shot from the cannon of the Topdjis. This continued\nsome time, and vast numbers were killed on the spot. The survivors\nretired to their barracks on one side of the square. Here they\nbarricaded themselves, and to dislodge them the building was set on\nfire. The flames were soon seen from Pera, bursting out in different\nplaces. The discharge of artillery continued without intermission; as\nit was determined to exterminate them utterly, no quarter was given,\nand the conflagration and fire of the cannon continued until night.\nThe Janissaries, notwithstanding the surprise and their comparatively\nunprepared state, defended themselves with desperate fierceness and\nintrepidity. The troops suffered severely, and the Agha Pacha was\nwounded. Opposition ceased only when no one was left alive to make it.\nThe firing ceased, the flames died out, and the next morning presented\na frightful scene of burning ruins slaked in blood, a huge mass of\nmangled flesh and smoking ashes.\n\n\"During the next two days the gates continued closed, with the\nexception of one to admit faithful Mussulmans from the country to pay\ntheir devotion to the sacred standard. The Janissaries who had escaped\nthe slaughter of the Atmeidan were thus shut in, and unremittingly\nhunted down and destroyed, so that the streets and barracks were full\nof dead bodies. During these two days no Christian was allowed, under\nany pretence, to pass over to Stamboul; but, though the two places\nare separated only by a narrow channel, the most perfect tranquillity\nreigned in Pera. The people would have known nothing of the tremendous\nconvulsion on the other side if it had not been for the blaze of\nthe fire and the report of cannon. On the fourth day I went, from\ncuriosity, under the charge of a high Turk, to see how matters were\ngoing on, and was pleased at the appearance of the splendid encampment\nof the Grand Vizier, which was found at the Porte, and was at the same\ntime the chief tribunal for the condemnation of the Janissaries, who\nwere constantly being brought in, and, after undergoing a nominal\ntrial of a few seconds, were taken to the front of the gate and\nbeheaded; but the numbers so taken off, though amounting in this one\nplace from 300 to 500 daily, were but few in comparison with those who\nwere strangled privately at night on the Bosphorus. The Agha Pacha had\nhis camp at the old palace, and was employed there in the same work.\nCarts and other machines were constantly employed in conveying the\nbodies to the sea. These executions continued for several months.\nThe whole number destroyed at this time was 25,000: 40,000 more were\nbanished to the interior of Asia, many of whom never reached their\ndestination.\"\n\nThis account differs materially from that given by Creasy, on the\nauthority of Ranke; but the author was a resident in Constantinople at\nthe time, and in a position to know the facts as well as any Christian\nin the city. There are also inherent improbabilities in Creasy's\naccount. The Sultan no doubt avoided, in appearance, the treachery\nof the Pacha of Egypt, but in substance the destruction of the\nJanissaries was accomplished in much the same way as the massacre\nof the Mamelukes. But whatever may be thought of the wisdom or the\nmorality of this wholesale slaughter, it was as great a relief to the\nChristian population as it was to the Sultan himself, and it changed\nthe whole spirit of life in Constantinople. The destruction of the\nJanissaries was followed by a violent persecution of the sect of\nBektachi dervishes, whose founder, Hadji Bektach, had consecrated the\nfirst recruits. This was a powerful order, and possessed of immense\nwealth and influence; but its members were killed or exiled, and its\n_t\u00e9k\u00e9s_ demolished. It is not easy, however, to destroy a religious\nsect, with a secret organization; and the Bektachis are almost as\nnumerous and powerful to-day as they were fifty years ago, especially\nin Albania. They are not true Mussulmans, but are generally liberal,\nenlightened, and inclined to cultivate friendly relations with the\nChristians. They are frequently attacked by the Turkish newspapers as\nheretics, but they occupy many important positions in the Government.\nThe famous Mahmoud Neddim Pacha belongs to this sect. Sultan Mahmoud\nprobably attacked these dervishes, not so much because he feared\nthem, as to prove himself a devoted Mohammedan, and to conciliate\nthe fanatics who were indignant at the slaughter of so many true\nbelievers. He soon afterwards issued a _Hatt_ proclaiming his devotion\nto Islam, and ordering the authorities to inflict the severest\npunishment upon any Mussulman who should neglect his religious duties.\n\nThe discussion on the Greek question which has been going on since the\nwar adds new interest to those scenes of the Greek Revolution which\nfifty years ago aroused the sympathy of the world for a long-forgotten\nnation, and resulted in the creation of the little kingdom of Greece\nwhich now seeks an extension of her territory. The condition of the\nGreeks in Constantinople during the war was melancholy enough. It was\nall in vain that the Patriarch proclaimed their entire and absolute\ndevotion to the Sultan, just as the Fanariote Greeks are doing to-day.\nIt was in vain that he solemnly excommunicated and anathematized\nall who took part in the revolution. He was hung at the door of his\nchurch, and his body given to the Jews to be dragged about the streets\nof the city. All the prominent Greeks here were put to death, and all\nMohammedans, even children, were ordered to arm themselves and destroy\nthe Greeks whenever they could be found. All who could escape from the\ncapital did so, and many were conveyed in foreign ships to Russia.\n\n\"Many of those who remained were protected and concealed in European\nhouses. The property and the lives of the others were entirely at the\nmercy of the Government and the populace, and the distressing scenes\nwhich in consequence daily occurred in the streets are not easily\ndescribed. Notwithstanding this disagreeable state of things, the\nEuropeans enjoyed perfect security. The escapes from death which some\nof the rich Greeks had during this period were very extraordinary, and\nnone more so than that of Signor Stephano Ralli, a rich merchant\nof Scio, who, with nine others, was sent at the commencement of the\nrevolution to Constantinople, as a hostage for the peaceable conduct\nof the inhabitants of that island, when the Samiotes, soon after\nlanding and butchering the few Turks on the island, so exasperated\nthe Turkish Government that they immediately beheaded all the hostages\nexcept Signor Ralli, who found sufficient interest with one of the\nMinisters to escape. He was, however, immediately made a hostage for\nthe tranquillity of Smyrna, and was again, by his acquaintance with\nand large bribes to the executioner, the only one who escaped death.\nWhen the disturbances commenced at the capital, in order to strike\nterror into the minds of the Greeks, twenty-four of the richest\nmerchants were destined to be seized and executed, and the presence of\nSignor Ralli was demanded with the rest at the Porte. But, suspecting\nthe consequence of such attendance, he cunningly informed the guard\nwho found him that his master was at the next house, and that he would\nimmediately send him in. Signor Ralli, then leaving the room, sent in\nhis own servant, who was at once seized, conveyed to the Porte, and\nwithout further question executed in place of his master. Signor Ralli\nwas then concealed in the house of an Englishman. He was found and\narrested again in 1827, and again escaped with the loss of half his\nproperty; but this had such an effect upon his constitution that he\ndied soon after.\"\n\nThe Bulgarian massacres which excited the indignation of the world\na few years ago were insignificant in comparison with the terrible\nslaughter of the Greeks which went on for years in all parts of the\nEmpire. Their effect upon public opinion in Europe was greater\nand more immediate, chiefly because Turkey was no longer a really\nindependent Power, but was committing these atrocities under the\nprotection of Europe, and especially of England. Fifty years ago the\nSultan was responsible for his acts only to his own people; but\neven then Christian Europe was finally roused to put an end to these\nbarbarities, and the battle of Navarino, October 20th, 1827, was the\nresult. In justice to Sultan Mahmoud, however, it should be said\nthat some of his most ferocious acts were not committed without great\nprovocation on the part of the Greeks, who manifested equal ferocity\nwhen the opportunity offered. The news of the battle of Navarino\nroused the Sultan to proclaim a holy war.\n\n\"The design of the Giaours,\" he said in his proclamation, \"is to\ndestroy Islamism, and tread under foot the Mussulman nation. Let all\nthe faithful, rich and poor, great and small, know that war is a duty\nfor all. Let no one dream of receiving any pay. Far from this, we\nought to sacrifice our persons and our property, and fulfil with zeal\nthe duty which is imposed upon us by the honour of Islam. We must\nunite our efforts, give ourselves, body and soul, to defend our\nfaith, even to the day of judgment. Mussulmans have no other means of\nobtaining safety in this world or the next.\"\n\nThis holy war resulted in nothing better than the independence of\nGreece and the treaty of Adrianople. It was just at this period that\nLord Beaconsfield spent a winter at Constantinople; but, as far as is\nknown, his visit had no political object or influence.\n\nThe Greeks were not the only Christians who suffered at this time.\nThe Catholic Armenians were persecuted with almost equal ferocity,\nalthough their only offence was that a number of them had left Turkey\nand settled in Russia under Russian protection. Irritated by this\ndemonstration of attachment to the Czar, the Sultan expelled the whole\nsect from Constantinople, to the number of 27,000. They were allowed\nonly ten days for preparation, and were then driven off _en masse_\ninto Asia Minor. They were mostly wealthy families, living in luxury,\nand their sufferings were so great that but few lived to reach the\nplace of exile. They perished at sea, died of hunger on the roads,\nand froze to death in the snow on the mountains. It was not a pleasant\nthing in those days to be a Christian subject of the Sultan, even when\nthat Sultan was Mahmoud, the great Reformer.\n\nNext to the Janissaries, the thing best remembered by the people\nof Constantinople is the plague. It seems to have been regularly\ndomiciled here, and people made provision for it in all their domestic\narrangements. It was only at certain times, when it raged with\nterrible severity, that it excited general alarm. It of course\noccupies a large place in the private journal from which I have\nalready quoted; and all Europe has so recently been frightened out of\nits good sense by a rumour of its existence in Russia, that it is well\nto see how coolly a man can write about it who lived in the midst of\nit, and who is devoutly thankful that it is the plague, and not the\ncholera or the yellow fever, to which he is exposed.\n\n\"The plague is a disease communicating itself chiefly, if not solely,\nby contact. Hence, though it encircle the house, it will not affect\nthe persons within if all are uniformly discreet and provident. Iron,\nit is observed, and like substances of a close, hard nature, do not\nretain and are not susceptible of the contagion. In bodies soft or\nporous, and especially in paper, it lurks often undiscovered but\nby its seizing some victim. The preservatives are fumigations, and\nwashing with water and vinegar. Meat and vegetables are washed in\nwater, and all paper is fumigated. The disease is usually observed\nto break out after times of famine, and it is a well-known fact that\nthose are most subject to it who live badly and whose blood is in\na low and impoverished state, for which reason it may be considered\nrather a disease of the poor than the rich. The Turks are the greatest\nvictims, on account of their religious tenets and their abstinence\nfrom wine, although it is very rare to hear of a rich Turk who dies\nof it, for many of these drink wine and spirit secretly, and live upon\nsubstantial and nutritious food. The Greeks are more cautious than\nthe Turks, but die in great numbers, which may be attributed to their\nnumerous fasts, which they observe for at least half of the year, and\nduring these they live on bad and unwholesome food. The first symptoms\nare debility, sickness at the stomach, shivering, followed by great\nheat, violent pains in the head, giddiness, and delirium. In a more\nadvanced stage, the disease shows itself in dark-coloured spots, and\nsometimes in tumours on the glandular parts, which often suppurate and\nbreak, and then the patient escapes. A few days brings this dreadful\nmalady to a crisis after the spots have appeared.\n\n\"There is a contradiction in this disorder, difficult to account for;\nso easy to catch that a bit of wood or cotton can retain it for years,\nand convey it with all its horrible symptoms. On the contrary, some\nare proof against the most violent contagion. The wife of Mr. W. was a\nlady born in the country, and notwithstanding she took more than usual\nprecaution, she caught the infection, without being able to assign any\ncause. Most of her family and servants immediately left the house, but\nher husband and her father attended her until she died, having had\nher infant at the breast to the last moment. No one of them caught\nthe disease. My predecessor, Mr. B., having been forty-one years at\nConstantinople, had not the least fear of the plague. A few years\nsince, as he was returning from Cyprus, his fellow-passenger fell ill\nand was put ashore at the Dardanelles. Mr. B. occupied his friend's\nbed, as it was better than his own, and wore his friend's nightcap.\nThe next morning he went ashore to see him, and found that he had died\nduring the night of the plague. Another time, two of his servants died\nof the disease in his house; but in neither case did he experience any\ninconvenience. The Europeans, and more particularly the English, take\nthe usual precautions at the first appearance of the disease, but have\nlittle apprehension from it, living in the country in the summer,\nand in a very different manner from the natives, both as to food and\ncleanliness. It is a great satisfaction to know that not one English\ngentleman has died of the plague during the last thirty years. How\ninferior it is in its ravages to the cholera and the yellow fever,\nwhich are not known in this country!\"\n\nUnhappily, the cholera has become very well known here since, and has\nproved quite as fatal as the plague. In 1865 the city was decimated by\nit, some 75,000 dying in two months, a loss of life almost as great as\nin the great plague seasons of 1812 and 1837. These great epidemics of\nplague were, however, in some respects more terrible than the cholera,\nfor they continued many months. Life became a burden. The wealthiest\noften suffered for want of food and clothing, as they remained shut\nup in their houses for fear of contagion. Those who were forced to go\nout, dressed in long oil-cloth cloaks, and carefully avoided touching\nanything. Every one entering a house was fumigated with sulphur, in\na sort of sentry-box kept for the purpose at the door. All ties of\nfamily and society were broken. But even in these great epidemics very\nfew Europeans died, while in the cholera epidemics there has been no\nexemption. It is now forty years since the last appearance of plague\nat Constantinople, and, whatever theorists may say, no one here who\nremembers the old times has any doubt that its disappearance was due\nto the strict enforcement of quarantine regulations, which before that\ntime the Turks would not accept.\n\nThere was another source of constant anxiety for the people of\nConstantinople fifty years ago, in regard to which there has\nunfortunately been but little change. The city was often visited by\nterrible conflagrations. In those days they were generally attributed\nto the Janissaries, who always improved such opportunities to enrich\nthemselves by wholesale plunder. To this day it is often suspected\nthat the Government itself is responsible for these fires, especially\nas they frequently occur in quarters where it is proposed to widen\nthe streets. Sometimes, on the other hand, they are supposed to have a\npolitical significance, as a manifestation of popular discontent; but\nprobably, then as now, they generally resulted from carelessness,\nand when once they had commenced there were no adequate means for\nextinguishing them. Only two months after the destruction of the\nJanissaries, at the moment when the sacred standard of the Prophet was\nbeing taken back from the mosque, a fire broke out in Stamboul which\nraged for thirty-six hours, destroying the bazaars and about an eighth\npart of the city, including the richest Turkish quarters. The people\nuniversally attributed this to the friends of the Janissaries, and the\ndiscontent with the Sultan was general; but he acted with the greatest\nvigour. He opened his palaces for the reception of those who had no\nshelter, distributed food and clothing, and undertook to rebuild the\nbazaars. At the same time, he sent his spies into every public place,\nand every one who was heard complaining of the Government was at once\narrested and decapitated. Even the women were not spared, but many\nwere strangled and thrown into the Bosphorus, without any form of\ntrial. These vigorous measures soon put an end to all complaints, but\nunhappily did not prevent the burning of Pera in 1831, when 10,000\nhouses were destroyed, a calamity which the Mussulmans attributed\nto the wrath of God against the Europeans for the destruction of\nthe Turkish fleet at Navarino, but which the Christians naturally\nattributed to the wrath of the Mohammedans themselves. It is probable\nthat both these fires were accidental, as were those which burned over\nalmost the same ground in 1865 and 1870; but the alarm and suffering\nof the people were as real and as great as they would have been if\nthese fires had resulted from the cause to which they were attributed.\nIt is a very curious fact that, in both cases, just five years\nintervened between the destruction of Stamboul and of Pera.\n\nAnother characteristic of the time of which we write was the\ninsecurity of property. There were no regular taxes at that time\nin Constantinople, for all the residents of the Imperial city were\nconsidered to be the guests of the Sultan. It is only within ten\nyears that this pleasant fiction has been altogether abandoned. But\nin Constantinople, as well as in other parts of the Empire, the people\nwere liable to be called upon to contribute \"voluntarily\" to meet the\nwants of the Government. This system of voluntary contributions has\nnot yet been altogether abandoned, but was enforced during the late\nwar all through the Empire, in addition to the regular taxes. Even\nforeigners were made very uncomfortable if they refused to contribute.\nThe financial system of Mahmoud II. was like that of his ancestors.\nThere was no national debt, there were no budgets, and yet there was\nno lack of money even for such long and expensive wars as were carried\non all through the reign of this Sultan. With what envy Abd-ul-Hamid\nmust look back upon those happy days! The system was a simple one.\nWhatever money the Sultan needed he took from the people. Orders were\nsent to the governor of such a town to send so much to Constantinople,\nor to such a Pacha. He summoned the principal men, informed them that\nthe Sultan needed so much money as a free gift from each of them. The\nunhappy contributors entered into private negotiations with him, and\nbribed him to reduce their quota and increase that of some one else.\nHe took the bribes and rapidly accumulated wealth, but he did not fail\nto secure and forward the money demanded by the Sultan. What is more,\nthe Sultan looked upon the governor himself as nothing better than a\nsponge. As soon as it was known that he had absorbed a large amount of\nwealth, he was squeezed for the benefit of the Imperial Treasury. He\nwas disgraced, and his property confiscated. It was very seldom that\na Pacha bequeathed much of his ill-gotten wealth to his children.\nUnfortunately, this custom has been abandoned of late years, and the\nTreasury no longer derives any benefit from the plunder of the people.\nBut this system of confiscation was not confined to the Pachas who had\nrobbed the people. The wealthy men of Constantinople, especially the\nChristians, were never safe. Their property might be seized any day,\nand they might consider themselves happy if by giving it up without\nreserve they escaped the bow-string. They feared the Sultan as much\nas they feared the Janissaries. The Armenians suffered less than any\nother nationality from these extortions, because they acted as the\nbankers of the Government and of individual Pachas who found it for\ntheir interest to protect them. They understood the Turkish character,\nand had acquired infinite skill in managing them; but even they lived\nin constant fear. When a man heard a knock at his door in the night,\nhe at once took it for granted that his last hour had come, bade\nfarewell to his family, and, if possible, escaped from his house with\nwhat jewels he could carry. I have heard many very amusing stories of\nthis kind resulting from evening visits of belated friends as well as\nmany very sad ones, where the end was the bow-string for the father\nand a life of poverty for the family. The change in the financial\nsystem of the Empire, which led to regular taxation and foreign loans,\ndestroyed the influence of the Armenians, and threw the Turks into the\nhands of the Greeks and Europeans. It is hardly probable that they can\never recover their former importance under Turkish rule. Another means\nadopted by the Government to raise money was the old expedient of\ndebasing the coinage, which was perhaps quite as honest as the modern\nplan of issuing paper-money and then repudiating it. The Turkish\npiastre is said to have been originally the same as the Spanish, worth\nfour shillings and sixpence. In the time of Mahmoud II. it was worth\nfourpence, and the silver piastre is now worth twopence, while the\ncopper piastre is worth only a farthing and a half.\n\nThe comparative cost of living in Constantinople in 1827 and 1879 may\nbe seen from the following Table, the prices being reduced to English\nmoney:--\n\n                                      1827.      1879.\n  Mutton, the oke (2-3/10 lbs.)         4_d._    1_s._ 6_d._\n  Bread      \"                          4_d._          4_d._\n  Fish       \"                          4_d._    1_s._ 4_d._\n  Grapes     \"                        1/2_d._          4_d._\n  Figs       \"                        1/2_d._          4_d._\n  Geese,    each                        6_d._    5_s._ 0_d._\n  Turkeys    \"                          6_d._    5_s._ 0_d._\n  Wine, the oke                         2_d._          6_d._\n\n        Game was also very abundant and very cheap in 1827.\n\nThis Table tends to prove that, so far as Constantinople is concerned,\nthe old system of \"voluntary contributions\" and confiscations was much\nmore favourable to production than the present ill-conceived system\nof taxation. My impression is that the same was true in other parts of\nthe Empire. Prices were unusually high in 1827, on account of the war\nand the general confusion in the Empire, and the increase in fifty\nyears can only be explained by the destructive system of taxation\nadopted by the Government, which falls almost exclusively upon the\nagriculturist. The price of bread is the same, but Constantinople\nnow depends upon Russia for its wheat, and the price depends upon the\nharvests in other countries. Everything produced here has increased in\nprice enormously, and the result is that bread is now almost the sole\nfood of the poor. Fifty years ago for one oke of bread a man might\nhave one oke of meat, or eight okes of fruit or two okes of wine. Now\nhe can obtain only about one-fifth of an oke of meat, or one oke\nof fruit, or two-thirds of an oke of wine, and this in spite of the\nimproved communications by steamer and railway with other parts of\nthe Empire. Then the Bosphorus was lined with vineyards, and it was\nprofitable to cultivate them, to exchange eight okes of grapes or two\nokes of wine for one of bread. Now it is unprofitable to raise grapes\nat eight times the former price, and the vineyards have almost\nall disappeared. They have been destroyed by unwise and vexatious\ntaxation. The condition of the rich, especially of the rich Turkish\nPachas, has greatly improved; but it may well be doubted whether the\npoor, those who had nothing to fear from the jealousy of the Turks or\nthe confiscations of the Sultan, can live as well now as they could\nfifty years ago. The poor Mussulmans have certainly gained nothing,\nand the Turkish population of Constantinople was probably never in\nso wretched a condition as it is now. With the Christian poor it is\ndifferent. In many respects their condition has greatly improved.\nThen they had no rights which a Turk was bound to respect. They\nwere sometimes shot down in their vineyards, like dogs, by passing\nMussulmans who wished to try their guns. Their children were kidnapped\nwith impunity. They were forced to wear a peculiar dress, which marked\nthem everywhere as an inferior race. They were insulted and abused in\nthe streets, and trembled at the sight of a Turk. They find it harder\nnow to get food, but they can eat it in peace. The poor Turks have\ngained no such advantages. They are no freer than they were then, and\nhave not the satisfaction which they then had of domineering over a\nsubject race. The Christians are still treated as inferiors and suffer\nunder many disabilities, but in Constantinople their lives, their\nfamilies, and their property are comparatively secure, and they are\nseldom maltreated because they are Christians. They no longer fear to\nlook a Turk in the face. The change for them is certainly a happy one,\nand it is not strange that the Turks who remember the old times feel\nthat the power of Islam is waning, and that reform has gone quite\nfar enough. It is this old Turkish spirit which inspires the present\nGovernment to choose the most inopportune moment to proclaim to the\nworld its determination to repress all free thought among Mohammedans.\nA Turkish Khodja has just been condemned to death for assisting an\nEnglish missionary to translate the English Prayer Book and some\nTracts into Turkish. This is not done secretly. The Turkish papers\nhave discussed the case, and one of the most liberal of them speaks of\nhis offence as follows:--\"The abject author of this act of profanation\nhas been drawn into his sin by Satan and by his own evil heart, and\nhas thus dared to commit a sacrilege, by which he is condemned to\nthe curse of God and to eternal torture. We demand that the miserable\ncreature may receive an overwhelming punishment, so that he may,\nby his example, deter others from selling their religion for a few\npence.\" This is an act of intolerance and barbarity worthy of the\nbloody days of Mahmoud II., and is far less excusable than it would\nhave been then. It remains to be seen whether it will be approved by\nthose Powers who maintain the Turkish Empire.\n\nIn one respect Constantinople has undoubtedly suffered by the changes\nof the last fifty years. It is no longer the picturesque Oriental city\nthat it was then. Its natural beauties remain, but in everything else\nit has become less interesting as it has become more European. The\nsteamers, whose smoke clouds the clear air of the Bosphorus and\nblackens the white palaces, are no doubt very convenient; but they are\na sad contrast to the tens of thousands of gay caiques which used to\ngive life to the transparent waters of the strait. Ugly north-country\ncolliers are no doubt profitable to their owners, but there is very\nlittle interest in watching their passage in comparison with the\nwonderful displays which were formerly seen when, after a long north\nwind, a southerly gale would take hundreds of vessels, under full\nsail, through the Bosphorus in a single day. I have counted over three\nhundred in sight at once. The square walls and narrow eaves of\nmodern Turkish houses may be more European, but they do not compare\nfavourably with the light Moorish architecture and gilded arabesques\nof the olden time. German ready-made clothing may be very cheap, and\nthe European style of dress may be adapted to active pursuits; but it\nis not likely to rouse the enthusiasm of a lover of the picturesque\nwho remembers the gorgeous costumes of fifty years ago, when the\nstreets of Constantinople were crowded with gay and fantastic dresses,\nas in a perpetual carnival, and each rank, profession, and creed\nhad its own peculiar costume. Even the Sultan is now no longer worth\nlooking at, with his little red fez in place of the magnificent turban\nwith plume and diamonds, and his tight black coat in place of his\nflowing sable robe, his attendants covered with tawdry brass in place\nof the gorgeous robes of the olden time. The pachas are pachas no\nlonger in appearance: you may see them running for steamers, or\nsitting on crowded benches on the deck reading their daily papers.\nWhat a contrast to the stately pacha of seven tails, who lived fifty\nyears ago, whose very title was picturesque, who could not read at\nall, and if he had ever heard of a newspaper looked upon it as a\ndevice of Satan; but who never ran for anything, and who never wore a\nred cap or a black coat. A graceful caique, with many oarsmen, awaited\nhis convenience; richly caparisoned Arab horses stood at his door;\nwhen he appeared--with slow and dignified step--with turban, robes of\nsilk, and Cashmere or diamond girdle--his slaves kissing the ground at\nhis feet, his pipe-bearers and guards behind him--he was an ornament\nto the city, and perhaps quite as great an ornament to the State as\nhis successor, without any tails to his title, who reads newspapers\nand wears black clothes, but who has no fear of being bow-strung and\nthrown into the Bosphorus if he betrays the interests of the State for\na consideration, or plunders the people for his own profit. Even the\nbazaars are no longer Oriental, although the buildings remain. They\nare little more than storehouses for the Manchester goods which have\ndestroyed native manufactures. The only relics of the olden time are\nthe Turkish women; but even they have become less picturesque. They\nare not so attractive, when crowded like sheep into the stern of a\nBosphorus steamer, as they were when they rode in lofty arabas drawn\nby white oxen; and their dress is gradually changing in spite of the\nfrequent decrees of the Sheik-ul-Islam, who declared two years ago\nin one of these that the disasters of the war were due, among other\nthings specified, to the fact that the women wore French boots in\nplace of heelless yellow slippers. Constantinople has lost all the\npeculiar charm of an Oriental city without having as yet attained the\nregularity, cleanliness, and elegance of a European capital; just as\nthe Government has ceased to be an Oriental despotism, careless of\nhuman life and individual rights, without having as yet learned the\nprinciples of European civilization; just as the individual Turk has\nceased to be a fanatical Mussulman, with the peculiar virtues which\nonce belonged to his religion, without having as yet acquired anything\nbut the vices of European society.\n\nIf we seek the cause of these changes which fifty years have wrought\nin life in Constantinople, they may be summed up as the result of\nthe constantly increasing influence of the European Powers at\nConstantinople and the corresponding decay of the Ottoman Empire.\nSultan Mahmoud II. was one of the greatest as well as one of the most\nunfortunate of the sovereigns of Turkey; but he was a Sultan of the\nold school, whose many attempts at reform had no other object than to\nrevive the power of Islam and restore his Empire to its former rank.\nHe did not wish to Europeanize his people, as Peter the Great did, but\nsimply to adopt such improvements, especially in the organization of\nhis army, as would enable him the better to maintain himself against\nhis European enemies. But, unhappily, he had to contend against Moslem\nas well as Christian foes, and to save himself from the former he\nhad to call in the aid of the latter. His dynasty was saved by the\nintervention of Europe; but when Sultan Abd-ul-Medjid ascended the\nthrone at the death of his father it was by the favour and under the\nprotection of Europe, and from that day Turkey ceased to be the old\nEmpire of the Ottoman Turks. Mahmoud was the last of the Sultans.\nNothing remained to his successors but the shadow of a great name.\nEurope is undoubtedly responsible for the evils which have befallen\nthe Empire since that day. She has neither allowed the Turks to rule\nin their own way, with fire and sword, as their ancestors did,\nnor forced them to emancipate the Christians and establish a civil\ngovernment in place of their religious despotism. She has sought to\nmaintain the Empire, but to maintain it as a weak and decaying Empire.\nAustria and Russia, and at times other Powers, have sought to hasten\nthe process of disintegration, and the limits of the Empire have been\ngradually narrowed until they now approach the capital itself. The\nTurks are abused for their stupidity, as if it were all their fault;\nand no doubt they have done and are doing many unwise things; but\nafter all they are not to be too harshly condemned. They have probably\ndone what seemed to them wise and politic, and they have often\noutwitted the keenest statesmen; but they have been doomed by Europe\nto struggle against the inevitable. Turkey can never again be what\nshe was fifty years ago, and as a Mohammedan despotism, ruled by Turks\nalone, she can never become a great or even a civilized Power and\ncommand the respect of Europe. She must soon disappear. But with the\nfull emancipation of the Christians, the abolition of the present\nsystem of religious government, and the support of Western Europe, she\nmight settle the Eastern Question for herself, win the loyal support\nof her own subjects and the respect of the world.\n\n  AN EASTERN STATESMAN.\n\n\n\n\nMIRACLES, PRAYER, AND LAW.\n\n\nIn the following remarks I assume the existence of God, All-knowing\nand All-powerful; and of a spirit in men which is not matter. I do not\nsay that either is demonstrated or can be demonstrated, still less\ndo I presume to define either, but I address only those who already\nassent to both.\n\nMany, however, of those who give such assent are troubled about the\nways of God and the nature of man's relation to Him. On the one hand\nis the Bible, which declares that all things on earth as well as in\nheaven are regulated by Divine will at every moment, which records\nfrequent miracles, and which bids men ask from Him whatsoever they\nwould, in absolute confidence that they shall have their desires.\nOn the other hand stands the Book of Nature, as Divine as that of\nRevelation, being in fact another revelation of God, which tells of\nan unchanging sequence of events, of laws incapable of modification\nby isolated acts of will, laws which, indeed, if subject to such\nmodification, would fall into disorder. Which of these revelations\nshall they believe? Or can they be reconciled so that both are\ncredible?\n\nThe tendency of recent belief in those who have studied the Book of\nNature, and perhaps most decidedly in those who have only turned some\nof its pages, is that the two revelations are irreconcilable. The\nimmutability of Nature's laws is to them a gospel taught by every\nstone, by every plant, by every animated being. All that they have\nlearnt to know of matter rests on the assurance that its properties\nare absolutely fixed. The progress of science, of art, of\ncivilization, of the human race, depends on the fact that what has\nbeen found to be true will be always true, that there is an ordered\nsequence of events which may be trusted to be invariable, to which we\nmust conform our lives if we would be happy, and which, if we cross\nit in ignorance or defiance, will revenge the outrage by inevitable\npenalties. Those laws, which some call of matter, may by others be\ncalled laws of God, and the most devout minds find in their fixity\nonly a confirmation of their faith in His unchanging promises. But if\nthus fixed, it seems to many who are devout as well as to many who\nare sceptical, that it becomes impossible to believe that their Author\nshould ever set them aside by what are called miracles; still less\nthat He should bid men pray for events which are, in fact, not\nregulated by wish or will, but by what has gone before up to the\nbeginning of time. To meet this dilemma there seem to such minds only\ntwo courses, either to believe that Scripture is not the word of a God\nat all, or to give to its language an interpretation which is not\nthe natural sense of the words, and which was certainly not meant or\nunderstood by those who first wrote or first heard it.\n\nYet it is not possible to abandon the conviction that the words and\nthe acts of God cannot really be at variance. Before surrendering His\nwords contained in the Scripture, as either spurious or misunderstood,\nno effort can be too often reiterated to show them to be compatible\nwith what we have learned of His works. I propose to make one more\nsuch effort, based on the closest examination of what both really\ntell, or imply.\n\nLet us first understand accurately what it is we are to deal with,\nboth as facts and as expressed in language. The inquiry is to be\nlimited (with exceptions which will be noted as they occur) to the\nlaws of matter. It will be assumed that matter exists as our ordinary\nperceptions inform us, but if it shall hereafter be proved to be only\na form of motion, or of force, the arguments will still be applicable.\nBy laws, we shall understand what in a different expression we call\nthe properties of matter. The advantage of thus explaining law is that\nit excludes some other senses of a vague and misleading character,\nwhile it includes the sense in which alone law can properly be applied\nto physical nature. Thus, the law of gravity is the same thing as the\nproperty of matter which we call weight, and if there be any matter or\nether which is imponderable, then the law of gravity does not apply\nto it. So the law of attraction, in its different forms, expresses the\nproperty of cohesion, and of capillary ascent, and so on; the law of\nchemical affinities expresses the property of the combination of one\nspecies of matter with another in definite proportions; the laws of\nsound, light, or electricity express the properties of vibrations,\neither of air or of subtler forms of matter, as they affect our\nsenses. In thus limiting the meaning of law, it is therefore obvious\nthat we embrace all which the materialist can desire to include when\nhe insists that law is permanent and unchangeable.\n\nThis, in fact, is the first proposition which we must all accept. No\nhuman being can add to or subtract a single property of any species of\nmatter. To do so were, indeed, to create. For matter is an aggregate\nof properties; each species of matter is differentiated only by its\nproperties, and could we alter one of these we should really turn it\ninto different matter. It is true there are what are called allotropic\nforms, such as oxygen and ozone, the yellow and red phosphorus, the\nforms of sulphur as modified by heat, and a considerable number of\norganic compounds, and we can by certain arrangements turn the one\ninto the other. But when we ask what allotropism is, we find that it\nis itself one of the properties (however obscure to us) of the matter\nwe deal with. Oxygen would not be oxygen, but something else, if\nit had not the inherent property of becoming ozone under certain\nconditions. Given these conditions, and there is nothing we can do\nwhich will prevent the change occurring. If, as chemists believe,\nallotropism depends on the different arrangement of the ultimate atoms\nof matter, then the capacity of assuming two arrangements in its atoms\nis clearly one of the ultimate properties of that species of matter.\n\nIt follows, then, that if a miracle were really a suspension of a\nphysical law, or a change, temporary or permanent, of any property\nof matter, it would really be an act of creation--the creation of\nsomething having different properties from any matter that before\nexisted. If iron were to float on water by suspension of the law of\ngravity, it would be in fact the creation of something having (at\nleast for the time required) the physical and chemical properties\nof iron, but with a specific gravity less than water--and therefore\nsomething not iron.\n\nBut, without creation, man has enormous power over Nature. He can,\nand daily does, overpower her laws, or seemingly make them work as\nhe pleases. Despite the law of gravity, he ascends to the sky in a\nballoon; he makes water spring up in fountains; he makes vessels,\nweighing thousands of tons, float on the seas. Despite cohesion, he\ngrinds rocks to powder; despite chemical affinity, he transmutes\ninto myriads of different forms the few elements of which all matter\nconsists; despite the resistless power of the thunderbolt, he tames\nelectricity to be his servant or his harmless toy. With water and fire\nhe moulds into shape mighty masses of metal; he shoots, at a sustained\nspeed beyond that of birds, across valleys and through mountain\nranges; he unites seas which continents had separated; there is\nnothing in the whole earth which he has not subdued, or does not hope\nto subdue, to his use. There is hardly a physical miracle which he\ndoes not feel he can, or may yet, perform.\n\nBut all this wonderful, this boundless, power over material laws is\ngained by these laws. He alters no property of matter, but he uses one\nproperty or another as he needs, and he uses one property to overpower\nanother. It is by knowing that gravity is more powerful in the case of\nair than in the case of hydrogen gas, that he makes air sustain him\nas he floats, beneath a bag of hydrogen, above the earth; it is by\nknowing that it is more powerful in water than in air that he sails\nin iron ships; it is by knowing chemical affinity or repulsion that he\nmakes the compounds or extracts the simple elements he desires; it is\nby knowing that affinity is force, and that force is transmutable\ninto electricity, that he makes a messenger of the obedient lightning\nshock; it is by knowing that heat, itself unknown, causes gases\nto expand, that he makes machines of senseless iron do the work of\nintelligent giants. He subdues Nature by understanding Nature. He\ncreates no property; he therefore performs no miracle, though he does\nmarvels.\n\nBy what means, then, does man bring one property, or law, into play\ninstead of, or against, another? By one means only, that of changing\nthe position of matter.\n\nThis is Bacon's aphorism (Nov. Org. Book i. 4): \"Man contributes\nnothing to operations except the applying or withdrawing of natural\nbodies: Nature, internally, performs the rest.\"\n\nIn order to trace and recognize the truth of this fact, let us follow\nin rough and rapid outline the operations by which man effects his\npurposes. We will begin at the beginning, and suppose him to have only\nreached the stage when a knowledge of the effects of fire enables\nhim to work with metals. He produces fire by friction--that is, by\nbringing one piece of wood to another, and rapidly moving the one on\nthe other; or else by striking two flints on each other, which also\nis merely rapid motion and shock. He carries the wood to a hearth, he\nbrings to it the lump of crude metal or the ore; he urges the fire\nby a blast of air--still his acts are only those of imparting motion.\nThen the fire acts on the metal, it excites some affinities and\nenfeebles other affinities, which result in removing impurities; it\nsoftens the purified metal. Then the workman lifts it on a stone, and\nby beating it with another stone--still motion--he moves its particles\nso that it assumes the form of a hammer, an axe, a chisel, or a file.\nThen by rubbing with a rough stone--still motion--he moves away some\nparticles from the edge, and makes it sharp and fit for cutting. By\nplunging it in water when hot--still only motion--he tempers it to\nhardness. With the edge thus obtained he cuts wood into the forms he\nrequires for various purposes, and by degrees he learns how to fashion\nother pieces of metal into other and more elaborate tools. Yet all\nthis is done by no other means than giving motion to the material on\nwhich, or by which, he works. From tools he advances to machines, by\nwhich his power of giving motion is increased, and as he learns more\nof the properties of matter he constructs engines, by which these\nproperties work for him in the directions in which he guides them.\nMeantime he has learned that clay, when heated, becomes hard as stone,\nand the arts of pottery take their rise; while glass-making follows on\nthe discovery that ashes and sand fuse into a transparent mass. Yet,\nwhether in their rude beginning or finished elegance, man in these\narts does no more than bring together the rough materials and apply\nto them heat, then their own inherent properties effect the result.\nScience--that is, knowledge of natural laws of matter--guides his\nhand, but his hand only moves matter; it gives no property and takes\naway none; it does not even enable one property to work; it does\nabsolutely nothing except to place matter where its own laws work, to\nbring or to remove matter which is needed, or to remove matter which\nis superfluous. Let us analyze every complicated triumph of human\nknowledge and skill, and we shall find it all reduced to the knowledge\nof what the properties of matter are, and the skill which imparts to\nit motion just sufficient to permit these properties to operate. Man's\npower over Nature is therefore limited to the power of giving motion\nto matter, or of stopping or resisting motion in matter.\n\nNow, to give motion or to resist motion is itself either a breach or\na use of a law of Nature, according as we express that law. The law is\n(as usually expressed), that matter at rest remains at rest till moved\nby a force, and that matter in motion continues in motion till stayed\nby a force. This is the law of inertia. If we consider that rest or\nmotion when once established is the normal state of matter, then the\nforce which causes a change causes a breach of the law of inertia.\nBut if we consider that the liability to be moved, or to have motion\nstopped by force, is itself a property of matter, then the application\nof force with such result is merely calling into operation the law of\ninertia. It really does not signify which view we take, so long as we\nrecognize that such are the facts. But since it is more familiar to\nassociate rest with inertia, it will perhaps be most convenient and\nsimple to consider rest and motion as the laws of matter, till the law\nis interfered with. Therefore in what follows we shall say, that when\nmatter at rest is moved, or when matter in motion is stayed, or its\nmovement by a natural force is prevented, a breach of the law of\ninertia is committed.\n\nWe come, then, to these propositions:--1st, That human power is\nutterly unable to break any law of matter except the law of inertia.\n2nd, That when, by breaking only the law of inertia--_i.e._, by moving\nor by resisting the motion of matter--any operation is accomplished,\nno other law of matter is broken. 3rd, That to break the law of\ninertia by Force, directed by Will, is no interference with the\nproperties of matter. 4th, That by breaking the law of inertia\nonly, man has power to call into play properties which make matter\nsubservient to his objects.\n\nNor is this man's power only. Inferior animals can also move matter,\nand by moving it can cause prodigious results. A minute insect, by\nsecreting lime from sea waters, makes a coral reef, or aids in forming\na cliff of chalk. A beaver cuts down a tree, and forms a swamp that\nchanges the climate of a district; a bird carries a seed, and makes\na forest on an island. Inanimate life has the same power. The plant\nopens its leaves to the sun, and abstracts the carbon that forms\nfruitful soils and beds of coal. Matter itself can by motion work on\nmatter. The great physical powers, heat and electricity, are modes of\nmotion. Radiation of heat causes freezing, and freezing crumbles rocks\ninto soil, or it forms the clouds in the air, whose deluges hollow\nvalleys; while electricity cleaves and splinters the summits of the\nmountain peaks. Everywhere motion, sharp or slow, works with matter;\neverywhere the law of inertia is broken; and everywhere the miracles\nof Nature are wrought out by Nature's unbroken laws, set in action or\nwithheld by only the movement which matter has received, be it from\nWill in man or beast, or be it from forces which themselves are part\nof matter's properties.\n\nNow, since we have started from the assumption that God does exist, it\nis impossible to make Him an exception to the rule which holds of\nthe spirits of inferior creatures, and even of inanimate matter. If,\ntherefore, He can cause or stop movement, He can, without further\nbreach of any law of Nature, bring into play the laws of Nature. Or,\nto state the same proposition conversely, we must admit that whatever\nwonders God may cause by bringing into operation a law of Nature\nthrough the means of affecting motion in matter, cannot be called a\nbreach of the laws of Nature. It is, of course, understood that this\nproposition is limited to the results of motion; it does not affirm\nthat the cause of the motion may not be a breach of a law of Nature.\nThis question will remain for future examination; at present it is\nneither affirmed nor denied.\n\nLet us in the meantime, however, consider what we have reached by the\nproposition above stated. What are called miracles may be divided into\nthree classes. The first are purely spiritual, affecting mind without\nthe intervention of matter, such as visions (though these _may_\noriginate in the brain, and therefore belong to the next class), gifts\nof tongues, inspirations, mental resolutions. The second affect mind\nin connection with matter, such as, perhaps, the healing of paralytic\nor epileptic affections, and certainly the restoration of life to\nthe dead. The third affect matter solely; they include the healing\nof wounds, or of corporeal disease, such as blindness, or fever; the\ndividing of waters; the walking on water, or raising an iron axe-head\nfrom the bottom of water; the falling of walls or trees; the opening\nof prison-doors, and such like.\n\nThe first two classes we may, in any discussion limited to the laws of\nNature, leave out of view, because it cannot be said that we know any\nlaws of Nature affecting mind by itself, or even mind in relation to\nmatter. Metaphysicians have interested themselves in trying to trace\nthe origin or sequence of intellectual processes, but I hardly think\nany would assert they had discovered or defined what can properly be\ncalled a law; and certainly, if any do assert it, the accuracy of the\nassertion is controverted by as many philosophers on the other side.\nAny direct influence of God on mind cannot, therefore, be charged with\nbeing in violation of natural law. Nor can it even be declared to\nbe contrary to universal experience, since in this case the negative\nevidence of those who have not experienced it would only be set\nagainst the positive evidence of innumerable persons who affirm that\nthey have experienced it.\n\nThe influence of mind on matter, and matter on mind, are also so\nobscure, that it cannot be affirmed that anything which mental\noperation can effect on one's own body is contrary to natural law.\nNo physiologist will assert that mental resolution, or conviction,\ntending towards recovery from sickness, is without some power to bring\nthat result to pass. They will admit also that this is peculiarly the\ncase in regard to those disorders which, in pure ignorance of their\nactual source, they are fain to call hysterical, neuralgic, or\ngenerally nervous. They are all acquainted with many cases in their\nown experience of recovery from such disorders in which no physical\ncause for recovery can be imagined. If, then, God should convey to\nthe mind of a patient an impression which brings about recovery,\nthere would clearly be no violation of natural law. With regard to the\nrestoration of life, it is quite true that this is beyond the ordinary\npower of man's volition. Nevertheless, at each moment of our lives\nthere is a communication of life to the dead matter which has formed\nour food, but which, after digestion, becomes a part of our living\norgans; and this is true even in the nutrition of plants. How or\nat what moment the mind enters or becomes capable of affecting our\nframes, we do not know. But this happens at some moment before or\nduring birth; its doing so at a subsequent period is, therefore, not\na breach of natural law, but is only an instance of natural law coming\ninto operation, by the same cause, at a period differing from that\nwhich is customary. The _act_, whatever it is, is not exceptional, but\nordinary. The _time_ is alone exceptional.\n\nWe have now to consider the strictly physical phenomena to which the\nname of miracles is in this discussion confined, and to which the\nobjection that they are contrary to natural laws is commonly stated.\n\nA very large number of these are at first glance seen to be only\ninstances of inertia being affected. To walk on water, to make water\nstand in a heap, to raise a body from the ground, to cast down walls,\nor move bolts and doors, are obviously exertions of simple mechanical\nforce such as we ourselves daily employ. Their effective cause is\nneither more nor less than an interference with the law of inertia,\nand by the previous demonstration they are therefore not to be\nreckoned as breaches of any law of Nature.\n\nLet us try if this can be made clearer by an example. It has been\nstated before that if iron were made to swim on water by modification\nof the law of gravity it would be creation of a new substance\ndiffering from iron in being of less specific gravity. At the\nsame time, the original iron of normal specific gravity would have\ndisappeared. These processes of creation and destruction would be\nso unprecedented that we should justly call them violations of the\nordinary laws of nature. But at least we should then expect that the\nlight iron thus created would be permanently light, and we should\ncall it another breach of the laws of nature if on lifting it from the\nwater we found it heavy. But if we were to hold a magnet of suitable\npower over the original heavy iron, when at the bottom of the water,\nwe might see it rise and float, although not touched or upheld by\nany visible substance, and although its specific gravity remained\nconstant. In this case it would be moved by a power which overcomes\ngravity, but there would be no creation nor destruction of any\nproperty, and no natural law would be broken. But if now we substitute\nfor \"magnetic\" \"Divine\" power, there is still no breach of a natural\nlaw, for no property is created or destroyed. In both cases the acting\nagent is a power outside the iron, invisible and unknown, except by\nthe effects. The effect of both is the same: it is to give motion to\nmatter, and nothing more. Hence, neither violate any law of nature\nexcept that of inertia.\n\nProceeding to another class of miracles, which seem at first to\nbe creative, we shall find that they also come within the range of\nfamiliar human potentiality. The making of bread, or meal, or oil,\nor wine, are instances of chemical synthesis. These substances are\ncomposed of three or four elements, all gaseous except carbon (to\nbe absolutely accurate, we must add minute quantities of eight other\nelements), which no chemist has yet succeeded in uniting in such\nforms. But chemists have succeeded in forming certain substances by\nbringing together their elements, of which water is the simplest type,\nand others of greater complexity are every year being attained. These\nare formed by moving into proximity, or admixture, the elementary\ningredients, under circumstances favourable to their union in\nthe desired combination, and the combination then proceeds by the\noperation of natural laws. No one would be surprised to hear that\nsome chemist had thus attained to form starch or gluten, the main\ningredients of bread; or oil, or spirit, or essences; for if it were\nannounced we should all know that he had only discovered some new\nmethod of manipulation by which circumstances were arranged so as\nto favour the natural laws which effect the union of the necessary\nelements. Therefore, if these substances are formed by Divine power,\nit is not creation--it is only the chemist's work, adopting natural\nlaws for its methods, and bringing them into play by transposition of\nmaterial substances.\n\nMeteorological processes--such as lightning, rain, drought, winds--are\nsometimes made the immediate cause of \"miracles,\" as when the wind\ncaused the waters of the Red Sea to flow back, or brought the flights\nof quails, or locusts. These are effects which we know wind is quite\ncapable of producing, and does produce naturally. Was there then any\nbreach of natural laws (beyond that of inertia) in causing such winds\nto blow? or in bringing up thunder-clouds? or in causing an arid\nseason? We cannot, indeed, say that there was not; but as little can\nwe say that there was. For since we ourselves have acquired such\npower over lightning, the most inscrutable and irresistible of all\nmeteorological agencies, as to be able to lead it where we will, how\nshall we say that God's infinite knowledge has not the same power over\nthe winds and the clouds, by employing only natural agencies for His\nwork, and employing these only by the operation of motion given to\nmatter.\n\nWith regard to the healing of diseased matter, conjectures also can\nonly be offered, because of the source of diseases we know so little.\nSight is restored in cataract by simple removal of an abnormal\nmembrane. Many fevers, if the germ theory or the poison theory be\ncorrect, are cured when the germs die, or the poison is eliminated. A\npower that could kill the germs, or remove them or the poison from the\nsystem, would then effect immediate cure in accordance with natural\nlaws. It does not seem necessarily beyond man's reach to effect\nthis when he shall understand natural laws more fully; it cannot,\ntherefore, be a breach of natural laws if God should effect it by laws\nas yet unknown to man, provided they are brought into play with no\nother agency than the motion of matter.\n\nIt would be folly as well as impiety to assert that it is in such ways\nonly that miracles are performed. No such assertion is made. But\nwhen, on the other side, it is asserted that the miracles narrated\nin Scripture cannot be true because they must involve a breach of the\nimmutable laws of Nature, the answer is justifiable and is sufficient,\nthat they do not necessarily involve any breach of any law, save of\nthat one law of inertia which at every instant is broken by created\nthings, without any disturbances being introduced into the serene\nmarch of Nature's laws. The scientific revelation is reconciled with\nthe written revelation when it is shown that neither necessarily\nimplies the falsity of the other.\n\nBut supposing the argument thus far to be conceded, it will be urged\nthat the real \"miracle\" remains yet behind. When man moves matter,\nhis hand is visible: when an animal gnaws a tree, its teeth are seen\nworking; when a river flows down a valley, its force is heard and\nfelt. How different, it will be said, is God's working, where there is\nno arm of flesh, no sound of power, no sign of presence.\n\nUnquestionably it is a deep marvel and a mystery, that impalpable\nspirit should act upon gross matter; but it is a mystery of humanity\nas well as of Godhead. What moves the hand? Contraction of the\nmuscles. But what causes contraction of the muscles? The influence\ntransmitted from the brain by the nerves. But what sends that\ninfluence? It is mind, which somewhere, somehow, moves animal\ntissues--tissues consisting of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen,\nphosphorus, and sulphur. At some point of our frames, we know not yet\nwhere, mind does act directly on matter. It is a law of Nature that it\nshould so act _there_. But if God exists, His mind must, by the same\nlaw, act on matter _somewhere_. Can we call it an offence against law\nif it acts on matter elsewhere than in that mass of organized pulp\nwhich we call brains? If no possibility of communication between\nmind and matter could anywhere be found in Nature, we might call such\ncommunication contrary to natural law. In other words, if it were one\nof the properties of matter that it could not receive motion from\nthat which is not matter, its motion without a material cause would\nbe supernatural. But since it is of the very essence of existence that\nmatter in certain combinations should be capable of being endowed with\nlife, and by such endowment become capable of being affected in motion\nby mind, it is indisputable that such capability is one of matter's\nproperties, and that its being so affected falls within and not\nwithout Nature's laws.\n\nIt may be objected that, since it is only living substance which can\nbe acted on by the human mind, it is contrary to law that dead matter\nshould be acted on by Divine mind. But this is a simple begging of\nthe question at issue. It is constructing a law for the purpose of\ncharging God with breaking it. Where do we find evidence in Nature\nthat matter cannot be moved by the Divine mind? Science reveals no\nsuch law. Science is simply silent on the subject; it admits its utter\nignorance, and declares the question beyond its scope. Undoubtedly it\ndoes not pronounce that God does move matter, but it equally abstains\nfrom asserting that God does not. For when it traces back material\neffects from cause to cause, it comes at last to something for which\nit has no explanation. When we say that an acid and an alkali combine\nby the law of affinity, that a stone falls by the law of gravity, we\nmerely generalize facts under a name, we do not account for them. What\ncauses affinity, what causes gravity? Suppose we say the one is polar\nelectricity, the other is the impact of particles in vibration (both\nof which statements are unproved guesses), what do we gain? The next\nquestion is only, what causes electricity and what causes vibration?\nSuppose, again, we answer that both are modes of motion, we only come\nto the further question, what causes motion? And since motion is a\nbreach of the law of inertia, what is it that first excited motion in\nthis dead matter? Carry back our analysis as far as we will or can,\nat last we reach a point where matter must be acted upon by something\nthat is not matter. This something is Mind; and God also is Mind.\n\nAgain, when any one affirms that only living matter can be acted on by\nmind, whether human or Divine, we may fairly ask him, not indeed\nwhat is life, which is a problem as yet beyond science; but how life\nchanges matter, which is a question strictly within the range of\nscience dealing with matter. But to this inquiry we shall get no\nanswer. The cells in an organism, the protoplasm in the cells, are\nliving when the organism is living, dead when the organism is dead,\nand, as matter, no difference is discoverable between them in\nthe state of living and dead. The cells consist of cellulose, the\nprotoplasm of some \"protein\" compounds; no element is added or\nsubtracted, no compound is altered, when it lives or when it dies. Nor\ncan science even tell us when an organic compound becomes alive, or\ndead. Every instant crude sap is becoming living plants, every instant\ncrude chyle is becoming living blood, every instant living organisms\ndie and are expelled from plants by the leaves, from animals by the\nlungs, the skin, and the kidneys. Yet no physician can say at _what_\nmoment any of these carbon compounds become living, or when they cease\nto have life. Since of this perpetual birth and death in all nature\nwe know absolutely nothing, it is manifestly unreasonable to lay\ndown laws respecting them. If life and death make (as far as we can\ndiscover) absolutely no immediate physical change in the matter which\nthey affect, how can we propound as a dogma of physical science that\nGod cannot move \"dead\" matter, when our own experience tells us that\nour spirits can move \"living\" matter?\n\nIt is clear that if we are not warranted in making a law, we are not\nwarranted in saying that it is broken. Our concern with laws is to see\nthat such as we do know are uniform, for this is the basis of science.\nBut true science repudiates dogmas on subjects of which it avows its\nignorance.\n\nLet us sum up the argument as it has now been stated. The propositions\nare the following:--\n\n  1. Matter is subject to unalterable laws, which express its\n  properties. No created being can originate, alter, or destroy any of\n  these properties.\n\n  2. It is possible, however, for one property to overpower the action\n  of another property, either in the same matter or in other matter.\n\n  3. By placing matter in a position in which one or other property\n  has its natural action, man, as well as animals and inanimate\n  matter, can overpower a law of Nature with almost boundless power.\n\n  4. The sole means by which such results are effected, are by\n  affecting the law of inertia. Therefore, whatever is effected by\n  natural laws, without other interference than by affecting inertia,\n  is consistent with the uniformity of natural law.\n\n  5. All strictly physical \"miracles\" recorded in the Bible are\n  capable of being effected by natural law, without other interference\n  than by affecting inertia, and therefore are consistent with the\n  uniformity of natural law.\n\n  6. It is consistent with natural law that created minds should\n  affect the inertia of certain forms of matter directly.\n\n  7. It is not inconsistent with natural law that Divine mind should\n  affect the inertia of other forms of matter directly.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe bearing of these conclusions upon prayer, in so far as it affects\nphysical conditions, may now be briefly shown. It has been argued\nthat, in the light of modern discovery, prayer ought to be restricted\nto spiritual objects, and that at all events it can have none but\nspiritual effects. It has for example been asserted that to pray\nfor fine weather, for bodily health, for removal of any plague, for\naverting of any corporeal danger is asking God to change the laws of\nNature for our benefit, that this is what He never does, what would\nproduce endless confusion if He should, and consequently what He\ncertainly will not do.\n\nBut if in point of fact God can confer on us all these gifts which we\nask from Him without breaking a single law by which Nature is bound,\nwe are restored to the older confidence that He will, provided that\nsuch gifts are at the same time consonant with our spiritual good.\n\nNow as it has been shown that God can affect matter to the full extent\nfor which we ever petition by means of Nature's own laws, set in\noperation by no other agency than the mere communication of motion to\nmatter, it has been shown that He will break no law in giving what we\nask.\n\nFor example, what is fine weather? It is the result of the due motion\nof the winds, which bear the clouds on their bosom, and carry the\nwarmth of equatorial sunshine to the colder north. It is still as true\nas eighteen hundred years ago, \"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and\nye hear the sound thereof, but cannot tell whence it cometh or whither\nit goeth.\" But if it be no breach of law to give motion to the air, it\nis in God's power to bring us favourable winds. But the winds we wish\nare not necessarily moved immediately by God's breath. They depend\nprobably on certain electric repulsions, which make the colder or\nthe warmer current come closer to the surface of the earth. And\nelectricity is motion. It may be directly, it may be indirectly,\nthrough electricity; it may be by some cause still further back, that\nGod sends forth the winds; but, if He can give motion, He can direct\ntheir currents, and by such agency give to His creatures the weather\nbest suited for their wants.\n\nOr what is disease? Probably, in many cases, germs; let us then\nsuppose germs, because it is what the latest science tells us. But\ngerms need a suitable nidus, and we know that merely what we call\n\"change of air\" is one of the most potent means of defending or\nrestoring our bodies from the assault of germs to which it is exposed.\nWe change our air, by moving to another place; what violation of law\nwould there be if God, to our prayer, were to change our air by moving\na different air to us? That is but a rude illustration; the marvellous\neconomy of the body suggests a thousand others, none of which may be\ntrue, but which yet all agree in this, that they would work our cure\nby strictly natural laws, set in action merely by motion given to\nmatter.\n\nThat even an impending rock should not fall upon us would be a\npetition involving no further disturbance of natural law. Had we\nappliances to enhance our force we could uphold it, without breaking\nnatural law. God has superhuman force, and if He upholds it by an arm\nwe cannot see, He will break no law.\n\nIt were needless to pursue examples; but the subject must not be\ndismissed without reference to the spiritual laws, which we are bound\nto regard in praying for aught we may desire.\n\nThese are expressed and summed in the command, \"Ask in my name.\" There\nis a prevalent misunderstanding of these words, arising out of the\ntheological dogma which interprets them as if they were written, \"for\nmy sake.\" It is unnecessary here to enter into the inquiry how far any\nprayer is granted because of the merits or for the sake of Christ. It\nis sufficient that the words here used mean something else. When we\ndesire another person to ask anything from a superior in our name, we\nmean to ask as if we asked. It must be something then which we should\nask for personally. Therefore, Christ desiring us to ask in His name,\nlimits us to ask those things which we can presume He would ask for\nus.\n\nIt is obvious how this interpretation defines the range of petition.\nIt must be confined to what He, all-knowing, knows to be for our good.\nIt must be, in our ignorance, subject to the condition that He should\nsee it best for us. It utterly excludes all seeking for worldly\nadvantage, for which He would never bid us pray. It equally excludes\nall spiritual benefits which are not those of a godly, humble spirit.\nAbove all, it excludes all things which would be suggested by Satan as\na tempting of the Lord our God. To ask, as some scientific men would\nhave us do, for something in order to see if God would grant it, would\nbe an experiment which, applied to an earthly superior, would be\nan insult--to God is impiety. To such prayers as these there is no\npromise made, for they cannot be in Christ's name.\n\nNeither can those prayers be in His name which come from men\nregardless of His precepts. These are contained in the Book of Nature\nas well as in the Bible, and to both alike we owe reverence. We are\nbound to learn His will as far as our powers extend, we are bound to\ninform ourselves as fully as we can of the physical as well as of the\nmoral laws set for our guidance, and having learned we are bound to\nobey. It were vain to pray for help in an act of wrong-doing, and\nequally vain to pray for relief from consequences of our own neglect\nor defiance of such rules of the government of nature as we have\nlearned, or as with due diligence we might have learned. No man so\nacting can presume to think that he may ask in Christ's name for\nsuccour. Christ could not ask it for such as he.\n\nBut to what we can truly ask in His name there is no limit set. We may\nask for all worldly and all spiritual good, which we can conceive\nHim to ask for us, in assurance that it will be given, if He sees it\nreally to be for our good. How it may be reconciled with good to other\nmen is not for us to inquire. The Omnipotent rules all, and He who can\ndo all is able to do what is best for us as well as for every other\ncreature He has made, without breach of one of these laws which He has\nset as guides for all.\n\n  J. BOYD KINNEAR.\n\n\n\n\nWHAT IS RENT?\n\n\nThe public mind of the country is at the present hour largely occupied\nwith thinking about rent. The severe agricultural depression has\ngenerated painful effects on the feelings and the fortunes of the\npeople of England. The various classes who are connected with the\ncultivation of land are visited with much suffering, and we cannot be\nsurprised if they are found discussing whether their relations towards\neach other, as well as the system of agriculture prevailing in these\nislands, are precisely what they ought to be. The various methods of\ndealing with the land and the population that devote themselves to\nits tillage, have been the subjects of keen debate for ages: failing\nharvests, low prices, and heavy losses, are well suited to impart\nenergy and even violence to such discussions. In some portions of the\nkingdom, even agricultural revolution has made its appearance on the\nscene. The law itself is openly and avowedly defied. The debtor, it is\ndecreed, shall determine at his own pleasure how much he shall pay of\nthe debt to which he is pledged. If the owner of the property let on\nhire repels such an adjudication of his rights, he is plainly warned\nthat they shall be swept away altogether, and the insolvent debtor\nbe made the owner of what he borrowed. The very structure of society\nitself is imperilled. \"To refuse to pay debt violently,\" it has\nbeen well said, \"is to steal, and to permit stealing, is not only to\ndissolve, but to demoralize society: accumulation of property, and\ncivilization itself would become impossible.\"\n\nAmidst such agitated passions it was inevitable that rent should\nspeedily come to the front. Those who had contracted to pay rent, in\nthe expectation that the produce of their labour would enable them\nto redeem their pledge, had been plunged into losses, more or less\nsevere, by the badness of the seasons; their means were reduced; to\npay was inconvenient; and it was a simpler method to take the matter\ninto their own hands, and rather than appeal to the feelings of their\nlandlords for a considerate diminution of their rents, to call rent\nitself into judgment, and to suppress it altogether. When, then,\nmatters have reached the pass that an anti-rent agitation, based on\nthe confiscation of property and the repudiation of contracts, has\nsprung up, and is swiftly spreading among an excitable people, it\nbecomes important, in the highest degree, that the true nature of rent\nshould be clearly understood by the whole country. Whatever may be\nultimately decided about rent, let every man first know accurately\nwhat it is. To advocate a system of agriculture which shall abolish\nthe possession of land by a class who are owners and not cultivators\nof the soil, and thus extinguish the charge for the loan of it to\nfarmers, is perfectly legitimate. Let the merits and demerits of\nsuch a tenure be freely investigated; let peasant-proprietorship be\ncounter-examined over against it; but let the conviction be brought\nhome to every mind that no just or intelligent conclusion can be\nreached, unless every element of the problem has been fully and\nhonestly weighed. A reduction of rents may very possibly be called\nfor by necessity and by reason; but to place the position itself of\nlandlord in an invidious light, as that of a man who exacts from the\nlabour of others that for which he has neither toiled nor spun, is\na most unwarrantable process of argumentation, and can lead to no\ntrustworthy result in a matter of such transcendant importance to the\nnation.\n\nWhat then is rent? The true answer to this very natural question,\nobvious and easy though it may seem to be, has been grasped by few\nonly. Let the question be put to a mixed company, and the incapacity\nto explain the real nature of rent will be found most surprising.\nOne's first impulse is to appeal to Political Economy for an answer,\nfor indisputably rent belongs to its domain; but unhappily Political\nEconomists, for the most part, instead of enlightening have obscured\nthis inquiry for the public mind. Some few amongst them have perceived\nthe true character of rent; but most other economical writers have\nbeen led astray into a wrong path by Ricardo. Ricardo's theory of rent\nwas accepted as the orthodox doctrine; but it was a theory from\nwhich the common world, landlords and farmers alike, turned away\nas unworkable. Ricardo was dominated by the passion of giving to\nPolitical Economy a strictly scientific treatment, and the explanation\nof rent he hailed as an excellent instrument for accomplishing his\npurpose. He built the amount of rent payable by different lands,\non the varying fertilities of the soil. Land A paid no rent; its\nproductive powers were unequal to such an effort; it must content\nitself with rewarding the cultivator alone. Land B presented itself as\nsomething better; a feeble rent it could supply. C, D, and E\ncontinued the ascending scale; the rents they yielded assumed grander\ndimensions, till the maximum of fertility and remunerating power\nwas reached. The array wore a splendidly scientific air; it almost\nrivalled the great law of the inverse square of the distances. But,\nalas, as Ricardo himself dimly saw, rent bowed to other forces besides\nmere fertility. Varying distances from manures and markets, dissimilar\ndemands for horsepower for the attainment of the same crops, unequal\npressure of rates and taxes, and other like causes compelled rent to\nsway upwards and downwards in contradiction of the law of fertility;\nand that was not scientific. But it was true in fact, and Ricardo,\nunder the pressure of necessity, summed up these disturbing causes\nunder the general word situation. Like Mill, he had to recognise\nthat Political Economy, as he and Mill posed it, was \"an hypothetical\nscience,\" and that the stern world of material realities was under the\ndominion of influences which were not hypothetical nor scientific.[1]\n\nIf Ricardo and Mill had contented themselves with laying down what the\namount of rent was, governed by the quality of the soil's fertility\nand by the forces which they feebly recognised by the word situation,\nno harm would have been done. They would have given a tolerably fair\ndescription of the causes on which the magnitude of rent depends.\nIt would not indeed have explained what rent is, but it would have\nexpressed truths with which the common agricultural mind was familiar,\nand they might have retained the command of agricultural ears.\nBut scientific ambition would not be satisfied with so simple and\nunpretending a statement. It was resolved that the explanation of rent\nshould take the shape of a scientific doctrine; and with this object\nit invented an addition to it of whose scientific character there\ncould be no doubt. \"It converted the land,\" in the words of Mr. Mill,\n\"which yields least return to the labour and capital employed on\nit, and gives only the ordinary profit of capital, without leaving\nanything for rent, into a standard for estimating the amount of rent\nwhich will be yielded by all other land. Any land yields as much more\nthan the ordinary profits of stock, as it yields more than what is\nreturned by the worst land in cultivation.\" This worst land, which\nhad no rent to give, was erected into a standard which should\nmeasure rents as accurately as a yard measures distances, and a pound\navoirdupois weights. Most useful indeed is the yard which tells us how\nfar it is to Dover, and the lb. weight which informs us how heavy the\nload of coals is which has reached our door; and delightful truly,\nwould be an instrument which should tell a disputing landlord and\ntenants, with unerring precision, how much rent exactly each farm was\nbound to pay. But this \"margin of calculation,\" this land which pays\nno rent--what landlord or what farmer has ever inquired for it in the\ncalculation of their rents? Has it ever occurred to the thoughts, or\npassed the lips, of a single practical agriculturist, in these days\nof excitement, and anger, and unceasing declamations in the press and\ntribune on rent? And if it had been found, what possible help could it\nhave brought to a single agriculturist? Such land could be no measure\nto measure by. A measure must either be a given portion of the thing\nmeasured, as a yard of length, or else be an effect of a given force,\nas the height of the barometer of the pressure of the atmosphere.\nA piece of land which yields no rent cannot measure one that does,\nbecause the non-payment of rent is not the effect of a single force\nbut of many diverse ones. A particular farm may pay no rent because\nit is isolated by want of roads, or is in a lonely spot, or is far\noff from manures, or is burdened with excess of taxation, as a\nwhole parish in Buckinghamshire which was said to have gone out of\ncultivation because no man would face the burden of its poor-rates.\nWhat facility for calculation could such a parish furnish to a farmer\nin Middlesex or Lancashire? The selection of such a standard was a\npurely illogical process; it confounded effect with cause. The forces\nwhich determine rent decree that such a farm cannot pay rent, that is\nan effect; but its paying no rent could be no cause, by the mere fact\nalone that it did not yield sufficient net profit, why other lands\nshould pay no rent. The margin of calculation was framed at a\nparticular locality, under its own circumstances, but it could say\nnothing about the circumstances of another farm and their effects.\n\nThe moral to be derived from the examination of Ricardo and\nMill's theories of rent is clear. The sooner that their margin of\ncultivation, their standard of the amount of rent, disappears, the\nbetter will it be for the interests of society and of Political\nEconomy. It has driven away all agricultural audience from the talk of\nPolitical Economy about rent; it is felt to lie altogether outside of\nthe practical world. Let the land which is cultivated without being\nable to pay rent be inquired into by all means, whenever there is a\ncall for so doing. Let the impeding causes and all their circumstances\nbe explored, but let the inquiry and its results be kept apart from\nall rent-paying land. The forces which determine that one farm can pay\nrent and another none are the same for both, either by their presence\nor their absence; but the two farms have no connection with each\nother, except as suffering effects from common causes. When this great\ntruth is seen and acknowledged, and when Political Economy has ceased\nto talk of the non rent-paying land regulating the amount of all rent,\nthe world which it addresses, and for whom it exists, will be won over\nto listen to its teaching on rent and to think it real.\n\nAnd now let us face the question, simply, What is rent? It is\nnecessary to distinguish here between two different meanings of the\nword rent. It is a legal word, connected with the hire of land or\nforms of real property connected with land, as houses, rooms, and the\nlike. Agricultural rent is different in nature from the rent of\nrooms. The rents paid for a house or rooms in a large building such as\nGresham House have no relation to any particular business carried on\nin them, much less do they depend on the success of that business.\nAgricultural rent, on the contrary, is given for the very purpose of\nengaging in a distinct business, agriculture; and the profits of\nthat business enter largely, in the settlement of rent, into the\ncalculations of the lender and the hirer of the land. It is of\nagricultural rent exclusively that we are speaking on the present\noccasion.\n\nIn order to make a correct analysis of the subject, let us place\nourselves in the position of a farmer who is offered the tenancy of a\nparticular farm. It is necessary, further, to form a clear conception\nof the fact, and to bear it constantly in mind, that in all acts of\nselling or hiring, it is the purchaser or hirer, not the seller or the\nlender, who ultimately decides whether an exchange shall take place.\nWhatever be the price asked, be it high or be it low, the buyer by\ngiving or refusing it decrees whether a commercial transaction shall\nbe carried out. It is not the landlord but the tenant who will in the\nlast resort determine what the rent shall be. The landlord may select\namongst competing farmers the man who will pay the highest rent; still\nit will be the judgment of that tenant that will decide at last, not\nonly what the amount of the rent shall be, but even whether the farm\nshall be let at all. The inquiry thus becomes, What are the thoughts,\nand what the feelings consequent on those thoughts, which traverse the\nmind of the farmer? He is seeking to borrow the use of land in order\nto engage in the agricultural business; his motive is profit, such an\namount of profit as will, after repaying all his outlay of every kind,\nyield him the fitting reward for his efforts and his skill. His object\nis to gain a living out of his farm; and his calculations turn on the\ninquiry, on what terms of borrowing the use of the land he shall be\nable to obtain the ordinary profits of trade. Let us accompany him in\nthese calculations.\n\nThe landlord opens the debate by naming the rent which he requires\nfor the farm. The question for the tenant becomes, Can the farm afford\nsuch a rent? Here, obviously, the productive power of the soil will\npresent itself as the first and most momentous subject of inquiry.\nIt is a productive machine that the farmer is seeking to hire. The\nstrength of that machine, its capacity to turn out much and good work,\nis the great point to ascertain. The quality of the soil itself is\nclearly a most important element of the problem; but it is far from\nbeing the only force which constitutes the productive power of a farm.\nWhat the climate is at the particular locality is a consideration of\ngreat weight. Good land in a rainy district will yield an inferior\nrent to land of the same quality under a more genial sun and a drier\natmosphere. Then the water connected with the farm will come under\nexamination. Will it be capable of creating water-meadows, which have\nsuch a lifting power for rent in many parts of England? The fertility,\ntoo, of the several fields of the farm will differ. The intelligent\ntenant will feel himself called upon to estimate what amount of crop,\nwhat quantity of food for cattle, with his skill and capital, he\nmay reasonably expect to produce. This is the basis of the whole\ncomputation--the quantity and quality of the produce that he can\nfairly reckon on obtaining. And he will not be governed solely by the\nthen existing state of the land. If he is an able agriculturist, he\nwill form a shrewd guess of what he will be able to make it yield by\nproper treatment. And it is very probable that he will prefer to pay\na high rent for good land rather than a lower rent for inferior soil,\nbecause he may feel a well-founded confidence in his own resources\nto work up the greater power of a strong, if even obstinate, farm to\nlarger results.\n\nHaving completed the first stage, and formed his estimate of the crops\nand cattle which the land will yield, the tenant will now address\nhimself to the very grave question of the cost which his manufacturing\nindustry will entail. Here he will encounter forces which pay small\nrespect to the beautiful symmetry of hypothetical economic science,\nand often influence the amount of rent far more powerfully than the\nfertility of the land. Will his farm be amongst the light and sunny\nhills of Surrey; or will it be embedded in the stubborn clay of the\nSussex weald? Will he need four horses or two only for each of his\nploughs? The crop may be the same for both, but the cost will be\nwidely different, and may create much resistance to the landlord's\nrent. If he appeals to steam-power for help, he must ask himself how\nfar off he will be from the coal-field, how near to him will be the\nstation at which he will buy his coals. So, again, with his manure.\nWill the lime and the marl be close to his borders, or must he send\nhis carts long distances to the pit or the railway? Then comes the\nserious question of the place where his buyers dwell; how far he is\nfrom his market; what expense of carriage he will be put to. It may be\nhis good fortune to be offered a farm in the neighbourhood of London,\nor some great manufacturing town. A weighty rent, it is true, may be\ndemanded of him, even some ten or fifteen pounds an acre; but this\nwill not extinguish the attractiveness of such a farm. Better markets,\nabundant supplies of manure, cultivation by the spade, and high\nprices, may possess higher claims in his eyes than a small rent in a\nrural region.\n\nBut the computing farmer's arithmetic is not yet over; he has very\nformidable figures still to face. His land may be burdened with heavy\ncharges of an exceptional kind. His tithe may be unusually large; his\npoor-rate peculiarly severe; and the school-rate may acutely try his\ntemper and his purse. Worse still, agricultural wages in his locality\nmay be inordinately high, for wide are the discrepancies between wages\nin different parts of England, and the worth of the wage may not be\nrepaid by labourers demoralized by trade unions. The long arithmetical\narray of heavy burdens will be duly noted by the incoming tenant, and\ncarefully placed to the debit of the debated rent; but one thing he\nwill not do--he will not search out the position of the farm offered\nin the brilliant series of ascending fertility, and comfort himself\nwith the reflection that economical science furnishes him with the\nassurance that a farm standing so high above the margin of cultivation\nmust necessarily be able to pay the rent attached to that position,\nall these exceptional charges of cost of production notwithstanding.\n\nOne item of cost still remains, which the intelligent tenant will\ninvestigate before he contracts to take the farm. He will inquire into\nthe condition of the farm--into the outfit, so to speak, which it will\nrequire for the full performance of the work which it is fitted to\nperform. He will endeavour to ascertain the amount of draining which\nhas been effected, the number and state of the farm-buildings, as\nwell as the amount of unexhausted improvements of various kinds which\neither the landlord or the previous tenant has laid out upon the land.\nThese constitute no real part of the land's fertility, though they\nincrease its power to produce: they are fixed capital in the carrying\nout of the agricultural business. And here it is important to note\nthat the tenant will not inquire into the amount of money, as such,\nwhich the landlord has spent upon his land. He will not pay an\nadditional pound of rent because the landlord can appeal to large\nfigures denoting the capital he has laid out on his fields. This, by\nitself alone, does not concern the tenant; but it does concern him\ngreatly to learn the actual condition of the farm; and beyond doubt\nthe landlord will be able to demand increased rent, and the tenant\nwill be perfectly willing to pay it, to the extent that the outlay on\ndraining and other improvements has augmented the actual produce\nof the farm. The tenant looks solely to the working power of the\nagricultural machine and the results which he may obtain from it;\noutside of this consideration he takes no account of what outlay the\nlandlord has incurred, any more than of the price which he has given\nfor the property. The tenant will be well aware that if that machinery\ndoes not exist, it must be provided by means of an understanding with\nthe landlord, necessarily involving some cost for himself: if he finds\nit on the ground and at work, he will set down in his calculation an\nincreased estimate of produce without any debit against rent for\ncost of construction--he will feel that he is hiring a more powerful\nmachine.\n\nThe calculating tenant has now formed an estimate of what he may\nassume as the amount of produce which he can procure from the farm,\nas also of the cost which the obtaining of that produce in the\ngiven locality will entail. He thus reaches the third stage of his\ninvestigation--the price which he may reckon on realizing for the\nproducts he has raised. Here the peculiar nature of the agricultural\nbusiness reveals itself. A man who enters upon a new industry, or\nerects a new mill, or opens a fresh mine, will not inquire for a\nparticular price which he may adopt as the basis of his computations.\nHe will think only of the extent of the demand which exists for\nthe articles that he intends to manufacture. If it is strong and\nincreasing, he will feel sure that the consumers will repay the whole\ncost of production, interest and capital included, and in addition\nthe legitimate profit attached to the business. If he hires or buys\nmachinery, he will pay the price belonging to it in its own market as\na manufactured article, precisely as if he were making purchases in\nshops; the seller of a steam-engine will not ask how much profit the\nengine will create for the factory. No doubt, if a site must be bought\nor hired for the erection of the mill, a higher price for the land\nwill be encountered, in consequence of the prosperity of trade in the\nparticular town or district; but the rate of profit will not rise in\nthe discussion between the landowner and the trader. The price of the\nland will be regulated by the force of the existing demand for land,\na demand which, of course, will gather strength from the swelling\nprofits realized in the trade.\n\nThe position of the farmer who is seeking to discover what is the\nproper consideration for the hire of a farm is radically different\nfrom that of an ordinary manufacturer. As all land in England can be\nsaid to pay rent, it is clear that its products are sold at such a\nprofit as enables the tenant to reward his landlord for his loan. The\nsale of what he makes is therefore certain, but the price which\nit will fetch is anything but certain. His business is subject to\ninfluences which very materially affect the quantity of his products,\nand still more the prices which they will command. He is dominated\nby the seasons; but it may be argued that their fluctuations may be\nguarded against by basing the calculation on their average character.\nThe statement is well founded, and every sensible farmer will take the\naverage season as his rule in computing; yet even the average season,\nas recent experience has too sadly shown, may sweep over a large cycle\nof years with very disturbing results. But there are other and very\nformidable difficulties which the farmer is called upon to face. The\nprice which his produce will command depends on forces of great and\nvarying power which are entirely beyond his own control, and often\nare incapable of being estimated beforehand. He is necessarily met by\nforeign competition; and that competition itself is stronger or weaker\naccording to the commercial position of the countries which bring\nit to bear. Further, the state of the home market itself cannot be\nprejudged. The produce of English land will certainly be demanded\nand sold; but its price is vastly influenced by the prosperity or\nadversity of English trade. The rate, for instance, at which meat will\nbe sold will vary prodigiously according as the multitudes of British\nworkmen are earning high or low wages. The fortunes of foreign nations\nwill weigh on the cultivating farmer; they are buyers of English\nwares, and their financial condition will act on British manufactures\nand recoil, for good or evil, on British agriculture.\n\nThe combined action of these manifold and diverse forces generates a\nspecial and very important effect. It imprints on the hire of land\na distinct and unique feature of its own; it imparts its peculiar\ncharacteristic to rent. The position of the farmer is not that of a\nman engaged in a business, and buying or hiring a machine which is\nrequired for carrying it on; it is rather the situation of one who is\nexamining whether he can reasonably enter upon the business at all.\nOne feeling governs that situation; the tenant must be able to live by\nit by means of a natural profit after all expenses have been repaid.\nThus, the payment for the use of the land takes the form of handing\nover to the landowner all excess of profit above the fitting reward\nfor the farmer. This seems manifestly the best method for giving the\nrequired security to the tenant, whilst it provides the lender of\nthe use of the land a reward just in itself and compatible with the\ncontinuous cultivation of the soil. Such a system is not unacceptable\nto the landlord; he cannot hope to maintain a fixed rent which the\nreturns yielded by the agricultural business do not furnish. To insist\nupon such a condition would be simply to compel the farmer to renounce\nthe farm. And he will not obtain such a rent from any other tenant;\nfor the one he dismisses has no other motive for leaving except the\nfact that the farm will not provide such a rent. On the other hand, if\nhe is dissatisfied with the rent offered by the tenant, he has in the\ncompetition of tenants desirous of hiring the farm a sure test for\nascertaining whether the offer is just or deficient.\n\nIt follows, from the preceding analysis, that rent depends on the\nprices realized by agricultural produce compared with the cost of\ntheir production, the farming profits included. A high price does\nnot in every case imply a correspondingly high rent, for the cost of\nraising agricultural produce varies immensely in different localities;\nstill, as a rule, elevated prices will raise up rents with them. The\nsame truth holds good of every business: it must yield repayment\nof all cost of manufacturing, and reward the manufacturer with the\nnecessary profit, or it will cease to exist. But agricultural price\nencounters two serious embarrassments not to be found to an equal\ndegree in other trades. It is, in the first place, powerfully acted\nupon by the vicissitudes of the weather: a bountiful harvest, coming\nin contact with great commercial profits, brings a full and often an\naugmented price, to the great advantage of the farmer; a poor\nharvest, falling on a depressed trade, often fails to reap a price\ncorresponding with the diminution of the supply. There is but one\nremedy wherewith to meet the fluctuations of such a market--a remedy,\nunfortunately, too little heeded by most farmers. The great law of the\naverage harvest must be ever borne in mind, ought ever to govern the\nconduct of the intelligent farmer: he is bound, by the very nature\nof his business, to reserve the excess of profits of the good year to\nbalance the deficient return of the failing crop. His rent ought\nto be, probably is, founded on this principle; his practice often\nexhibits profuse self-indulgence under the temptations of the\nprosperous time, in utter thoughtlessness about the future.\n\nWe have now reached the full explanation of rent. It is surplus\nprofit--that is, excess of profit after the repayment of the whole\ncost of production, beyond the legitimate profit which belongs to the\ntenant as a manufacturer of agricultural produce. The interest which\nhe would have reaped from placing capital which he has devoted to the\nfarm in some safe investment, such as consols or railway debentures,\nforms necessarily a portion of the cost of production. He would have\nrealized some 4 per cent. on the investment without risk or effort\nof any kind. This interest constitutes no reward for engaging in\nagriculture.\n\nIt remains now to consider certain important consequences which flow\nfrom this explanation of rent. In the first place, it is evident that\nthree separate incomes are derived from agriculture, whilst two only\nmake their appearance in all other industries. In common with\nthem agriculture furnishes reward or income for two classes of\npersons--wages for labourers and profit for the employer. There the\nsimilarity ends. A third income makes its appearance for a third\nperson--rent for the landlord. This rent is not an ordinary\nconsideration for hiring some useful machine; if it were a\ncompensation of this nature, it would necessarily take its place\namongst the items composing the cost of production. It is a part of\nthe profit won, dependent in no way on the value of the property nor\non the price at which it was bought, but purely and simply on the\ndegree of the profit realized. It is a part of that profit, estimated\nand paid as what remains over--a surplus.\n\nBut how comes it to pass that an ordinary manufacture does not yield\nor pay any such third income? For a simple and decisive reason. A\nManchester manufacturer cannot permanently earn a higher profit than\nbelongs to his trade. If we suppose 10 per cent. to be the natural\nprofit of that trade, and he persistently realizes 18, other mills\nwill be opened by new men entering into the business, and this process\nwill be continued till his profits are reduced to their legitimate\nlevel. It is otherwise with farming. If a tenant reaps 10 per cent.\ncontinuously from his farm, when competitors are willing to be content\nwith 8, the landlord will quickly make the discovery, and will add the\nsurplus 2 to the rent he requires. He will obtain the income, because\n8 per cent. is judged by the farming world to be an adequate reward\nfor engaging in agriculture, and because no additional land is to be\nfound for the agricultural business.\n\n2. It is clear that tithes, poor-rates, and other permanent charges,\nfall upon the landlord's rent, and not on the farmer's profit.\nThey diminish rent. This is a point on which much misunderstanding\nprevails. A loud outcry is raised amongst tenants at this time of\nagricultural suffering against the heavy payments demanded of them\nfor special taxes imposed upon land; a strong agitation is rising to\nobtain their repeal, as being unjustifiable wrongs inflicted on the\nmost meritorious of industries. It is not perceived that these\ncharges figured as items in the cost of production when the farmer\nwas calculating what rent the farm would warrant him to pay: they\ndiminished the rent at the cost of the landlord. Tithes and rates took\ntheir places in the estimate of the debit side quite as really as\nthe number of horses, or the quantity of manure, which the farm would\nrequire. We have seen that rent makes its appearance only after every\nexpense has been provided for, and a legitimate profit secured; then,\nand not till then, the calculation of the rent begins. If the farming\nworld succeeds in removing these burdens, wholly or in part, from\nthe shoulders of the tenants, there can be no doubt that rents will\nproportionately rise. The landlords would argue, with entire justice,\nthat all other circumstances remaining the same, the collective\nfarming profit had become larger by the disappearance of these taxes,\nand as the tenant was entitled only to his natural rate of profit, the\nincrease of surplus would legitimately belong to him. If the tenant\nrepelled such a claim, the landlord would be easily able to obtain the\nrent he claimed from competing farmers who would be satisfied with the\nnatural profit of the business.\n\nOne exception, however, must be allowed to this conclusion--the case,\nnamely, of a tenant who, upon a long lease, had contracted to pay a\ndefinite rent for many years. Such a tenant has taken upon himself the\nchances of the cost of production during a lengthened period, it\nmay be nineteen or twenty-one years, being larger or smaller. If it\ndiminishes during the interval, he gains: if it increases, he loses.\nPractically he has insured the landlord's rent, during the continuance\nof the lease, against diminution. For all increase or diminution of\nrates he fares as if he were the landlord.\n\n3. A third very important deduction follows from the nature of the\nprocess which determines rent. Rent does not increase the price of\nagricultural produce; it does not make bread dearer. Rent is the\nconsequence, not the creator, of price. Here the difference between\nagriculture and manufacturing trades is vital. The hire or purchase\nof machinery forms necessarily a part of the cost of manufacturing the\ngoods: it must be paid for by the price realized, or the goods will\nnot be made. On the other hand, the consideration to be given for the\nuse of the land does not enter into the tenant's estimate of his cost\nof production. He does not direct his inquiry to the right rent till\nafter he has ascertained what the farm will produce, the cost of\nobtaining it, and the price it will fetch. He then discovers what the\nprofit will be: from it he takes his own necessary share; what is over\nhe hands to the landlord as rent. He does not, like the manufacturer,\ninsist upon a price which must be obtained, for otherwise he would not\nbe able to pay for the use of the machine he borrows; he simply takes\nthe price which he finds in the market, makes himself reasonably sure\nof the profit which rewards him, and the landlord must take the chance\nof what rent will remain over, whether large or small. Rent exists\nbecause a selling price is found which yields a surplus, an excess\nof profit beyond what the tenant requires. If price gives no surplus\nprofit, the landlord will get no rent, and he must farm the land\nhimself, or sell it to a farmer.\n\nBut there is a peculiarity in the agricultural market which exercises\na very powerful influence in raising rents. Most manufactured articles\ncan be dispensed with, or their consumption greatly lessened, if\ntheir cost of production is largely increased, or the means of buying\ndiminished. It is otherwise with food: it must be had, must be bought,\nif any means of purchasing it exist. The effect of this force on a\ncountry situated like England is very marked. England cannot supply\nfood for more than half of her population; the other half must be\nprocured from abroad. Now, the principle which governs the price of\nindispensable food is the law, that the price paid for the dearest\narticle--say, a loaf of bread--which must and will be bought, will\nimpose itself on all like articles which are actually purchased. When\nthe loaf made in England was cheaper than any imported from abroad,\nthen the price of the English loaf rose to the price of the dearest\nforeign loaves which were sold and purchased in the English markets.\nThis extra-addition of price was a pure surplus of profit received by\nthe English grower of wheat; the cost of production was not changed,\nnor his requirement of profit for himself augmented. The gain he thus\nrealized, being absolutely surplus profit, passed to the landowner.\nThe need of foreign corn raised his rent. But the picture has a\nreverse side. It may well happen that the foreign corn landed in\nEngland will be saleable at a lower price than the English. If the\nsupply can be furnished in sufficient quantity to provide bread enough\nfor all England, the English corn in that case must inevitably sink to\nthe level of the foreign--its price will fall, the profit realized\non its sale may indefinitely sink, and a great reduction of rents\nthroughout England may well be the inevitable consequence. The\nonly weapon wherewith to fight off the disaster would be such a\nmodification of British agriculture as would lead to the cultivation\nof other crops than wheat.\n\nHere it seems desirable to notice briefly some remarks addressed by\nProfessor Thorold Rogers to the _Daily News_, of October 30th, 1879;\nfor though they are in the main true, they might easily give rise to\nmischievous misconception. He writes--\"There is no doubt that rent is\nwealth to the recipient, and a means of profit to those who trade with\nthe recipient; but except in so far as it represents the advantageous\noutlay of capital, it is no more national wealth than the public funds\nare.\" Surely this is to ignore the fact that the sources from\nwhich rent and the dividends on the public funds are derived differ\nradically in nature. The dividends on consols are the fruit of taxes\nlevied on the whole people of England, and distributed as such to\nnational creditors, which they may consume as they please. Rent is\npart of a profit earned by an industry useful to the country. A tax\nand a profit are not necessarily the same thing. No doubt a profit\nswollen by a monopoly price is equivalent to a tax: and a rent derived\nfrom \"the price of the produce of land, raised by excessive demand and\nstinted supply,\" would be a forced contribution from consumers. But\nis all rent the child of monopoly? May it not well happen, does it\nnot constantly happen, that rents are high by the side of cheap\ncorn, because the agricultural business is largely productive through\nefforts made by landlords in improving the powers of the soil? Are\nthey to be limited down in their reward to the pure interest which\nthey could have obtained for their capital from investments in bonds\nand debentures? Is not part of the profit realized legitimately due\nto them, as profit accomplished by a commercial enterprise? If the\nreturns on improvements made by landowners on their estates were\nlimited to the interest which they could have obtained from consols,\nwould not the motive for making such improvements be sadly wanting?\nIt would sound strange in great manufacturing towns to be told that\nflowing profits are no increase of the public wealth, that they are\ntaxes resembling the public funds, and must be swept away down to the\nlowest sum compatible with the existence of the industry.\n\nAnd what must be said of the ugly word, monopoly, which is so freely\nflung against the owners of rent? There is a sound of unfairness in\nit; of unearned gains won without effort from the fortunes of others.\nHow is such a reproach to be repelled? To parry the blow does not\nseem to be so difficult. There is, indeed, a kind of monopoly which\nis susceptible of no defence, a monopoly of manufacture conferred on\na favoured few, by the arbitrary decree of the law, founded on no\nsuperior claim of merit or capacity, and resulting in inflated prices\nand inferiority of service rendered. Such were the monopolies whose\nabolition an indignant public opinion extorted from Queen Elizabeth.\nBut a superior advantage of production or sale attached by nature\nto particular individuals or societies belongs to a wholly different\nclass. Life is full of such monopolies. They are inherent and\nindestructible. The vineyards of France possess a monopoly of\nincomparable wine which will for all time earn amazing profits paid by\nvoluntary buyers. England enjoys a like monopoly in the juxtaposition\nof her coal and iron, which have created a trade that no other nation\ncan rival. The eloquent barrister, the acute physician, the brilliant\nartist, the quick-eyed inventor of machines, the soul-stirring singer,\nall are endowed with a personal monopoly resulting in great wealth.\nAre the men and nations who reap the splendid fruit of such a\nsuperiority to be stigmatized as despoilers of their fellow-citizens?\nIs rent, the offspring of a like advantage, to be painted as a tribute\nexacted from fellow-countrymen compelled to buy food?\n\nBut it will be said, change the tenure of the land, and the wrong\nwill disappear. But what system will clear away superior produce and\nincreased price? Certainly not a universal peasant-proprietor class.\nSuch peasants would still possess the command of higher prices\nconferred by fertility and situation, and by means of such prices they\nwould gather up swollen profits which would in reality be rent. Then\nlet the land be owned by the whole community in common possession,\nexclaim French Socialists, and let its fruits be distributed in equal\nshares to every inhabitant. But even in such an extreme case it would\nbe impossible to efface monopoly. The able-bodied man who received the\nsame share of produce as the weak dwarf, the clever artisan who was\nunable to earn a special reward for his fructifying intelligence,\nwould inevitably reap a diminution of labour and time. His higher\nfaculties would earn a monopoly benefit in leisure.\n\nThe conclusion to be drawn is evident. Nature has scattered monopolies\nbroadcast, higher profits, over the world. She has ordained that they\nshall ever exist. It is futile to stigmatize rent as an exceptional\noffender against equality.\n\n4. Finally, one more truth comes forth from this explanation, which\nhas a most important bearing on the efficient cultivation of land. The\nlandowner and the tenant are joint partners in a common business. They\nshare a common profit--the first portion belongs to the farmer, the\nremainder to the landlord. They are both interested in promoting the\nsuccess of the agriculturist. If the cultivation of the soil thrives\neven under the shortest leases, the rent is not quickly raised in\nconsequence of the rising profit--whilst under a long lease very\nconsiderable gains may be won before a new settlement of the rent can\ncome up for discussion. This partnership brings a powerful motive to\nact on the landlord to give help in developing the efficiency of the\nfarming. He knows that if he invests capital in draining and other\nimprovements, he increases the productive power of his land, he is\nlaying the foundation of enlarged results, and he cannot fail to\nperceive that land thus improved must yield a bigger profit, of which\nthe surplus part, the rents, must necessarily be greater. Thus, an\nimportant benefit is acquired, not only for the joint partners, but\nalso for the whole population of the country. Such processes generate\nmore abundant and cheaper food. The landlord who never visits his\nfarms, never thinks of them except on rent day, is blind to his own\ninterest, is forgetting that ownership of land is a partnership in a\nbusiness. He neglects his own enrichment, and leaves needed resources\nfor the nation unused. The active and intelligent landlord, on the\ncontrary, watches the march of agriculture. He observes where the\nmachine, the soil, requires improvement, he notices the farming\nqualities of the tenant, he lives on friendly relations with him, and\ndeliberates with him on expanding the productive power of the farm.\nHis rent becomes larger--not only by obtaining interest on the capital\nlaid out, but also by sharing in the additional profit which that\ncapital is sure to engender; and that addition will not be grudged by\nthe tenant. He, too, will have prospered by the help of more powerful\nmachinery in his trade, for he is certain of getting an augmented\nprofit from the capital laid out by the landlord. Whatever may be said\nof the system of land-revenue which prevails in England, one merit\nit certainly possesses: it tends to bring the capital of a wealthy\nlandowner to take part in enlarging the power of the land and the\namount of its produce.\n\n  BONAMY PRICE.\n\n    [Footnote 1: It is much to be regretted that Professor Jevons\n    in his \"Primer of Political Economy\" should have omitted in\n    his explanation of rent the action of the forces which Ricardo\n    and Mill sum up in the word situation. He affirms \"that rent\n    arises from the fact that different pieces of land are not\n    equally fertile,\" and that \"the rent of better land consists\n    of the surplus of its produce over that of the poorest\n    cultivated land.\" How is it then that inferior land near great\n    towns pays a much higher rent than very good land in the\n    heart of a rural district, far away from railways or canals,\n    burdened with high poor-rates, and sorely in want of lime or\n    other distant manures? Ricardo himself admits, and so does\n    Mill, that if all lands were equally fertile, and, it may be\n    added, equally well situated as to other forces, they would\n    still pay rent to their owners.]\n\n\n\n\nBUDDHISM AND JAINISM.\n\n\nIn previous papers I have traced the progress of Indian religious\nthought through the various stages of Vedism, Br[=a]hmanism,\nVaishnavism, S\u00b4aivism, and S\u00b4[=a]ktism, and have pointed out that\nall these systems more or less run into, and in a manner overlap, one\nanother. We have seen that among the primitive [=A]ryans the air,\nthe fire, and the sun, were believed to contain within themselves\nmysterious and irresistible forces, capable of effecting tremendous\nresults either for good or evil. They were therefore personified,\ndeified, and worshipped. Some regarded them as manifestations of\none Supreme Controller of the Universe; others as separate cosmical\ndivinities with separate powers and attributes.\n\nIf the religion of the ancient Indo-[=A]ryans was a form of Theism,\nit was a Theism of a very uncertain and unsettled character. It was a\nreligious creed based on a vague belief in the sovereignty of unseen\nnatural forces. Such a creed might fairly be called monotheism,\nhenotheism, polytheism, or pantheism, according to the particular\nstandpoint from which it is regarded. But it was not, in its earliest\norigin, idolatry. Its simple ritual was the natural outcome of each\nman's earnest effort to express devotional feelings in his own way.\nUnhappily it did not long retain its simplicity. The Br[=a]hmans\nsoon took advantage of the growth of religious ideas among a people\nnaturally pious and superstitious. They gradually cumbered the\nsimplicity of worship with elaborate ceremonial. They persuaded the\npeople that propitiatory offerings of all kinds were needed to secure\nthe favour of the beings they worshipped, and that such sacrifices\ncould not be performed without the repetition of prayers by a\nregularly ordained and trained priesthood. But this was not all.\nThey developed and formulated a pantheistic philosophy, based on the\nphysiolatry of the Veda, and overlaid it with subtle metaphysical and\nontological speculations. They identified the Supreme Being with\nall the phenomena of Nature, and maintained that the Br[=a]hmans\nthemselves were his principal human manifestation, the sole\nrepositories and exponents of all religious and philosophical truth,\nthe sole mediators between earth and heaven, the sole link between men\nand gods. This combination of ritualism and philosophy, which\ntogether constituted what is commonly called Br[=a]hmanism, gradually\nsuperseded the simple forms of Vedic religion. In process of time,\nhowever, the extravagance of Br[=a]hmanical ceremonial, and the\ntyranny of priestcraft, led to repeated reactions. Efforts after\nsimplicity of worship and freedom of thought were made by various\nenergetic religious leaders at various periods. More than one reformer\narose, who attempted to deliver the people from the bondage of\na complex ceremonial, and the intolerable incubus of an arrogant\nsacerdotalism.\n\nIt was natural that the most successful opposition to priestcraft\nshould have originated in the caste next in rank to the Br[=a]hmans.\nGautama (afterwards called \"the Buddha\") was a man of the military\nclass (Kshatriya). He was the son of a petty chief who ruled over a\nsmall principality called Kapila-vastu, north of the Ganges; but he\nwas not the sole originator of the reactionary movement. He had,\nin all probability, been preceded by other less conspicuous social\nreformers, and other leaders of sceptical inquiry. Or other such\nleaders may have been contemporaneous with himself. We have already\npointed out that the philosophy he enunciated was not in its general\nscope and bearing very different from that of Br[=a]hmanism. The\nBr[=a]hmans called their system of doctrines \"Dharma,\"[1] and the\nBuddha called his by the same name. He recognised no distinguishing\nterm like Buddhism. His simple aim was to remove every merely\nsacerdotal doctrine from the national religion--to cut away every\nuseless excrescence, and to sweep away every corrupting incrustation.\nHis own doctrines of liberty, equality, and general benevolence\ntowards all creatures, ensured the popularity of his teaching; while\nthe example he himself set of asceticism and self-mortification,\nsecured him a large number of devoted personal adherents. For it is\nremarkable that just as the Founder of Christianity was Himself a Jew,\nand required none of His followers to give up their true Jewish creed,\nor Jewish usages, so the founder of Buddhism was himself a Hind[=u],\nand did not require his adherents to give up every essential principle\nof ordinary Hind[=u]ism, or renounce all the religious observances of\ntheir ancestors.[2]\n\nYet it cannot be denied that Buddhism was very different from\nBr[=a]hmanism, and it is a remarkable fact that, with all his personal\npopularity, the atheistic philosophy of Gautama was unsuited to the\nmasses of the people. His negations, abstractions, and theories of\nthe non-eternity and ultimate extinction of soul, never commended\nthemselves to the popular mind.\n\nIt seemed, indeed, probable that Buddhism was destined to become\nextinct with its founder. The Buddha died, like other men, and,\naccording to his own doctrine, became absolutely extinct. Nothing\nremained but the relics of his burnt body, which were distributed\nin all directions. No successor was ready to step into his place. No\nliving representative was competent to fill up the void caused by his\ndeath. Nothing seemed more unlikely than that the mere recollection\nof his teaching and example, though perpetuated by the rapid\nmultiplication of shrines, symbols, and images of his person,[3]\nshould have power to secure the continuance of his system in his own\nnative country for more than ten centuries, and to disseminate his\ndoctrines over the greater part of Asia. What, then, was the secret\nof its permanence and diffusion? It really had no true permanence.\nBuddhism never lived on in its first form, and never spread anywhere\nwithout taking from other systems quite as much as it imparted. The\ntolerant spirit which was its chief distinguishing characteristic\npermitted its adherents to please themselves in adopting extraneous\ndoctrines. Hence it happened that the Buddhists were always ready\nto acquiesce in, and even conform to, the religious practices of the\ncountries to which they migrated, and to clothe their own simple\ncreed in, so to speak, a many-coloured vesture of popular legends and\nsuperstitious ideas.\n\nEven in India, where the Buddha's memory continued to be perpetuated\nby strong personal recollections and local associations, as well as\nby relics, symbols, and images, his doctrines rapidly lost their\ndistinctive character, and ultimately, as we have already shown,\nmerged in the Br[=a]hmanism whence they originally sprang.\n\nNor is there any historical evidence to prove that the Buddhists were\nfinally driven out of India by violent means. Doubtless, occasional\npersecutions occurred in particular places at various times, and it\nis well ascertained that fanatical, enthusiastic Br[=a]hmans, such as\nKum[=a]rila and S\u00b4ankara, occasionally instigated deeds of blood and\nviolence. But the final disappearance of Buddhism is probably due\nto the fact that the two systems, instead of engaging in constant\nconflict, were gradually drawn towards each other by mutual sympathy\nand attraction; and that, originally related like father and child,\nthey ended by consorting together in unnatural union and intercourse.\nThe result of this union was the production of the hybrid systems of\nVaishnavism and S\u00b4aivism, both of which in their lineaments bear\na strong family resemblance to Buddhism. The distinctive names of\nBuddhism were dropped, but the distinctive features of the system\nsurvived. The Vaishnavas were Buddhists in their doctrines of liberty\nand equality, in their abstinence from injury (_a-hins[=a]_), in\ntheir desire for the preservation of life, in their hero-worship,\ndeification of humanity, and fondness for images; while the S\u00b4aivas\nwere Buddhists in their love for self-mortification and austerity,\nas well as in their superstitious dread of the power of demoniacal\nagencies. What, then, became of the atheistical philosophy and\nagnostic materialism of the Buddhistic creed? Those doctrines were no\nmore expelled from India than were other Buddhistic ideas. They found\na home, under changed names, among various sects, but especially in\na kindred system which has survived to the present day, and may be\nconveniently called Jainism.[4] Here, then, we are brought face to\nface with the special subject of our present paper: What are the\npeculiar characteristics of the Jaina creed?\n\nTo give an exhaustive reply to such a question will scarcely be\npossible until the sacred books of Buddhists and Jainas (or, as they\nare commonly called, Jains) have been more thoroughly investigated.\nAll that I can do at present is to give a general outline of Jaina\ndoctrines, and to indicate the principal points in which they either\nagree with or differ from those of Buddhists and Br[=a]hmans.[4]\nPerhaps the first point to which attention may be directed is that\nrecent investigations have tended to show that Buddhism and Jainism\nwere not related to each other as parent and child, but rather as\nchildren of a common parent, born at different intervals, though at\nabout the same period of time, and marked by distinct characteristics,\nthough possessing a strong family resemblance. Both these systems, in\nfact, were the product of Br[=a]hmanical rationalistic thought, which\nwas itself a child of Br[=a]hmanism. Both were forms of materialistic\nphilosophy engendered from separate kindred germs.\n\nFor there can be no doubt that different lines of philosophical\nspeculation were developed by the Br[=a]hmans at a very early period.\nAll such speculations were regarded by them as legitimate phases of\ntheir own religious system. In some localities where Br[=a]hmanism\nwas strong and dominant, rationalism was restrained within orthodox\nlimits. In other places it diverged into unorthodox sceptical\ninquiries. In others into rank heresy and schism. Buddhism and Jainism\nrepresented different schools of heretical philosophical speculation\nwhich were in all likelihood nearly synchronous in their origin. That\nis to say, Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, and P[=a]rs\u00b4van[=a]tha,\nthe probable founder of Jainism, may have lived about the same time\nin different parts of India. Nor is it unreasonable to conjecture\nthat both these freethinkers may have followed closely on Kapila, the\nreputed founder of the S[=a]nkhya system and typical representative of\nrationalistic Br[=a]hmanism.[5] By far the most popular of the three\nwas Gautama, commonly called the Buddha. The influence of his personal\ncharacter, combined with the extraordinary persuasiveness of his\nteaching, was irresistible. His system spread with his followers and\nadmirers in every direction, and threw all kindred systems into the\nshade. Very soon Buddhistic doctrines leavened the religions of the\nwhole Indian peninsula, from Afgh[=a]nist[=a]n to Ceylon. They found\ntheir way into every home. They became domesticated in the cottages of\npeasants and palaces of kings. As to Jainism, centuries elapsed before\nit emerged from the obscurity to which the greater popularity of\nBuddhism had consigned it. Nor, even when its rival was extinguished,\ndid it ever rise above the rank of an insignificant sect. At present\nthe total number of Jainas in all India does not exceed 400,000, at\nleast half of whom are found in the Bombay Presidency.\n\nYet it is not impossible that the first opposition to sacerdotalism\nmay have been due to Jaina influences, and that Indian rationalistic\nspeculation may have been inaugurated by early Jaina leaders. We know\nthat the Buddhist king As\u00b4oka, in his inscriptions--which are referred\nto the third century B.C.--mentions the Jainas under the name of\nNirgrantha, as if well established and well known in his time. We\nknow, too, what has happened in our own country. Not long ago there\nwas a reaction from extreme Evangelical religious thought in England.\nBut because that reactionary movement is called by the name of a\nparticular leader, it by no means follows that he was chronologically\nthe first to set it in action. In the same way it may possibly turn\nout to be a fact that the Jaina P[=a]rs\u00b4van[=a]tha, rather than the\nBuddha Gautama, was the first excogitator of the heretical ideas and\ntheories common to both. It seems to me, indeed, not improbable that\nJainism, which is now at length assimilating itself to Hind[=u]ism,\nmaintained its ground more persistently in India, not only because,\nunlike Buddhism, it sullenly refused to fraternize with Br[=a]hmanism,\nand to court converts from other creeds, but because the lines of\ndemarcation which separated it from the orthodox system were in some\nessential points more sharp and decided than those which separated\nBuddhism. It is, at any rate, a fact that the Jainas claim for their\nsystem a prior origin to that of Buddhism, and even affirm that\nGautama Buddha was a pupil of their chief Jina, Mah[=a]v[=i]ra. Nor\nwill it surprise us that the legendary history of Mah[=a]v[=i]ra, who\nsucceeded Pars\u00b4van[=a]tha, and was the first real propagator of\nthe Jaina creed, favours the theory of such a priority. True,\nMah[=a]v[=i]ra is described as the son of Siddh[=a]rtha, which is an\nepithet given to the Buddha. But he is also said to have had a pupil\nnamed Gautama, and his death is fixed by the concurrent testimony of\nboth parties of Jainas, who follow different reckonings, at a date\ncorresponding to about B.C. 526 or 527, the usual date assigned by\nmodern research to the Nirv[=a]na or death of Buddha being 477 or 478.\n\nBut it must not be supposed that P[=a]rs\u00b4van[=a]tha and his successor\nMah[=a]v[=i]ra, are regarded by the Jainas as their first supreme\nJinas. They were preceded by twenty-two other mythical leaders\nand patriarchs, beginning with Rishabha,[6] whose fabulous lives\nprotracted to millions of years, and whose fabulous statures,\nproportionally extended, were probably invented in recent times, that\nthe Jaina system might not be outdone by that of either Br[=a]hmans or\nBuddhists.\n\nIt is well known that the code of Manu--which is the best exponent\nof Br[=a]hmanism--supposes a constant succession of religious guides\nthrough an infinite succession of cycles. These cycles are called\nKalpas. Every Kalpa or \u00c6on of time begins with a new creation, and\nends with a universal dissolution of all existing things--including\nBrahm[=a], Vishnu, S\u00b4iva, gods, demons, men, and animals--into\nBrahm[)a], or the One sole impersonal self-existent Soul of the\nUniverse. In the interval between each creation and dissolution there\nare fourteen periods, presided over by fourteen successive patriarchs\nor progenitors of the human race called Manus, who, as their name\nimplies, are the authors of all human wisdom, and who create a\nsuccession of Sages and Saints (Rishis and Munis), for mankind's\nguidance and instruction.\n\nThe Buddhists, also, have their cycles of time, presided over by\ntwenty-four Buddhas, or 'perfectly enlightened men,' Gautama being\n(according to the Northern reckoning) the seventh of the series.\nSimilarly the Jainas have their vast periods superintended by\ntwenty-four Jinas, or 'self-conquering sages.' The notion is that\nalternate periods of degeneracy and amelioration succeed each other\nwith symmetrical regularity. Each cycle embraces vast terms of years;\nfor in the determination of the world's epochs Indian arithmeticians\nanticipated centuries ago the wildest hypotheses of modern European\nscience. A single Kalpa, or \u00c6on, of the Br[=a]hmans consists of\n4,320,000,000 years. It is divided into a thousand periods of four\nages (called Satya, Treta, Dv[=a]para, and Kali), under which there is\ngradual degeneration until the depths of degeneracy are reached in the\nKali age. The Buddhist Kalpas are similar, but the Jaina cycles have\na distinctive character of their own. They proceed in pairs, one\nof which is called 'descending,' (_Avasarpin[=i]_), and the other\n'ascending,' (_Utsarpin[=i]_). Of these the descending cycle has six\nstages, or periods, each comprising one hundred million years, and\ncalled 'good-good,' 'good,' 'good-bad,' 'bad-good,' 'bad,' 'bad-bad,'\nduring which mankind gradually deteriorates; while the ascending cycle\nhas also six similar periods called 'bad-bad,' 'bad,' 'bad-good,'\n'good-bad,' 'good,' 'good-good,' during which the human race gradually\nimproves till it reaches the culminating pinnacle of absolute\nperfection. In illustration we are told to imagine a vast serpent,\nwhose body, coiled round in infinite space in an endless circle,\nsupports and guides the movement of the earth in its eternal progress.\nThe head and tail of the serpent meet, and the notion is that the\nearth's movement alternates after the manner of the oscillating motion\nof a balance-wheel acted on by the coiling and uncoiling of a steel\nspring. First the earth moves from the head towards the tail in a\ndownward course, and then reversing the direction moves upwards\nfrom the tail to the head. At present we are supposed to be in the\ndescending cycle. Twenty-four Jinas have already appeared in this\ncycle, while twenty-four were manifested in the past ascending cycle,\nand twenty-four will be manifested in the future.\n\nIn Br[=a]hmanism, Buddhism, and Jainism, the idea seems to be that the\ntendency to deterioration would very soon land mankind in a condition\nof hopeless degeneracy unless counteracted by the remedial influences\nof great teachers, prophets, and deliverers. In the legendary\nhistory of the Buddha Gautama, he is described in terms which almost\nassimilate his character to the Christian conception of a Redeemer:\nhe is even reported to have said--\"Let all the evils (or sins) flowing\nfrom the corruption of the fourth or degenerate age (called _Kali_)\nfall upon me, but let the world be redeemed.\"\n\nAnd what are the precise character and functions of a Jina? This\ninquiry must, of course, form an important part of our present\nsubject, and the reply is really involved in the answer to another\nquestion: What is the great end and object of Jainism? Briefly, it\nmay be stated that Jainism, like Br[=a]hmanism and Buddhism, aims at\ngetting rid of the burden of repeated existences. Three root-ideas may\nbe said to lie at the foundation of all three systems:--first, that\npersonal existence is protracted through an innumerable succession of\nbodies by the almighty power of man's own acts; secondly, that mundane\nlife is an evil, and that man finds his perfection in the cessation\nof all acts, and the consequent extinction of all personal\nexistence; thirdly, that such perfection is alone attained through\nself-mortification, abstract meditation, and true knowledge. In these\ncrucial doctrines, the theory of Br[=a]hmanism is superior to that of\nBuddhism and Jainism. According to the Br[=a]hmans, the living soul of\nman has an eternal existence both retrospectively and prospectively,\nand only exists separately from the One Supreme Eternal Soul because\nthat Supreme Soul wills the temporary separate personality of\ncountless individual spirits, dissevering them from his own essence\nand causing them to pass through a succession of bodies, till, after a\nlong course of discipline, they are permitted to blend once more with\ntheir great Eternal Source. With the Br[=a]hmans existence in the\nabstract is not an evil. It is only an evil when it involves the\ncontinued separation of the personal soul from the impersonal Eternal\nSoul of the Universe.\n\nVery different is the doctrine of Buddhists and Jains. With them there\nis no Supreme Being, no Supreme Divine Eternal Soul, no separate\nhuman eternal soul. Nor can there be any true soul-transmigration. A\nBuddhist and a Jaina believe that the only eternal thing is matter.\nThe universe consists of eternal atoms which by their own inherent\ncreative force are perpetually developing countless forms of being\nin ever-recurring cycles of creation and dissolution, re-creation and\nre-dissolution. This is symbolized by a wheel revolving for ever in\nperpetual progression and retrogression.[7]\n\nWhat then becomes of the doctrine of transmigration of souls, which\nis said to be held even more strongly by Buddhists and Jains than\nby Hind[=u]s? It is thus explained. Every human being is composed of\ncertain constituents (called by Buddhists the five Skandhas). These\ncomprehend body, soul, and mind, with all the organs of feeling and\nsensation. They are all dissolved at death, and absolute extinction\nwould follow, were it not for the inextinguishable, imperishable,\nomnipotent force of _Karman_ or Act. No sooner are the constituents\nof one stage of existence dissolved than a new set is created by\nthe force of acts done and character formed in the previous stage.\nSoul-transmigration with Buddhists is simply a concatenation of\nseparate existences connected by the iron chain of act. A man's own\nacts generate a force which may be compared to those of chemistry,\nmagnetism, or electricity--a force which periodically re-creates the\nwhole man, and perpetuates his personal identity (notwithstanding the\nloss of memory) through the whole series of his separate existences,\nwhether it obliges him to ascend or descend in the scale of being.\nIt may safely be affirmed that Br[=a]hmans, Buddhists, and Jains all\nagree in repudiating the idea of vicarious suffering. All concur in\nrejecting the notion of a representative man--whether he be a Manu, a\nRishi, a Buddha, or a Jina--suffering as a substituted victim for the\nrest of mankind. Every being brought into the world must suffer in\nhis own person the consequences of his own deeds committed either in\npresent or former states of being. It is not sufficient that he be\nrewarded in a temporary heaven, or punished in a temporary hell.\nNeither heaven nor hell has power to extinguish the accumulated\nefficacy of good or bad acts committed by the same person during a\nlong succession of existences. Such accumulated acts must inevitably\nand irresistibly drag him down into other mundane forms, until\nat length their potency is destroyed by his attainment of perfect\nself-discipline and self-knowledge in some final culminating condition\nof being, terminated by complete self-annihilation.\n\nAnd thus we are brought to a clear understanding of the true character\nof a Jina or self-conquering Saint (from the Sanskrit root _ji_, to\nconquer). A Jina is with the Jains very nearly what a Buddha is with\nthe Buddhists.\n\nHe represents the perfection of humanity, the typical man, who has\nconquered self and attained a condition so perfect that he not only\nceases to act, but is able to extinguish the power of former acts;\na human being who is released from the obligation of further\ntransmigration, and looks forward to death as the absolute extinction\nof personal existence. But he is also more than this. He is a being\nwho by virtue of the perfection of his self-mortification (_tapas_)\nhas acquired the perfection of knowledge, and therefore the right\nto be a supreme leader and teacher of mankind. He claims far more\ncomplete authority and infallibility than the most arrogant Roman\nPontiff. He is in his own solitary person an absolutely independent\nand infallible guide to salvation. Hence he is commonly called a\n_T[=i]rthan-kara_, or one who constitutes a T[=i]rtha[8]--that is\nto say, a kind of passage or medium through which bliss may be\nattained--a kind of ford or bridge leading over the river of life to\nthe elysium of final emancipation. Other names for him are _Arhat_,\n\"venerable;\" _Sarva-jna_, \"omniscient;\" _Bhagavat_, \"lord.\"\n\nA Buddha with the Buddhists is a very similar personage. He is a\nself-conqueror and self-mortifier (_tapasv[=i]_), like the Jina,\nand is besides a supreme guide to salvation; but he has achieved\nhis position of Buddhahood more by the perfection of his meditation\n(_yoga, sam[=a]dhi_) than by the completeness of his self-restraint\nand austerities.\n\nBoth Jainas and Buddhists--but especially Jainas--believe in the\nexistence of gods and demons, and spiritual beings of all kinds, whom\nthey often designate by names similar to those used by the Hind[=u]s.\nThese may possess vast supernatural and extra-mundane powers in\ndifferent degrees and kinds, which they are capable of exerting for\nthe benefit or injury of mankind; but they are inferior in position to\nthe Jina or Buddha. They are merely powerful beings--temporary rulers\nin temporary heavens and hells.\n\nThey may be very formidable and worthy of propitiation, but they are\nimperfect. They are liable to pass through other stages of existence,\nor even to be born again in mundane forms, until they are finally\nextinguished by the same law of dissolution as the rest of the\nuniverse.\n\nVery different is the condition of the perfect saint. He is in a far\nhigher position, for he has but one step to take before plunging\ninto the ocean of non-existence. He is on the verge of the bliss of\nextinction, and can guide others to it. He can never be dragged down\nagain to earthly imperfection and sin. He alone is a worthy object of\nadoration. All other beings--divine and demoniacal--are to be dreaded,\nnot worshipped. \"There is no god superior to the Arhat,\" says the\nKalpa-s[=u]tra (Stevenson, p. 10). True worship, indeed, is not\npossible with Jainas any more than with Buddhists. They have no\nsupreme Eternal Being, omniscient and omnipresent, ever at hand to\nanswer prayer, ever living to be an object of meditation, devotion,\nand love to his creatures.\n\nYet a Jaina who acts up to the principles of his faith is a slave to a\nceaseless round of religious duties.\n\nThe late Bishop of Calcutta told me that he once asked a pious Jaina,\nwhom he happened to meet in the act of leaving a temple after a long\ncourse of devotion, what he had been asking for in prayer, and to whom\nhe had been praying? He replied, \"I have been asking for nothing,\nand praying to nobody.\" The fact was he had been meditating on the\nperfections of some extinct Jina, doing homage to his memory, and\nusing prayer as a mere mechanical act, not directed towards any higher\nPower capable of granting requests, but believed to have an efficacy\nof its own in determining the character of his subsequent forms of\nexistence.\n\nIt may be said that the Br[=a]hmanical idea of a saint is much the\nsame as that of Buddhists and Jainas. But with Br[=a]hmans the\nperfect saint is not so solitary and independent in his spiritual\npre-eminence. He is one of a numerous band of similar sainted\npersonages. He has endless names and epithets (such as Rishi, Muni,\nYog[=i], Tapasv[=i], Jitendriya, Yatendriya, Sanny[=a]s[=i]), all of\nwhich indicate that he, like the Buddha and Jina, has attained\nthe perfection of knowledge and impassiveness, either by abstract\nmeditation (_yoga_), or self-mortification (_tapas_), or mastery over\nhis sensual organs (_yama_). He may also combine the functions of a\ntrue teacher and guide to salvation (_T[=i]rtha_). He may even,\nlike the Buddha and Jina, have acquired such powers that any of the\nsecondary gods, including Brahm[=a], Vishnu, and S\u00b4iva, may be subject\nto him. Finally, he may be himself worshipped as a kind of deity. Yet\nradically there is an important distinction between the Br[=a]hman\nand the Jaina saint, for the Br[=a]hman saint makes no pretence to\nabsolute finality and supremacy. However lofty his position, he\ncan never be exalted above the One Supreme Being (Brahma), in whose\nexistence his own personal existence is destined to become absorbed,\nand union with whose essence constitutes the object of all his hopes,\nand the aim of all his aspirations.\n\nNothing, perhaps, better illustrates the difference between\nBr[=a]hmanism, Buddhism, and Jainism than the daily prayer used in all\nthree systems. That of the Br[=a]hmans is in Sanskrit (from Rig-veda\niii. 62. 10), and is addressed to the Supreme Being as giver of\nlife and illumination. It is a prayer for greater knowledge and\nenlightenment: thus, \"Let us meditate on that excellent glory of the\ndivine Vivifier. May He stimulate our understandings.\" That of\nthe Jainas, also called by them G[=a]yatr[=i], is in M[=a]gadh[=i]\nPr[=a]krit, and is in five short clauses to the following effect:--\"I\nvenerate the sages who are worthy of honour (_arhat_). I venerate the\nsaints who have achieved perfection. I venerate those who direct our\nreligious worship. I venerate spiritual instructors. I venerate holy\nmen (_s[=a]dhus_) in all parts of the world.\" This is obviously no\nreal prayer, but a mere formula, expressive of veneration for human\nexcellence, like that used by the Buddhists, which is perhaps the\nsimplest of all,--\"Reverence to the incomparable Buddha;\" or (as in\nThibet), \"Reverence to the jewel in the lotus.\"[9]\n\nBr[=a]hmans, Jains, and Buddhists all alike aim at the attainment of\nperfect knowledge; but the Br[=a]hman, by his G[=a]yatr[=i] prayer,\nacknowledges his dependence on a Supreme Being as the source of all\nenlightenment; while the formulas of Jains and Buddhists are simply\nexpressive of their belief in the divinity of humanity--the efficacy\nof human example, and the power of unassisted human effort.\n\nIt will be evident from the foregoing outline of the first principles\nof Jainism, that the whole system hinges on the efficacy of\nself-mortification (_tapas_), self-restraint (_yama_), and asceticism.\nOnly twenty-four supreme saints and T[=i]rthan-karas can appear in\nany one cycle of time, but every mortal man may be a self-restrainer\n(_yati_). Every one born into the world may be a striver after\nsanctity (_s[=a]dhu_), and a practiser of austerities (_tapasv[=i]_).\nDoubtless, at first there was no distinction between monks, ascetics,\nand ordinary men, just as in the earliest days of Christianity there\nwas no division into bishops, priests, and laity. All Jainas in\nancient times practised austerities, but among such ascetics an\nimportant difference arose. One party advocated an entire abandonment\nof clothing, in token of complete indifference to all worldly ideas\nand associations. The other party were in favour of wearing white\ngarments. The former were called Dig-ambara, sky-clothed, the latter\nS\u00b4vet[=a]mbara (or, in ancient works, S\u00b4veta-pata), white-clothed.[10]\nOf these the Dig-ambaras were chronologically the earliest. They were\nprobably the first to form themselves into a regular society. The\nfirst Jina, Rishaba, as well as the last Jina, Mah[=a]v[=i]ra, are\nsaid to have been Dig-ambaras, and to have gone about absolutely\nnaked. Their images represent two entirely nude ascetics, whereas the\nimages of other Jinas, like the Buddhist images, are representations\nof a sage, generally seated in a contemplative posture, with a robe\nthrown gracefully over one shoulder.\n\nIt is not improbable that the \u00adS\u00b4vet[=a]mbara division of the Jainas\nwere merely a sect which separated itself from the parent stock in\nlater times, and became in the end numerically the most important, at\nleast in Western India. The Dig-ambaras, however, are still the most\nnumerous faction in Southern India, and at Jaipur in the North.[11]\n\nAnd, indeed, it need scarcely be pointed out that ascetics,\nboth wholly naked and partially clothed, are as common under the\nBr[=a]hmanical system as among Jainas and Buddhists. The god S\u00b4iva\nhimself is represented as a Dig-ambara, or naked ascetic, whenever he\nassumes the character of a Mah[=a]-yog[=i]--that is to say, whenever\nhe enters on a long course of austerity, with an absolutely nude\nbody, covered only with a thick coating of dust and ashes, sitting\nmotionless and wrapped in meditation for thousands of years, that\nhe may teach men by his own example the power attainable through\nself-mortification and abstract contemplation.\n\nIt is true that absolute nudity in public is now prohibited by\nlaw, but the Dig-ambara Jainas who take their meals, like orthodox\nHind[=u]s, in strict seclusion, are said to remove their clothes\nin the act of eating. Even in the most crowded thoroughfares the\nrequirements of legal decency are easily satisfied. Any one who\ntravels in India must accustom himself to the sight of plenty of\nunblushing, self-asserting human flesh. Thousands content themselves\nwith the minimum of clothing represented by a narrow strip of cloth,\nthree or four inches wide, twisted round their loins. Nor ought it\nto excite any feeling of prudish disgust to find poor, hard-working\nlabourers tilling the ground with a greater area of sun-tanned skin\ncourting the cooling action of air and wind on the burning plains\nof Asia than would be considered decorous in Europe. As to mendicant\ndevotees, they may still occasionally be seen at great religious\ngatherings absolutely innocent of even a rag. Nevertheless, they are\ncareful to avoid magisterial penalties. In a secluded part of the city\nof Patna, I came suddenly on an old female ascetic, who usually sits\nquite naked in a large barrel, which constitutes her only abode. When\nI passed her, in company with the collector and magistrate of the\ndistrict, she rapidly drew a dirty sheet round her body.\n\nIn the present day both Dig-ambara and S\u00b4vet[=a]mbara Jainas are\ndivided into two classes, corresponding to clergy and laity. When the\ntwo sects increased in numbers, all, of course, could not be ascetics.\nSome were compelled to engage in secular pursuits, and many developed\nindustrious and business-like habits. Hence it happened that a large\nnumber became prosperous merchants and traders.\n\nAll laymen[12] among the Jainas are called S\u00b4r[=a]vakas, \"hearers or\ndisciples,\" while the Yatis,[13] or \"self-restraining ascetics,\"\nwho constitute the only other division of both Jaina sects, are the\nsupposed teachers (_Gurus_). Many of them, of course, never teach at\nall. They were formerly called Nirgrantha, \"free from worldly ties,\"\nand are often known by the general name of S[=a]dhu, \"holy men.\"\nAll are celibates, and most of them are cenobites, not anchorites.\nSometimes four or five hundred live together in one monastery,\nwhich they call an Up[=a]s\u00b4raya,[14] \"place of retirement,\" under\na presiding abbot. They dress, like other Hind[=u] ascetics, in\nyellowish-pink or salmon-coloured garments.[15] There are also female\nascetics (_S[=a]dhvin[=i]_, or, anciently, _Nirgranth[=i]_), who may\nbe seen occasionally in public places clothed in dresses of a similar\ncolour. When these good women draw the ends of their robes over their\nheads to conceal their features, and cover the lower part of their\nfaces with pieces of muslin to prevent animalcul\u00e6 from entering their\nmouths, they look very like hooded Roman Catholic nuns. I saw\nseveral threading their way through the crowded streets of Ahmedabad,\napparently bent, like sisters of mercy, on charitable errands.\n\nOf course, in Jainism anything like a Br[=a]hmanical priesthood would\nbe an impossibility. Jainas reject the whole body of the Veda, Vedic\nsacrifices and ritual, and hold it to be a heinous sin to kill an\nanimal of any kind, even for religious purposes. They have, however,\na Veda of their own, consisting of a series of forty-five sacred\nwritings, collectively called [=A]gamas. They are all in the Jaina\nform of the M[=a]gadh[=i] dialect (differing from, yet related to,\nthe P[=a]l[=i] of the Buddhists, the M[=a]gadh[=i] Pr[=a]krit of\nVararuchi, and the Pr[=a]krit of the plays), and are classed under\nthe different heads of Anga, Up[=a]nga, P[=a]inna (Sanskrit,\n_Prak[=i]rnaka_), M[=u]la, Chheda, Anuyoga, and Nandi. Of these the\neleven Angas are the most esteemed, but the whole series is equally\nregarded as S\u00b4ruti, or divine revelation. The M[=a]gadh[=i] text\nis sometimes explained by Sanskrit commentaries, and sometimes by\ncommentaries in the M[=a]rw[=a]r[=i] dialect, very common among\nmerchants in the West of India. Some of the best known Angas and\nUp[=a]ngas were procured by me when I was last at Bombay, through the\nkind assistance of Dr. B\u00fchler; but it appears doubtful whether\nthey would repay the trouble which a complete perusal and thorough\nexamination of such voluminous writings would entail. It may safely be\naffirmed that their teaching, like that of the Pur[=a]nas, is anything\nbut consistent or uniform, and that they deal with subjects--such as\nthe formation of the universe, history, geography, and chronology--of\nwhich their authors are profoundly ignorant.\n\nThe Indian commentator, M[=a]dhav[=a]ch[=a]rya, in his well-known\nsummary of Hind[=u] sects (called Sarva-dars\u00b4ana-sangraha) has given\nan interesting sketch of the Jainas from his own investigation\nof their sacred writings. Their philosophers are sometimes called\nSy[=a]d-v[=a]dins, \"asserters of possibility,\" because their\nsystem propounds seven modes of reconciling opposite views\n(_sapta-bhanga-naya_) as to the possibility of anything existing\nor not existing. All visible objects--all the phenomena of the\nuniverse--are distributed under the two principles (_tattva_) or\ncategories of animate (_j[=i]va_), and inanimate (_a-j[=i]va_). Again,\nall living beings comprised under the former are divided into three\nclasses: (1) eternally perfect, as the Jina; (2) emancipated from the\npower of acts; (3) bound by acts and worldly associations. Or, again,\nnine principles are enumerated--namely, life, absence of life, merit\n(_punya_), demerit, passion, helps to restraint, helps to freedom\nfrom worldly attachments, bondage, emancipation. Inanimate matter is\nsometimes referred to a principle (_tattva_) called Pudgala, which it\nis easier for Jaina philosophers to talk about than to explain.\n\nWhen we come to the Jaina moral code, we find ourselves transported\nfrom the mists of fanciful ideas and arbitrary speculation to a\nclearer atmosphere and firmer ground. The three gems which every Jaina\nis required to seek after with earnestness and diligence, are right\nintuition, right knowledge, and right conduct. The nature of the first\ntwo may be inferred from the explanations already given. Right\nconduct consists in the observance of five duties (_vratas_), and the\navoidance of five sins implied in five prohibitions. The five duties\nare:--Be merciful to all living things; practise almsgiving and\nliberality; venerate the perfect sages while living, and worship their\nimages after their decease; confess your sins annually, and mutually\nforgive each other; observe fasting. The five prohibitions are:--Kill\nnot; lie not; steal not; commit not adultery or impurity; love not the\nworld or worldly honour.\n\nIf equal practical importance were attached to these ten precepts,\nthe Jaina system could not fail to conduce in a high degree to the\nhappiness and well-being of its adherents, however perverted their\nreligious sense may be. Unfortunately, undue stress is laid on the\nfirst duty and first prohibition, to the comparative neglect of\nsome of the others. In former days, when Buddhism and Jainism were\nprevalent everywhere, \"Kill not\" was required to be proclaimed by\nsound of trumpet in every city daily.[16]\n\nAnd, indeed, with all Hind[=u]s respect for life has always been\nregarded as a supreme obligation. Ahins[=a], or avoidance of injury\nto others in thought, word, and deed, is declared by Manu to be the\nhighest virtue, and its opposite the greatest crime. Not the smallest\ninsect ought to be killed, lest the soul of some relation should be\nthere embodied. Yet all Hind[=u]s admit that life may be taken for\nreligious or sacrificial purposes. Not so Buddhists and Jainas. With\nthem the sacrifice of any kind of life, even for the most sacred\npurpose, is a heinous crime. In fact, the belief in transmission\nof personal identity at death through an infinite series of animal\nexistences is so intense that they live in perpetual dread of\ndestroying some beloved relative or friend. The most deadly serpents\nor venomous scorpions may enshrine the spirits of their fathers or\nmothers, and are therefore left unharmed. The Jainas far outdo every\nother Indian sect in carrying the prohibition, \"not to kill,\" to the\nmost preposterous extremes. They strain water before drinking, sweep\nthe ground with a silken brush before sitting down, never eat or drink\nin the dark, and often wear muslin before their mouths to prevent the\nrisk of swallowing minute insects. They even object to eating figs,\nor any fruit containing seed, and would consider themselves eternally\ndefiled by simply touching flesh-meat with their hands.\n\nOne of the most curious sights in Bombay is the Panjara-pol, or\nhospital for diseased, crippled, and worn-out animals, established by\nrich Jaina merchants and benevolent Vaishnava Hind[=u]s in a street\noutside the Fort. The institution covers several acres of ground, and\nis richly endowed. Both Jainas and Vaishnavas think it a work of the\nhighest religious merit to contribute liberally towards its support.\nThe animals are well fed and well tended, though it certainly seemed\nto me, when I visited the place, that the great majority would be more\nmercifully provided for by the application of a loaded pistol to their\nheads. I found, as might have been expected, that a large proportion\nof space was allotted to stalls for sick and infirm oxen, some with\nbandaged eyes, some with crippled legs, some wrapped up in blankets\nand lying on straw beds. One huge, bloated, broken-down old bull in\nthe last stage of decrepitude and disease was a pitiable object\nto behold. Then I noticed in other parts of the building singular\nspecimens of emaciated buffaloes, limping horses, mangy dogs,\napoplectic pigs, paralytic donkeys, featherless vultures, melancholy\nmonkeys, comatose tortoises, besides a strange medley of cats, rats\nand mice, small birds, reptiles, and even insects, in every stage of\nsuffering and disease. In one corner a crane, with a kind of wooden\nleg, appeared to have spirit enough left to strut in a stately manner\namongst a number of dolorous-looking ducks and depressed fowls. The\nmost spiteful animals seemed to be tamed by their sufferings and the\ncare they received. All were being tended, nursed, physicked, and fed,\nas if it were a sacred duty to prolong the existence of every living\ncreature to the utmost possible limit. It is even said that men are\npaid to sleep on dirty wooden beds in different parts of the building,\nthat the loathsome vermin with which they are infested may be supplied\nwith their nightly meal of human blood.\n\nYet I observed on other occasions that both Jainas and Hind[=u]s are\nsometimes very cruel to animals used for domestic purposes, believing\nthat the harshest treatment involves no sin provided it stops short of\ndestroying life. The following story, which I have paraphrased freely,\nfrom the Jaina Kalpa-s[=u]tra (Stevenson, p. 11) may be taken as an\nillustration:[17]--\n\n    \"There was a certain Br[=a]hman in the city of Pushpavat[=i]\n    whose father and mother died. In process of time both parents\n    were born again in their own son's house, the father as\n    a bullock, the mother as a female dog. By-and-by the\n    S\u00b4r[=a]ddha, or festive-day for the worship of deceased\n    parents and forefathers, came round. In the morning the son\n    set the bullock to labour hard, that a supply of rice and milk\n    might be ready for the priests invited to the festival. When\n    they were about to begin eating, the female dog, in which was\n    the mother's soul, seeing something poisonous fall into the\n    milk, snatched it away with her mouth. Upon that her son, not\n    understanding the dog's action, flew into a passion and almost\n    broke her back with a stick. In the evening the bullock was\n    tied up in a cowhouse, but no food given to him after his\n    day's toil. Both animals had become conscious of their\n    previous state of existence, and the bullock, looking at the\n    female dog, exclaimed, 'Alas! what have we both suffered this\n    day through the cruelty of our wicked son!'\"\n\nAs to the other precepts of the Jaina moral code, it is noteworthy\nthat the practice of confessing sins to a priestly order of men\nprobably existed in full force among the Jainas long before its\nintroduction into the Christian system. A pious Jaina ought to confess\nat least once a year, or if his conscience happens to be burdened by\nthe weight of any recent crime--such, for example, as the accidental\nkilling of a noxious insect--he is bound to betake himself to the\nconfessional without delay. The stated observance of this duty is\ncalled Pratikramana, because on a particular day the penitent repairs\nsolemnly to a priestly Yati, who hears his confession, pronounces\nabsolution, and imposes a penance.\n\nThe penances inflicted generally consist of various kinds of fasting;\nbut it must be observed that fasting is with Jainas a duty incumbent\non all. It is a duty only second to that of not killing. Fasting\n(_upav[=a]sa_) is also practised by Hind[=u]s and Buddhists, and held\nto be a most effective means of accumulating religious merit. Orthodox\nHind[=u]s fast twice a month, on the eleventh day of each fortnight,\nas well as on the birthday of Krishna (_Janm[=a]shtam[=i]_), and the\nnight sacred to S\u00b4iva (_S\u00b4iva-r[=a]tri_). On some fast days fruits may\nbe eaten, but no cooked food of any kind.\n\nWith Buddhists and Jainas the season of fasting, religious meditation,\nand recitation of sacred texts, far outdoes our Lenten period. The\nBuddhists in some parts of the world call their fasting season Wasso\n(corrupted from the Sanskrit _Upav[=a]sa_). That of the Jainas is\ncalled Pajj[=u]san or Pachch[=u]san (for Sanskrit _Paryushana_). The\nS\u00b4vet[=a]mbara Jainas fast for the fifty days preceding the fifth of\nthe month Bh[=a]dra, the Dig-ambaras for the seventy following days.\nIn both cases the Pajj[=u]san corresponds generally to the rainy\nseason or its close. Possibly the practice of fasting during that\nperiod may be intended as an expiation for the supposed guilt incurred\nby the unintentional destruction of damp-engendered insects.\n\nIn regard to the duty of worshipping images, this also, like the last\nduty, is incumbent on all. But it is worthy of remark that images were\nat first only used as memorials or as simple decorations, in places\nconsecrated to pure forms of worship. Idolatry has always been a later\ninnovation. It has never belonged to the original constitution of any\nreligious system. One or two differences between Hind[=u], Buddha, and\nJaina images should be noted. Hind[=u] images (excepting that of the\nascetic form of S\u00b4iva) are often profusely decorated, while Buddha and\nJaina idols are always left unadorned, though sometimes cut out of\nthe finest marble, and often having a nimbus[18] round their heads.\nTwenty-two of the Jina images, as well as the seven Buddhas, are\nrepresented with a coarse garment thrown over the left shoulder, the\nother shoulder being bare. Those of the first and last Jinas (Rishabha\nand Mah[=a]v[=i]ra) are completely nude; and Jina images, like some\nof those of the Buddha, are often erect. Moreover, the idols of the\nBuddha Gautama represent him in four principal attitudes. He is\n(1) seated in deep contemplation; or (2) is seated while engaged in\nteaching, with the tip of the forefinger of one hand applied to the\nfingers of the other hand; or (3) he is a mendicant ascetic in a\nstanding posture; or (4) he is recumbent just before his decease. In\nthe first or contemplative attitude, he is indifferent to everything\nexcept intense concentration of thought on the problem of perfect\nknowledge. According to others, he is supposed to be thinking of\nnothing, or, if that is impossible, his thoughts are concentrated on\nthe tip of his nose, till he does not even think of that. Or there may\nbe a modification of this meditative attitude, in which his mind is\napparently engaged in ecstatic contemplation of the short distance\nwhich still separates him from the goal of annihilation. The first\ncontemplative attitude is by far the commonest. The sage is seen\nseated (generally on a full-blown lotus) with his legs folded under\nhim, the left palm supinate on his lap, and the right hand extended\nover the right leg. He has pendulous ears, curly hair, and a top-knot\non the crown of his head. His garment is thrown gracefully over\nthe left shoulder, leaving the right bare. The modification of this\nattitude, representing the sage in ecstatic contemplation, has both\nthe palms resting one above the other on the lap, and occasionally\nholding a circular object, the meaning of which is not well\nascertained. In the second or teaching attitude, the great teacher is\nsupposed to be marking off the points of his discourse, or emphasizing\nthem on his fingers. This attitude expresses an important peculiarity,\nalready pointed out, as distinguishing Buddhism from Jainism--namely,\nthat it lays more stress than Jainism on the acquisition and imparting\nof knowledge. I have never seen a Jina image in a teaching attitude.\nThe recumbent attitude of Buddha is supposed to represent him in the\nact of dying, and attaining Nirv[=a]na. Pious Buddhists regard\nthis supreme moment in the life of their great leader with as much\nreverence as Christians regard the death of Christ on the cross.\nThrough the kindness of Sir William Gregory, I was taken to see\na colossal recumbent statue of the Buddha, at least thirty feet\nlong,[19] in the celebrated temple of Kelani, not far from Columbo,\nin Ceylon. The image appeared to be highly venerated by numerous\nworshippers, who presented offerings at the shrine. On each side were\ncolossal images of attendants and doorkeepers (_dv[=a]ra-p[=a]la_),\nand in other parts of the temple figures of Buddha's demon enemies,\nbesides idols of the Hind[=u] deities, Vishnu, S\u00b4iva, and Ganes\u00b4a.\nAll around the walls of the temple were fresco representations\nof incidents in the life of the Buddha. A huge bell-shaped Dagoba\n(_Dh[=a]tu-garbha_), of massive masonry, covered with chunam, was in\nthe garden, on the right side of the temple. It doubtless enshrined\nashes or relics of great sanctity. But in all these Dagobas there is\nno passage to any interior chamber: whatever relics they contain have\nbeen bricked up for centuries, and no record is preserved of their\nhistory or nature. On the left of the temple were the residences of\nthe high priests and monks, in a well-kept garden overshadowed by\nan immense P[=i]pal tree, supposed to represent the sacred tree of\nknowledge. Both Buddha and Jina images have always certain objects\nor symbols (_chihna_) connected with them. Those of the Buddha are\ngenerally associated with the tree of knowledge, or a hooded serpent,\nor a wheel, or a deer.[20] The seventh T[=i]rthan-kara of the Jainas\nis specially associated with the Svastika cross--an auspicious symbol\ncommon to Hind[=u]ism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Worshippers in Buddhist\nand Jaina temples may be seen arranging their offerings in the form of\nthis symbol, which is shaped like a Greek cross, with the end of each\nof the four arms bent round in the same direction. The question as to\nthe origin of the emblem has called forth many learned dissertations\nfrom various scholars and arch\u00e6ologists. For my own part, I am\ninclined to regard it as a mere rude representation of the four arms\nof Lakshm[=i], goddess of good fortune, the bent extremities of the\narms denoting her four hands.\n\nWith regard to the adoration of relics, one or two points of\ndifference between the systems may be pointed out. The Hind[=u]s\nwholly object to the Buddhist practice of preserving and worshipping\nthe ashes, hair, or teeth of their departed saints. I remarked in\nthe course of my travels that articles of clothing, especially wooden\nshoes and cloth slippers, used by holy men during life, are sometimes\npreserved by the Hind[=u]s in sacred shrines, and held in veneration.\nThey must, of course, be removed from the person before actual death\nhas supervened; for it is well known that in the minds of Hind[=u]s\nan idea of impurity is always inseparable from death. Contamination is\nsupposed to result from contact with the corpses of even their dearest\nrelatives. The mortal frame is not held in veneration as it was by\nthe ancient Egyptians, and as it generally is in Christian countries.\nEvery part of a dead body ought to be got rid of as soon as possible.\nHence, it is burnt very soon after death, and the ashes scattered on\nthe surface of sacred rivers or on the sea. Nevertheless, the bodies\nof great ascetics are exempted from this rule. They are generally\nburied, not burnt; not, however, because the mere corporeal frame is\nheld in greater veneration, but because the most eminent saints are\nsupposed to lie undecomposed in a kind of trance, resulting from the\nintense ecstatic meditation (_sam[=a]dhi_) to which during life they\nwere devoted. In former days great ascetics were not unfrequently\nburied alive, and that, too, with their own consent. A crowd of\nadmiring disciples was always ready to assist at the entombment, and\nit might be said in excuse that the holy men really appeared to be\ndead, though they were merely speechless, motionless, and senseless,\nin a kind of meditative catalepsy.\n\nThe Jainas hold views similar to those of the Hind[=u]s in regard to\nthe treatment of dead bodies. They never preserve the ashes of their\nsaints in St[=u]pas, Chaityas, or Dagobas, or worship them, as the\nBuddhists do.\n\nIn connection with this subject I may remark, that what may be called\n\"foot-worship\" (_p[=a]duk[=a]-p[=u]j[=a]_), or the veneration of\nfootprints, seems to be common to Hind[=u]s, Buddhists, and Jainas.\nEven during life, when a Hind[=u] wishes to show great respect for\na person of higher rank or position than himself, he reverentially\ntouches his feet. The idea seems to rest on a kind of _a fortiori_\nargument. If the feet, as the lowest members of the body, are treated\nwith honour, how much more is homage rendered to the whole man.\nChildren honour their parents in this manner. They never kiss the\nfaces of either father or mother. In some families, sons prostrate\nthemselves at their fathers' feet. The arms are crossed just above the\nwrist, both feet are touched, and the hands raised to the forehead.\n\nThe notion of honouring the feet as the highest possible act of homage\nruns through the whole Hind[=u] system. Small shrines may often be\nobserved in different parts of India, sometimes dedicated to holy men,\nsometimes to Sat[=i]s, or faithful wives who have burnt themselves\nwith their husbands. They appear to be quite empty. On closer\ninspection two footprints may be detected on a little raised altar\nmade of stone. These are called P[=a]duk[=a], \"shoes,\" but are really\nthe supposed impression of the soles of the feet. In the same way, the\nwooden clog of the god Brahm[=a] is worshipped at a particular shrine\nsomewhere in Central India, and we know that the footprint of both\nBuddha and Vishnu at Gay[=a], and that of Buddha at Adam's Peak, are\nobjects of adoration to millions.\n\nAnalogous ideas and practices prevail in Roman Catholic countries.\nThere is a wooden image of Christ on the cross in a church at Vienna,\nwhich is so venerated that, although it is a little elevated, some\nworshippers stand on tiptoe to kiss its feet, while others touch its\nfeet with their fingers, and then raise their fingers to their mouths.\nSimilarly, at Munich, in Bavaria, numbers of worshippers may be seen\nkissing the feet of an image of the Virgin Mary, and most travellers\ncan testify that images of St. Peter, not to mention the living\nrepresentative of St. Peter, are treated in a similar manner.\n\nNothing, however, comes up to the veneration of footprints among\nJainas. I visited the magnificent temple erected by H[=a]thi-Singh at\nAhmedabad, as well as the underground shrine dedicated to [=A]dinath,\nand another great Jaina temple at Kaira. The first consists of a large\nquadrangle, approached by a beautifully carved marble gateway. The\nprincipal shrine is in the centre. All around the quadrangle is a\nkind of cloister, in which are about thirty subordinate shrines, each\ncontaining the image of a particular Jina or T[=i]rthan-kara. All the\nimages appeared to me to be of one type, and to resemble those of\nthe contemplative (Dhy[=a]n[=i]) Buddha. All are carved out of fine\nmarble, generally of a light colour, and all represent the ascetic,\nin his sitting posture, wrapped in profound meditation, indifferent\nto all external phenomena--calm, serene, and imperturbable. The\nattendants of the temple were either very ignorant or very unwilling\nto impart information. No one could tell me whether all the\ntwenty-four Jinas had a place in the shrines. One image of perfectly\nblack marble was described to me as that of P[=a]rs\u00b4van[=a]th.\n\nThe other temples were not very remarkable, except as affording good\nillustrations of \"foot-worship.\" In one shrine I saw 1880 footprints\nof Nemi-n[=a]th's disciples. In another, 1452 footsteps of the\ndisciples of Rishabha. They were covered with offerings of grain and\nmoney. All the names of these holy disciples are given in the Jaina\nsacred works, and it may be remarked that the disciples of Jinas,\nhowever celebrated, are never represented by images. That privilege is\nreserved for the twenty-four supreme Jinas themselves. I noticed that\nmany Hind[=u] idols were placed outside the shrines.\n\nCertainly Jainism, when regarded from the stand-point of a Christian\nobserver, is the coldest of all religions, if, indeed, it deserves\nto be called a religion at all. Yet the number of temples in certain\ncentres of Jainism far exceeds the number of churches and chapels in\nthe most religious Christian districts. Every Jaina who lays claim to\nan excess of piety or zeal builds a temple of his own. It never enters\ninto his head to repair the temples of other religious people. At\nP[=a]lit[=a]na, in K[=a]thi[=a]w[=a]r, there is a whole city of Jaina\ntemples, some new, others decaying, and others quite dilapidated. It\nis by no means necessary or usual that every temple should possess\neither priests or worshippers. I can certify that I saw fewer\nworshippers even in the most celebrated Jaina temples than in any of\nthe Buddhist temples at Columbo or Kandy. Those who came contented\nthemselves with bowing down before the idols, and placing flowers or\ngrains of rice and corn on the footprints of the saints.\n\nThe Yatis have a kind of liturgy, partly in Sanskrit, partly in the\nJaina form of M[=a]gadh[=i] Pr[=a]krit, partly in a kind of archaic\nGujar[=a]t[=i]. No real prayers are offered, but stories of the\ntwenty-four Jinas and their disciples are recited, with singing and\nan accompaniment of noisy instrumental music and beating of cymbals.\nReligious festivals and processions are also common. I witnessed one\nin the town of Kaira, on the anniversary of the death of a celebrated\nYati. An immense multitude of men and women paraded the streets,\npreceded by a very demonstrative band of musicians. In the centre\nwas an apparently empty palanquin, borne by six men. It contained the\nsupposed footprints of the deceased Yati in whose honour the festival\nwas held.\n\nA few short extracts from the Kalpa-s[=u]tra (Stevenson, p. 103) will\ngive some idea of the rules of discipline by which the lives of the\nYatis are required to be regulated, as follow:--\n\n    \"Self-restraint is to be exercised by each man individually.\n    Self-control is the chief of all religious exercises. If a\n    quarrel arise, mutual forgiveness is to be asked. Three daily\n    cleansings are enjoined, morning, mid-day, and evening. A\n    period of rest and fasting is to be observed yearly in the\n    four months of the rainy season. During this period, male\n    and female ascetics should by no means partake of rice,\n    milk, curds, fresh butter, melted butter, oil, sugar, honey,\n    spirits, and flesh. They must never use any angry or provoking\n    language, on pain of being expelled from the community.\n    Ascetics must carefully avoid contact with minute insects,\n    small animals, small seeds, small flowers, small vegetables,\n    &c. No ascetic must do anything whatever, or go out for any\n    purpose whatever, without first asking permission of the\n    Superior of the Convent. The head must be shaved, or the hair\n    constantly clipped. No ascetic must wear hair longer than that\n    which covers a cow.\"\n\nWith regard to the last injunction, it may be mentioned that the\nceremony of initiation (_d[=i]ksh[=a]_) usually takes place at the\nage of twelve or thirteen, and that part of the rite once consisted in\nforcibly pulling out every hair of the head (_kes\u00b4a-lunchana_). In the\npresent day ashes are applied, and a few hairs torn out by the roots\nbefore the scissors are used.\n\nIt remains to state that the Jainas of the present period are leaning\nmore and more towards Hind[=u] ideas and practices. They have their\npurificatory rites (_sansk[=a]ras_), and a modified caste system.\nNot unfrequently Br[=a]hman priests are invited to take part in\ntheir marriage ceremonies. Indeed, it is by no means uncommon for\nintermarriages to take place between lay Jainas (_s\u00b4r[=a]vakas_) and\nlay Vaishnavas, especially in cases when both belong to the Baniya or\nmerchant caste.\n\nIn short, Jainism, like Buddhism, is gradually drifting into the\ncurrent of Hind[=u]ism which everywhere surrounds it, and, like\nevery other offshoot from that system, is destined in the end to be\nreabsorbed into its source.\n\nI must reserve the subject of the Indo-Zoroastrian creed, and modern\nP[=a]rs[=i] religious usages, for treatment in my next paper.\n\n  MONIER WILLIAMS.\n\n    [Footnote 1: If an orthodox Br[=a]hman is asked to describe\n    his religion, he calls it [=A]rya-dharma, that is, the system\n    of doctrines and duties held and practised by the [=A]ryas. He\n    never thinks of calling it by the name of any special founder\n    or leader. Be it noted, however, that Dharma implies more than\n    a mere religious creed. It is a far more comprehensive term\n    than our word \"religion.\"]\n\n    [Footnote 2: In many images of the Buddha he is represented\n    with the sacred thread over the left shoulder and under the\n    right arm, according to orthodox Br[=a]hmanical usage.]\n\n    [Footnote 3: Since the Buddha became absolutely extinct, and\n    since his system recognised no Supreme Soul of the Universe,\n    there remained nothing for his followers to venerate except\n    his memory. The mass of his converts, however, did not long\n    rest satisfied with enshrining him in their minds. First they\n    made pilgrimages to the Bodhi-tree, or \"Tree of Knowledge,\"\n    at Gay[=a], under which their great teacher obtained supreme\n    wisdom. There they erected tumuli, or graves (variously\n    called dagobas, chaityas, and st[=u]pas), over his relics, and\n    worshipped, these. Then adoration was paid to his foot-prints,\n    and to the wheel or symbol of the Buddhist law. Finally,\n    images of his person in different attitudes (to be described\n    subsequently) were multiplied everywhere. Temples, at first,\n    were unknown. There were rooms, or places of meeting, for\n    Buddhist congregations to hear preaching; but it was not till\n    a later period that these were used to enshrine images and\n    relics. A vast period of development separates the original\n    Sangha-griha from such a temple as that erected over the\n    eye-tooth of Buddha, at Kandy, in Ceylon, which is a costly\n    edifice, containing images and a library, as well as the\n    far-famed relic shrine behind thick iron bars.]\n\n    [Footnote 3: The expression, Jainism, corresponds to\n    Vaishnavism and S\u00b4aivism just as the term Jaina does to\n    Vaishnava or S\u00b4aiva. Of course consistency would require\n    the substitution of Bauddhism and Bauddha for Buddhism and\n    Buddhist, but I fear the latter expressions are too firmly\n    established to admit of alteration.]\n\n    [Footnote 4: There is one place in India where the growth of\n    Vaishnavism out of Buddhism, and their near relationship, are\n    conspicuously demonstrated. I mean Buddha-gay[=a], with the\n    neighbouring Vishnu temple of the city of Gay[=a].]\n\n    [Footnote 5: In the Caves of Ellora, Br[=a]hmanism, Buddhism,\n    and Jainism, may be seen in juxtaposition, proving that at\n    one period, at least, they existed together, and were mutually\n    tolerant of each other.]\n\n    [Footnote 6: Their names at full are:--1. Rishabha; 2. Ajita;\n    3. Sambhava; 4. Abhinandana; 5. Sumati; 6. Padma-prabha;\n    7. Sup[=a]rs\u00b4va; 8. Chandra-prabha; 9. Pushpa-danta; 10.\n    S\u00b4[=i]tala; 11. S\u00b4reyas; 12. V[=a]sup[=u]jya; 13. Vimala; 14.\n    Ananta; 15. Dharma; 16. S\u00b4[=a]nti; 17. Kunthu; 18. Ara;\n    19. Malli; 20. Suivrata; 21. Nimi; 22. Nemi; 23.\n    P[=a]rs\u00b4van[=a]tha; 24. Mah[=a]v[=i]ra, or Vardham[=a]na. The\n    first of these lived 8,400,000 years, and attained a stature\n    equal to 500 bows' length. The age and stature of the second\n    was something less. The twenty-third lived a hundred years,\n    and was little taller than an ordinary man. The twenty-fourth\n    lived only forty years, and was formed like a man of the\n    present day. The Buddhists hold that their Buddha Gautama was\n    much above the usual height.]\n\n    [Footnote 7: When Buddhism merged in Vaishnavism, its symbol\n    of a wheel (_chakra_) was adopted by the worshippers of\n    Vishnu.]\n\n    [Footnote 8: The word T[=i]rtha may mean a sacred ford or\n    crossing-place on the bank of a river, or it may mean a holy\n    man or teacher.]\n\n    [Footnote 9: This is by some interpreted to mean--Reverence to\n    the creative energy inherent in the universe.]\n\n    [Footnote 10: The actual colour of an ascetic's dress is a\n    kind of yellowish-pink, or salmon colour. Pure white is not\n    much used by the Hind[=u]s, except as a mark of mourning, when\n    it takes the place of black with us.]\n\n    [Footnote 11: There is also a very low, insignificant, and\n    intensely atheistical sect of Jainas called Dhundhias. They\n    are much despised by the Hind[=u]s, and even by the more\n    orthodox Jainas].\n\n    [Footnote 12: This term, as well as Up[=a]saka, is also used\n    to designate the Buddhist laity.]\n\n    [Footnote 13: From the Sanskrit root, _yam_, to restrain. The\n    Buddhists call their monks S\u00b4ramanas; from the root _S\u00b4ram_,\n    \"men who work hard at austerities,\" or Bhikshus, \"mendicant\n    friars.\" Their laymen are S\u00b4r[=a]vakas, like the Jaina laymen,\n    but are also called Up[=a]sakas.]\n\n    [Footnote 14: Also written Ap[=a]s\u00b4raya.]\n\n    [Footnote 15: When so attired they may be called\n    P[=i]t[=a]mbaras, or Kash[=a]y[=a]mbaras, though they belong\n    to the S\u00b4vet[=a]mbara, or white-clothed party.]\n\n    [Footnote 16: Dr. Stevenson conjectures that As\u00b4oka's famous\n    edicts were similar proclamations, embodying all the commands\n    and prohibitions of Buddhism and Jainism, engraved on stone to\n    secure their permanence.]\n\n    [Footnote 17: It is doubtless intended as a Jaina satire on\n    the worship of deceased parents and ancestors enjoined by\n    the Br[=a]hmanical system, and commonly practised by true\n    Hind[=u]s.]\n\n    [Footnote 18: The idea of encircling the heads of saints\n    with a disc of light probably existed in India long before\n    Christianity.]\n\n    [Footnote 19: Buddhists believe that the stature of the\n    Buddha far exceeded that of ordinary men. Muslims have similar\n    legends about the stature of Moses.]\n\n    [Footnote 20: There is a legend that the Buddha taught first\n    in a deer-park near Benares.]\n\n\n\n\nLORD BEACONSFIELD.\n\nI.--WHY WE FOLLOW HIM.\n\n\nA writer in the last number of this REVIEW, when giving a portraiture\nof Mr. Gladstone, pointed out that that right honourable gentleman was\na bundle of persons rather than one. It will not, I hope, be thought\na very gross plagiarism if I say that Lord Beaconsfield's fame may be\ndivided into four or five distinct reputations, any one of which,\nin the case of a smaller man, would be thought enough for enduring\ncelebrity. If Mr. Disraeli had never succeeded in making his way into\nParliament, he would still, without needing to add another volume to\nthe books he has written, have had to be taken account of as one of\nour foremost men of letters. Supposing that, having entered the House\nof Commons, he had not attained office, he would yet have always been\nremembered as the keenest Parliamentary debater of his time. If his\npublic life had ended in 1852--that is, more than a quarter of a\ncentury ago--without his having become a Minister, he would have stood\nrecorded as the most skilful leader of an Opposition which our history\nhas known. Had he never passed a measure through Parliament, he\nmust have been referred to by all political thinkers as a strikingly\noriginal critic of our Constitution. Such trifles as that, being\nborn in the days of dandyism, he ranked among the leaders of fashion\ndirectly after he was out of his teens, and that he has been a leading\nsocial wit his whole life through, may be thrown in without counting.\nBut add the above items together, and fill in the necessary details,\nand what a startling result we have!\n\nIt is very obvious that I cannot here trace Lord Beaconsfield's career\nin detail. The chronicle is much too rich for that. The better plan\nwill be to make the subject group itself around three or four chief\ntopics--say these: His public consistency; his personal relations with\nPeel and other leaders; his political and social views regarded as a\nsystem; and his recent foreign policy.\n\nA single paragraph may, however, be interposed, just to bring the\nprincipal dates together in a way of prospective summary. Within four\nyears' time from his entering the House of Commons, which, after vain\nattempts at High Wycombe, Marylebone, and Taunton, he did in 1837\nfor the borough of Maidstone, Mr. Disraeli was at the head of a\nparty--\"The New England Party.\" The group, if not very numerous, drew\nas much public attention as if it had been of any size we like to\nname. Lord John Manners and Mr. G. S. Smythe had the generosity of\nheart and the keenness of insight to be the first won over by him, and\nthat against the prejudices of their families. Who has not heard of\ntheir courageous pilgrimage to the Manchester Athen\u00e6um to explain to\nCottonopolis how they proposed to re-make the nation? Then came\nthe \"Young England\" novels, with which all Europe was shortly\nringing--\"Coningsby\" in 1844, \"Sybil\" in 1845, \"Tancred\" in 1847. In\nthe meantime Mr. Disraeli had associated himself heart and soul with\nLord George Bentinck, attacked Peel, and done far more than any other\nin reorganizing the shattered Conservative party within the House as\nwell as outside it. By the last-named year, too, Mr. Disraeli had,\nafter a voluntary exchanging of Maidstone for Shrewsbury, become\nmember for Buckinghamshire, a seat which he was to keep so long as he\nremained in the House of Commons. Suddenly Lord George Bentinck died\n(much too early for his country), and very soon after that event,\nowing to the generous standing aside of Lord Granby and Mr. Herries,\nMr. Disraeli, within a dozen years of his first entry into Parliament,\nstood forth as the recognized leader of the Conservatives. The\npublication of the famous Biography of Lord George Bentinck was at\nonce his noble tribute to the memory of his friend and a valuable help\nto the party. Five years later, when Lord Russell fell and the first\nDerby Administration was formed, Mr. Disraeli--never having held an\ninferior post--became Chancellor of the Exchequer. Shortly followed\nLord Palmerston's triumphant reign, to be succeeded, after a further\nresignation of Lord Russell, by the second Derby Ministry, in which\nMr. Disraeli, once more Chancellor of the Exchequer, found time, in\naddition to his Budget-making, to dish the Whigs by a final Reform\nBill. By-and-by the nation lost the Earl of Derby, and the last\npromotion of official dignity fell naturally to Mr. Disraeli,\nwho became Prime Minister of England. Mr. Gladstone succeeded in\npreventing the Cabinet from having a very long life, and Mr. Disraeli\nkept mental self-composure enough, after losing office, to sit down\nand write \"Lothair.\" By-and-by his political turn again came: 1874 saw\nhim Premier for the second time, and this present year of grace still\nbeholds him in the post, only in the Upper House, instead of the\nLower, as Lord Beaconsfield, and with a Parliamentary majority\nscarcely diminished by five years of an imperial rule which brings\nback memories of England's most majestic days. He has visited Berlin,\nand more than held his own in a Council of the greatest modern\ndiplomatists; has received a welcome back in London city such as no\nliving Minister can boast; and has had the high honour of entertaining\nhis Queen as a guest under his own roof.\n\nNow I may go back to the first of the texts I have chosen.\n\nIt is certain that Lord Beaconsfield has always most tenaciously\ninsisted that he has from first to last been politically consistent.\nHis opponents, for very good reasons of their own, have unceasingly\naffirmed that this assertion is his chiefest, in fact his culminating\naudacity. But all the facts favour Lord Beaconsfield's view. In the\nfirst place, he has never held office but on one side, and he is the\nonly Prime Minister during the last half century who could plead that\ncircumstance. Earl Russell could not say it; certainly Lord Palmerston\ncould not; it is quite out of Mr. Gladstone's power to urge it; even\nthe late Earl of Derby could not make the claim. Next, it is now about\nthirty-two years since Mr. Disraeli was formally recognized as the\nleader of the Tory party, and he is still at the head of them, without\ntheir confidence having been for a moment shaken or withdrawn. Men,\nin fact, have been born and have grown up to middle life with Mr.\nDisraeli all the time remaining at the head of the Conservatives. His\ninconsistency during at least this somewhat lengthened period must\nhave been of a strange kind, since it has always coincided with the\nwishes and the interests of his party, for he has never split them,\nand he has thrice led them into power, But we may go ten years further\nback than the dates we have named. From first to last, he never sat\nin Parliament but as an avowedly Tory member for a Tory constituency;\nduring nearly thirty years he sat for one and the same county. If you\nsift what his enemies, have to say, you will find that it refers to\nsomething which took place about forty-five years ago, and is to the\neffect that he was for five minutes a member of the Westminster\nReform Club, and was willing in his first candidatures to accept\nthe assistance of Mr. Hume or of any other of the Radicals. Lord\nBeaconsfield has the plainest and, as I think, the most sufficient\nexplanation to give of it all.\n\nHe says that he came forward at High Wycombe and afterwards offered\nhimself to Marylebone as an opponent of the Whigs, determining to do\nall he could to bring the Tories into better accord with the masses\nof the people by re-establishing the natural social bonds between the\nlatter and the aristocracy. Certainly, this is exactly what he has\ndone; it is what he openly said that he aimed at doing from the\nvery beginning. Moreover, the Tories so understood it from the first\nmoment. They gave him their support at High Wycombe before he went to\nTaunton, and political support cannot be kept very secret. His name\nwas a popular toast at agricultural banquets, and he was sure of\na welcome at any muster of the Conservatives. Supposing that the\nRadicals had not had penetration enough to comprehend the position he\ntook up, who would have been to blame for that? But the fact is that\nit has suited them to pretend in this case to be more stupid than\nthey were. No Radical constituency ever elected Mr. Disraeli. The\nnewspapers of the party never spoke of him as one of their sort; and\nMessrs. Hume and O'Connell were in a great hurry to withdraw their\nletters of recommendation, which had reached the candidate unsought.\nIt is not denied by Lord Beaconsfield's most rabid defamer that he\npresented himself as an Anti-Whig, and it is admitted that long before\nhe was in the House he was a supporter in public of Lord Chandos,\nand a eulogist of Sir Robert Peel. In his address to the Marylebone\nelectors he described himself as an Independent. But it is really\nhardly worth while to discuss Mr. Disraeli's politics on this narrow\nbasis.\n\nThe case may be put into a nutshell thus: if he had postponed seeking\na seat till he went to Taunton, which was in 1835--that is to say\nforty-four years ago--no one would have been able to say, even in\na way of cavil, that he had been ever any other than a most openly\nunderstood Tory. It is true that the Radicals would still have been\nable to complain that he had been bold enough to pass a Reform Bill\ngiving household suffrage in the towns, and so spoiled once for all\ntheir party tactics. But that is an allegation of inconsistency which\nhis Conservative supporters whom it has placed in office need not\nbe very anxious to defend him against. The other side had made the\nquestion of Reform cease to be one of fair politics; Parliament after\nParliament they were trading upon it in the most huckstering spirit.\nMr. Disraeli's own first narrower proposals were scoffed at by them.\nThe Bill that was finally passed was avowedly a piece of party tactic,\nand admirably it answered its end. Of course, since it succeeded so\nwell, Lord Beaconsfield's rivals will never forgive him for it.\n\nHowever, a more rational use of my space will be to ask at what stage\nof his career Mr. Disraeli developed the leading political principles\nwhich came to be recognized as characteristically his? That is the\nonly mode in which it is worth while to discuss a man's consistency.\nLord Beaconsfield has himself done it all in the preface to \"Lothair,\"\nbut I may recall a few details. In the very first election address\nhe ever issued, he styled the Whigs \"a rapacious, tyrannical, and\nincapable faction.\" That may be taken, one would suppose, as pretty\nclearly marking his point of political departure. At his second\ncandidature for Wycombe, he quoted Bolingbroke and Windham as his\nmodels; and it was as far back as 1835, in his \"Vindication of the\nEnglish Constitution,\" that he first applied the term \"Venetian\"\nto our Constitution, as the Whigs had transformed it. The very\npeculiarities of theoretical opinion which are most individually his,\ncan be traced back into what in respect of a living man's career might\nalmost be termed antiquity--it is something like two-thirds of half\na century ago since he first spoke of the \"Asian Mystery.\" Nobody's\nsayings live as Mr. Disraeli's have done. The truth is, that so far\nfrom his political system having been hatched piecemeal in a way of\nafter-thought to serve exigencies of personal ambition, he started\nwith it ready made. His critics themselves unknowingly admit this in\none part of their clumsy strictures, since they can find events so\nvery recent as his naming of the Queen Empress of India, and his\nappropriation of Cyprus, sketched in his early novels. But let me take\nthe very latest arraignment to which he has been summoned to plead\nguilty--that of having invented \"Imperialism\" just to bolster himself\nin office. As far back as 1849, which now is exactly thirty years ago,\nin one of his greatest speeches after having fairly settled down as\nthe leader of his party, he used these words:--\"I would sooner my\ntongue should palsy than counsel the people of England to lower their\ntone. I would sooner leave this House for ever than I would say to the\nnation that it has overrated its position.... I believe in the people\nof England and in their destiny.\" In his last Premiership he has\nsimply put those thirty-year-old utterances into practice. If he\nhad not done all he has done, he would have been false to the heroic\nspirit of that far-back hour. On the hustings at Maidstone Mr.\nDisraeli said, \"If there is one thing on which I pique myself, it is\nmy consistency.\" Lord Beaconsfield in advancing age may repeat the\nstatement without varying it a syllable, though more than forty years\nhave elapsed between the times.\n\nThe Peel-Disraeli episode has been for a long time now the chief\nstandard illustration of the political casuistry of our modern\nParliamentary history. Mr. Disraeli, those opposed to him will have\nit, acted most cruelly in that matter. It is rather a curious thing\nfor a young member of Parliament to succeed in being cruel to the\nmost powerful Minister the House of Commons had seen for more than a\ngeneration. If a giant is overthrown it must be rather the fault\nof the colossus somehow, unless, that is, it be a bigger giant who\nattacks him; and at that time of day, though Mr. Disraeli was growing\nfast, he really was not yet of the same towering height as Peel. How\nwas it, then, that he succeeded in toppling over the great Minister?\nLet me first of all say that the truth seems to be that Sir Robert\nPeel's unlooked-for tragic death has given to his memory a pathetic\ninterest which has caused an unfair heightening of emotion in the\ncase. Neither all England, nor even the bulk of Parliament, was in\ntears, busy with pocket-handkerchiefs, during the delivery of those\nfamous philippics. If pocket-handkerchiefs were used it was to wipe\naway drops caused by laughter, for everybody was roaring from moment\nto moment as each stroke told. Peel had taken up a position in\nreference to his old supporters which was certain to entail attack;\nthe only thing special that Mr. Disraeli contributed to the assault\nwas the splendour of the wit which barbed it. Everything that he said\nof Peel, allowing fairly for controversial exigencies, was strictly\ntrue. Nobody wishes to revive those necessarily hard sayings now,\nbut it must be insisted upon for a second, in passing, that Peel had\ntreated his party as no Minister before him had ever done. It was the\nexactest verity, as well as the keenest sarcasm, when Mr. Disraeli\ncharged him with having tried to steer his party right into the\nharbour of the enemy. Mr. Disraeli was the man to feel this most of\nany, for it is one of his leading principles that as this nation now\nexists party in our constitution is an apparatus absolutely necessary\nto be preserved. He has for a third of a century since then himself\nunfailingly worked by that rule. But I scarcely need urge this part\nof the matter further here, as another word bearing upon it will come\nlater. If Peel had lived on, he and his attacker would before the end\nhave come to terms amicably enough, as Mr. Disraeli has since done\nwith everybody else whom he has, from obligations of political duty,\nhad publicly to oppose. That is, unless they were stupid enough not\nto remember his known determination that Parliamentary life should be\nraised above the level of vestry proceedings, by being dignified by\na play of wit; or else were ill-conditioned enough, as some who have\nheld high place have been, not to meet his offered open palm when the\nweapon was put back into the sheath. Peel himself would have had more\nsense; so, too, the present bearer of his name has shown himself\nto have. The rather idle statement that the Disraelian assault was\nprompted out of spite at not being made an Under-Secretary may at\nthis time of day be, perhaps, passed over. Mr. Disraeli spoke with and\nvoted for Peel long after that supposed neglect, and though it may be\nsaid that a spiteful man could nurse his revenge, it is just as true\nthat the most generous could have done nothing more than go on showing\nrespect and giving support just as Mr. Disraeli did. Further, no one\nwas prompter than he was with words of praise so soon as there\nwas opportunity for them. Indeed, the finest eulogy of Peel stands\nrecorded in the printed pages of the person who is charged with\npursuing him with unheard-of bitterness. The man who waited for office\ntill the day when he vaulted at once into the Chancellorship of the\nExchequer, was scarcely the one to be mightily offended, because, when\na first batch of appointments was distributed, an Under-Secretaryship\nwent by him. It was the leadership of his party for wise ends that Mr.\nDisraeli was looking out for.\n\nHere again, however, it is unnecessarily restricting the consideration\nof the point to speak of Mr. Disraeli's invective only in reference to\nPeel. Acting on his maxim that it is the very ornament of debate, he\nat one time or other has let the lightning of his tongue play around\neverybody in Parliament who offered fit mark for it. Lord Russell was\nscorched by it; so was Lord Palmerston. Mr. Roebuck, who in those\ndays was thought to have a bitter lip, got singed from it; and Mr.\nGladstone has felt its blaze wrapping around him often. He is, at this\nmoment, in fact, supposed to be showing some not very ancient scars\nfrom it. But, occasionally even Mr. Disraeli's friends felt a more\nlambent play of this glorious irony. It was he who told the late Earl\nDerby that he was only \"a Prince Rupert of debate,\" always finding\nhis camp in the hands of the enemy on returning from his irresistible\ncharges. He never objected to receive as good as he gave, if only any\none could be found to give it him. Only once in all his career did he\nlose his temper--in the challenge arising out of the O'Connell affair;\nand that was before he was in Parliament. While in the House, who was\nthere with steel of any temper that he did not try its edge? Sharp\nblows were aimed back, and he always admitted when it was a palpable\nhit; but who came up so often as he did--who was there that did not go\ndown before him at the last? Take Mr. Disraeli and Lord Beaconsfield\nout of the record of the Parliamentary debating of the last forty\nyears, and what a darkening it would give--what a gap it would make!\n\nSomething must now be said as to Lord Beaconsfield's systematic\npolitical and social views. It is very certain that he has a system,\nand it is also sure that he has never hidden what it is. Nobody has\nbeen at such pains to make his views clear. He has written books in\nexplanation, as well as made speeches; he has illustrated the system\nby fiction, besides backing it up by historical disquisition. Anybody\nwho chooses may learn what it is, and--as a great modification of\npolitical feeling in this country shows--a vast number have done so,\nby reading \"Coningsby,\" \"Sybil,\" and the preface to \"Lothair.\" Indeed,\nfrom this latter exposition itself, all that is vital may be inferred.\nBut the doctrine has of necessity some elaborateness, and asks\na trifle of thought. It cannot be hit off in as easy a way as\n\"Radicalism\" can, where, when you have uttered the half-platitude,\nhalf-sophism, \"equality of man,\" you are supposed to have said\nnearly everything. Lord Beaconsfield has always kept before him the\nconception of a _community_, which he distinguishes from a mob, and\nif he could get his own way in the matter he would have the society\nhighly organized; the keeping it real in every part, and strictly and\nbroadly popular in its entirety, being the only working limit that he\nwould prescribe to its institutional intricacy.\n\nThis system, though on its being gradually promulgated it was held to\nbe Mr. Disraeli's very own, expressly denies for itself that it is in\nany sense Disraelian at all. Lord Beaconsfield avows that he has found\nit in history--in our own history. He is content to be regarded as\nits discoverer, not its inventor. In a word, Lord Beaconsfield's great\nclaim upon his countrymen, as he himself puts it, is that he has again\nbrought to light and forced under the eyes of Englishmen their own\nnational chronicle.\n\nTo begin with, it is his Lordship's firmly avowed belief that there\nhas been what may be called a break or rift in our great social\ntraditions. It is not difficult to see that he traces the causes of it\nback to the violent subversal of the Church, which, he will have\nit, was never in this country at any time in real danger of becoming\nPapal. But I may take up the narrative somewhat later. With his own\ninimitable terseness, he has thus described the three great evils\nwhich afterwards made a social wreck of modern England: they were, he\nsays, Venetian politics, Dutch finance, and French wars. All these he\nattributes to the Whig nobles. What is called the great Revolution,\nwhich they so hugely turned to their glory and their profit, he, in\n\"Sybil,\" ascribes to the fear of those whom he calls \"the great lay\nimpropriators\" that King James intended to insist on the Church lands\nbeing restored to their original purposes,--to wit, the education of\nthe people and the maintenance of the poor. They brought over William\nof Orange, along with whom, he ironically says, England had the\nhappiness of receiving a Corn Law and the National Debt. But the Crown\nitself was enslaved in the hands of the Whig families, who converted\nthemselves into a Venetian oligarchy; and, throwing off the natural\nobligations of property, they borrowed money to defray the foreign\nwars in which William was entangled before he left his own country.\n\nThese are the historical premises from which Lord Beaconsfield's\nviews are all fundamentally derived. It is open to anybody to try to\ndisprove them; what they have got to do is simply to show that the\nabove alleged facts were not the true ones. But no one has done this\nas yet. Coming down still later in his history, Mr. Disraeli, in\n\"Sybil,\" gave the following condensed description of the social\ncondition which had resulted,--\"a mortgaged aristocracy, a gambling\nforeign commerce, a home trade founded on a morbid competition, and a\ndegraded people.\" Here, again, the whole case is open to debate, but I\nventure to think that he will be a bold man who denies that this was\na vivid picture of England at the moment Mr. Disraeli penned it. The\nbold man, at any rate, did not present himself at the time. It was the\nlast item in that shocking list which fastened most on Mr. Disraeli's\nimagination--\"a degraded people.\" When writing \"Sybil\" he converted\nhimself into a Commissioner of Inquiry, and visiting the homes of\nhis humbler countrymen, painted them from sight on the spot. The\ndescriptions in those pages can never be forgotten of dwellings where\nlived fever and consumption and ague as well as human beings; the\nthree first-named inhabitants being in fact the only tenants who\nremained under the roofs long. With agitation unusual for him, but\nmost consistent in an upholder of the doctrine of race, he affirmed\nthat \"the physical quality\" of our people was endangered. But he\nfurther found that in the manufacturing districts there was, to use\nhis own words, \"no society, but only aggregation:\" or, again to quote\nhim, \"the moral condition of the people was entirely lost sight of.\"\nMuch of this, he believed, was due to the Church having failed in its\nobligations. \"The Church,\" he makes one of the characters in his story\nsay to another in it, \"has deserted the people, and from that moment\nthe Church has been in danger, and the people degraded.\"\n\nAt this point I may very rightly interpolate a remark which has not a\nlittle explanatory value. Just in proportion to the importance\ngiven in Lord Beaconsfield's system to the Church was his natural\ndisappointment at the failure, regarded from one side, of the\nawakening going on within its borders at the time of the \"Young\nEngland\" movement. A great part of his hopes rested on that stir. He\nwas expecting from those most prominent in it a grand resuscitation of\nthe Anglican Church, but in place of that he says Dr. (now\nCardinal) Newman and the other seceders \"sought refuge in medi\u00e6val\nsuperstitions, which are generally only the embodiment of pagan\nceremonies and creeds.\" Bearing this in mind, there ought not to be\nmuch difficulty in understanding either Lord Beaconsfield's position\ntowards the Ritualists, or the course he took as to the Public Worship\nRegulation Act.\n\nWhat was the remedy for this state of society into which England had\nfallen? The cure which seemed natural to Mr. Disraeli was to revert to\nthe principles of our history. Practically, the first thing to be done\nwas to break up the political monopoly of the Whigs, and it was\nthis very task that he set himself to do. I have already extracted a\npassage denouncing that party in the first election address he issued.\nBut here, too, he had no new course to strike out. He affirmed that\nboth Lord Shelburne and Mr. Pitt had attempted the same work long\nbefore. Shelburne, he said, saw in the growing middle-class a bulwark\nfor the throne against the Revolution families; and Pitt, still\nmore determined to curb the power of the patrician party, created a\nplebeian aristocracy, when they baffled his first endeavours, blending\nit with the old oligarchy. It has not unlikely begun to dawn upon the\nreader that Mr. Disraeli, holding these views, was himself a Reformer,\nof a much more comprehensive kind even than the Radicals. True, Reform\nas it actually had come about in 1832, most craftily manipulated as\nit then was by the Whigs to their own advantage, skilfully snatching\nprofit out of what ought to have been a danger to them, was not his\nnotion. For part of what happened then he, indeed, with his usual\ncourage, blamed the Duke of Wellington and his colleagues. His own\nparty have had from no quarter criticism so severe as that he has\ngiven them. If Lord Beaconsfield is in favour of an aristocracy, it\nis because he is for making it actually \"lead.\" He affirms that the\nTories, by their conduct in office, precipitated a revolution which\nmight have been delayed for half a century, and which need never have\noccurred at all in so aggravated a form. All that he could do, all\nthat he has ever claimed to do, by his own partial Reform measure, was\nto do away with part of the ill effects of that partisan move of the\nother side, and to prevent fresh ill ones from being worked in just\nthe same way. But there ought to be given a still broader statement\nof Lord Beaconsfield's political and social doctrines, and, perhaps, I\ncannot do better than make with that view the following quotation from\nthe preface to \"Lothair.\" He there explains that his general aims were\nthese:--\n\n    \"To change back the oligarchy into a generous aristocracy\n    round a real throne; to infuse life and vigour into the Church\n    as the trainer of the nation, by the revival of Convocation,\n    then dumb, on a wide basis, and not, as has since been done,\n    in the shape of a priestly faction; to establish a commercial\n    code on the principles successfully negotiated by Lord\n    Bolingbroke at Utrecht, and which, though baffled at the\n    time by a Whig Parliament, were subsequently and triumphantly\n    vindicated by his political pupil and heir, Mr. Pitt; to\n    govern Ireland according to the policy of Charles I., and not\n    of Oliver Cromwell; to emancipate the political constituencies\n    of 1832 from sectarian bondage and contracted sympathies; to\n    elevate the physical as well the moral condition of the people\n    by establishing that labour required regulation as much as\n    property; and all this rather by the use of ancient forms\n    and the restoration of the past than by political revolution\n    founded on abstract ideas.\"\n\nThis, he goes on to say, appeared to him at the beginning of his\ncareer to be the course which the country required, and, he adds, that\nit was one \"which, practically speaking, could only with all\ntheir faults and backslidings be undertaken and accomplished by a\nreconstructed Tory party.\"\n\nIf I were able to find room for bringing together from Lord\nBeaconsfield's books and speeches detailed passages to illustrate this\nsummary, it would be seen what a coherent social scheme he has always\nhad present to his mind. The above hints, however, must serve. Any\none who, after reading them, thinks that there is any ground for the\nelectioneering cry the Liberals are trying to raise, that this is a\nMinister who has no domestic policy, will show more stolidity than we\nhope the bulk of the electors possess. Further on I will return for a\nmoment to this point.\n\nLet me go at once to the fourth topic I have allotted to myself--Lord\nBeaconsfield's foreign policy. This policy, I need not say, is that,\nof the Cabinet as well, but I am not in this paper writing of the\nother members of the Government. It is not my purpose to trace the\nhistory of the Eastern Question, that of the Afghan War, and the Zulu\nembroglio. But there is one general aspect of these matters as to\nwhich I must offer two or three comments in addition to what has been\nbefore said about \"Imperialism.\" A set attempt has been made, and is\npretty certain to go on being made all the time between now and the\nelections--whether they come earlier or later--and to be then finally\nrepeated on the hustings, to give to Lord Beaconsfield the air of a\nmost belligerent, not to say a bloodthirsty, Minister, who, the moment\nhe got into office, began to peep about the world to see where he\ncould pick a quarrel, and who has especially acted defiantly towards\nRussia. By way of preliminary, I may ask whether his past antecedents\nshow him to be a statesman of this hobgoblin type? Lord Palmerston\nfound no more unyielding opponent of his turbulent foreign policy than\nMr. Disraeli, who always contended that the effect of it was to draw\nthe national attention away from home reforms. When the question of\ncoast fortifications was before Parliament, Mr. Disraeli was among\nthe first to protest against panic; he it was who spoke of \"bloated\narmaments;\" and on countless occasions he has raised his voice for\npeace and retrenchment. In 1865 he publicly declared that since he\nhad had to do with politics he had known only one war which was\njustifiable--that waged in the Crimea. But it may be said that it is\na common artifice for men in Opposition to preach peace. Let us, then,\nturn specially to the Eastern Question, and see what grounds there are\nfor insinuating that Lord Beaconsfield has in that case concocted a\nwar policy for the purpose of exciting and dazzling the country, and\nkeeping himself in power. In 1843--which is now some time ago--in a\ndebate as to the production of papers on Servia, in which Sir Robert\nPeel and Lord Palmerston were the chief orators, he made a speech\nwhich contained this passage:--\"What, then, ought to be the\nMinisterial policy? To maintain Turkey by diplomatic action in such a\nstate that she might be able to hold independently the Dardanelles.\"\nWhy, this is the literal description of what he has done now. And we\nhave already seen that in 1865, twenty-two years after, the one only\nwar he approved was that which had been fought against Russia for this\nvery purpose. In the early stage of the negotiations which led to that\nwar, his complaint was that the Government was not vigorous enough\nin defending Turkey. But, in 1857, there arose another occasion for\ntesting whether Mr. Disraeli's feelings naturally were for peace\nor war. He opposed the war with China, and in the Persian affair he\ndenounced the Russophobia of Lord Palmerston--the very complaint from\nwhich, we infer, the Liberals wish him to be understood to be himself\nsuffering now. Or take India as a test. According to the Duke of\nArgyll and others, Lord Beaconsfield has an insatiable thirst for more\nterritory in that part of the world. Very strangely, it was he who\nmost condemned the annexation of Oude, going so far as to make a\nmotion for a Royal Commission to be sent out to India to inquire into\nthe condition of the people. When the contest between the Northern and\nSouthern States of America broke out, no public man regretted it more\nthan he did, and he was unfalteringly on the side of the North.\n\nIn fact, only in one single case has Lord Beaconsfield ever shown the\nslightest disposition for sacrificing peace, if need be--namely, for\nthe checking of Russia's portentous advance; and this has necessarily\nimplied the maintenance of Turkey in some degree of power. Twice in\nhis lifetime has the need arisen, and he has acted the second time\nin just the same way that he did the first, the only difference\nbeing that he happens now, fortunately, to be in office instead of in\nOpposition.\n\nIn his first speech in the Upper House, Lord Beaconsfield said--\"The\nEastern Question involves some of the elements of the distribution of\npower in the world, and involves the existence of empires. I plead\nfor a calm statesmanlike consideration of the question.\" In his second\ngreat speech in that House, he made this remark,--\"The independence\nand integrity of Turkey is the traditional policy not only of England\nbut of Europe.\" This is the absolute truth. It is not he who has\ninvented any brand-new tactics in this matter; he has simply\nstood upon the old paths, and carried on the settled habits of our\nstatesmanship. The innovators are Mr. Gladstone and the self-styled\nhumanitarians, who were for substituting hysterics for national\ndiplomacy, and thought to solve the Eastern Question by presenting the\nTurk with a carpet-bag and begging him to retire with it into Asia.\nBut it is stated that Lord Beaconsfield has defied Russia. Well, turn\nto the famous Guildhall speech, which is the great article in the\nindictment. It suits his critics to pick words out of it to please\nthem; but it also contains sentences like the following, which they\nsomehow overlook,--\"We have nothing to gain by war. We are essentially\na non-aggressive Power.\" In that same speech, too, he alluded to the\nEmperor of Russia's \"lofty character,\" addressing to him words of the\nhighest compliment. If he added a solemn warning to that monarch as to\nthe extent of England's resources if she was forced into war for\nthe cause of public right, he still was speaking in the interests of\npeace, not war. It was his bounden duty to prevent the present Czar\nfrom falling into the mistake his father was so fatally guided into by\nthe Manchester school--that of thinking England would in no case draw\nthe sword. Construe his words how you will, they amount to no more\nthan this. Mr. Gladstone and his friends, by their factitious public\ndemonstrations, partly did away with the natural effects of that grave\nintimation, and made it necessary for the Government to prove its\nseriousness by bringing troops from India, and actually risking the\nvery war which Lord Beaconsfield had wished to avoid. But the Premier\nhad the courage not only of his opinions but of a true policy, and he\nhas had his reward. He successfully checked the sinister progress of\nRussia, restored the reign of public law in Europe, and while exalting\nthe renown of his own country, he has pointed another empire--that\nof Austria--to a new career which will benefit the world as well as\nstrengthen and ennoble herself. After the alliance between Germany\nand Austria-Hungary was proclaimed, only one thing was left for his\nLordship's opponents to go on repeating,--namely, that he had, in\nupholding Turkey, spared no thought or feeling to the victims of her\nrule. In the very face of this there was the fact that he had made\nEngland the formal protector of the inhabitants of Asia Minor, and had\ndemanded Cyprus as a nearer point of observation of the Turk; but\nthe plain obvious meaning of those arrangements has been tried to be\nmuddled away by misrepresenting the protectorate of Asia Minor as a\nnew insult to Russia. These brave humanitarians got sorely entangled\nin their logic on all sides. They pleaded in one breath that England\nhad rashly undertaken too much responsibility for these oppressed\npeoples, and in the next breath said that nothing would ever come of\nit. Lord Beaconsfield has made it all clear, and in the simplest way.\nIt is not fully explained at the moment of our writing what is the\nactual extent of the pressure put upon the Porte, nor what precise\norders were sent to our admiral, but when the recent news was first\npublished here the opponents of the Ministry must have felt that Lord\nBeaconsfield had ordered the British Fleet to sail against them when\nthey heard it was instructed to steam back for the Turkish waters.\nKindly meant as it might be for those in Asia Minor, it was a very\ncruel step on the part of Lord Beaconsfield towards some of his\nown countrymen, for it will necessitate the altering of a good many\nalready prepared electioneering speeches. In the end, as we venture to\npredict, it will be seen that his Lordship and his colleagues are the\ntrue humanitarians.\n\nBut let me not lose sight of the fact that this, though a very real\nplea on the part of the Government, is not the one on which they\nmainly rely. They have never pretended to be knights-errant for the\nrighting of wrongs throughout the world. What contents them is the\nhumbler _r\u00f4le_ of old-fashioned English statesmanship, which seeks\nfirst to make sure of the safety of our own empire and the promotion\nof our proper interests, doing what further good it can to other\npeoples incidentally in discharging the fair reasonable obligations\nwhich may in that way arise, nor disdaining any glory that so falls\nto it. But an enormous obligation of this sort was already on our\nshoulders--the preservation of India. We have a strict duty to two\nhundred millions of human beings in the East, and Lord Beaconsfield\nand his colleagues, who appeared to be the only public men in England\nwho remembered this, were determined to discharge it. Anything and\neverything in their policy which may at first sight seem risky\nor belligerent is explained fully to every one who will keep that\npressing need before his mind. It was this which made them purchase\nthe Suez Canal shares, and strengthen their interference in Egypt;\nit was this that made them wish for a clearer understanding with the\nAmeer of Afghanistan. But so little did they go about matters with a\nhigh hand, that they most carefully humoured France with respect to\nEgypt, and at the very earliest moment that they could, they made a\ntreaty with a new Afghan ruler. To try to make them appear responsible\nfor what afterwards occurred at Cabul is the most shameless abuse of\nlicense on the part of an Opposition which parliamentary records can\nshow. A Russian embassy had been installed in Cabul with no other\nguarantee for its safety than the word of a friendly Ameer, and our\nEnvoy and his suite were sent thither under the very same guarantee.\nIf we were not to be most dangerously overshadowed by the Russian\nexample, an English embassy had to show its face in Cabul; and to say\nthat our rulers either in Calcutta or in London should have foreseen\nthe pusillanimous break-down of the Ameer and the consequent massacre\nof our brave countrymen is--well, it may be better not further to try\nto say what it is.\n\nOur own interests, I repeat, were jeopardized in every quarter where\nthe present Government has stirred hand or foot. That is its broad\njustification. But I must certainly go a step farther than this. The\npresent Ministry assuredly would not be satisfied with an acquittal on\nthe Liberal arraignment; nor is that the verdict which the public has\ngiven. The British people find this Government guilty of having won\nfor it and for themselves much honour. When Lord Beaconsfield saw that\nin any event he was committed to a contest with Russia for the defence\nof English interests, he had the courage and the wit to determine that\nthe issue of it should be the better for the world. It is for this\nnoble superfluity of skilful statesmanship, this Imperial scope given\nto England's ruling, that Europe has thanked him, and the bulk of this\nnation applauded him. By-and-by, he will reap still further credit,\nfor besides checking Russia he will eventually coerce the Turk. That\nfurther obligation naturally arose out of the course he took, and he\nadded it to his proper task of safeguarding our own interests, just\nas impartially as he did the other aim of arresting the Muscovite.\nI shall not push this reasoning further: it seems to me sufficiently\ntriumphant as it stands. If Lord Beaconsfield has upheld the Turk, it\nwas because it was necessary, not because he admired him. But there\nis another remark, coming much nearer home, that I wish to make before\nconcluding this section.\n\nThe foreign policy of Lord Beaconsfield has brought to him and to his\nparty much renown; but it has brought them nothing else. That\nthere has been the need for it is for the Conservatives a positive\nmisfortune. It has nearly entirely put aside the domestic legislation\non which they reckoned for at once redressing some grievances of their\nown, and for satisfying the town populations who their true friends\nwere. Let it not be forgotten that it was on this very claim of having\na domestic policy that the Conservatives appealed to the people at the\nlast election. Their opponents, who now make a pretence of measures of\nthis kind being lacking, then denounced it loudly enough as a \"policy\nof sewage.\" But Lord Beaconsfield's rivals have tried hard to make\nit seem that he sought out, or even invented, these hazardous events\nabroad which put aside his home policy. The very attempt impugns the\ncommon sense of the general public. A sort of pretext might have been\nfound for insinuating such a notion if Lord Beaconsfield had been\nnearing the end of expending his Parliamentary majority by carrying\nparty measures. But to suppose that a Minister attaining power in\nthe triumphant way he did would wish to be plunged straightway into\nforeign entanglements, is to imagine him stricken with idiocy.\nLord Beaconsfield had had far too much experience to make such a\npreposterous mistake. He knew at the beginning, as he knows now, that\nneither Minister nor party has much to gain in any way of permanent\npower or confirmed home advantage from foreign policies, however\nsuccessful they may turn out to be. Foreign dangers are half-forgotten\nas soon as they are past. Directly, these occurrences abroad will be\nbut memories; splendid ones they must ever remain: but they will have\nagainst them, in the eyes of the unthinking, the drawback of\nhaving necessarily, to some extent, disordered the finances. Lord\nBeaconsfield's rivals are sure to make the most of that fact on the\nhustings, as he well knew beforehand they would do; and, to balance\nits effect, he will have nothing on which to rely but the patriotic\nrecollection of his country. Should everything go for the best, no\n_prestige_ which these foreign successes can give him and his party\nwill place him more solidly in power than he found himself at the\nbeginning of this Parliament; yet it will only be at the opening of\nthe next that he will be able to push forward the home policy intended\nfor the present Parliament. Apart from a heightening of fortunate\nreputation, won through much risk, his own party will scarcely have\ngained a shred of fair legislative or administrative advantage from\nsix years' splendid possession of overwhelming power.\n\nIt does not seem needful to waste space in speaking of the Zulu war.\nEven the Liberals are beginning to be silent on the subject. The\naffair was forced upon the Government, not sought for by them, and it\nhas ended successfully.\n\nIf I now ask what have been the causes of Lord Beaconsfield's\nunexampled individual success, the remarks must at first seem to\nnarrow to mere personal ones. There has, in truth, been more than one\nreason for the present Premier's triumphs. First of all, I might\nstate the matter so generally as to say that for half a century he has\nmanaged to keep himself the most thoroughly interesting personage\nin England. Neither Mr. Disraeli nor Lord Beaconsfield has ever been\ndull, which is the one only sufficient explanation of failure\nwherever it happens. But such a statement of the matter as this is too\ncomprehensive and wants particularizing. I may add, then, that no one\nhas shown so much pluck as he has, and that is a quality which in the\nend tells with the British public beyond all others. For one starting\nwith his disadvantage of race to dream in those days of a political\ncareer was most courageous, but so soon as it began to be seen that he\nwould triumph over all obstacles, his very difficulties turned to his\nadvantage. He soon commanded everybody's sympathies except those\nof injured partisans on the other side. Not that it was sympathy he\nbegged for; it was admiration he extorted. Especially has he by means\nof his writings had the generous feeling of youth in his favour,\ngeneration after generation. They can never remain untouched by\nthe spectacle of a successful fight against circumstances. But Lord\nBeaconsfield has not owed all to dash and daring. His industry has\nbeen equal to his pluck. If he had only been a politician that would\nhave had to be said; and so it again would if he had only been known\nas the writer of his works. Put both the careers together and nobody\nelse has shown such fertility of brain. His marvellous intellect has\nnever tired. The versatility, too, has been marvellous: a novelist and\na diplomatist, a poet and a Chancellor of the Exchequer, a satirist\nand a successful leader of Opposition. For fifty years, in one or\nother of these characters, and often in several of them at once, his\nwit has never ceased blazing, save when he himself, the only one who\never tired of its play--except, indeed, those hit by it--has chosen\nto smother it in silence; but it was always ready to flash forth upon\noccasion, and is as bright to-day as ever.\n\nBut, to come yet closer to the heart of the secret of Lord\nBeaconsfield's success, his faithful devotion to the great historic\nparty he allied himself with has been equal to his courage, to his\nindustry, and to his abilities. No politician can make an individual\ncareer; he has to find his success in the prosperity of his followers.\nThe loyalty which Lord Beaconsfield has shown to his party and the\nungrudging recognition they have paid to him has half-redeemed the\nhardness of our coarse partisan politics. Some Liberals have had the\nwant of wit, without our going so far as to say the lack of capability\nof feeling, to express surprise at the faithful respect shown to Lord\nBeaconsfield by his present colleagues. That Lord Beaconsfield has a\npersonal charm must be admitted, for he has turned every one who was\never brought into any degree of nearness with him into a friend, as\nwell as a colleague. Those who like may believe that he has done it\nby the use of magic philtres; less credulous people will, perhaps,\ncontent themselves with thinking that his spell has been simply that\nof strength of character, superior experience, and a non-despotic\nmanner. One thing is very patent. This chief of a Cabinet who is said\nto have imprinted everywhere his own individuality on the Ministerial\npolicy, has never practised the slightest interference with his\nsubordinates. It is not he who has been charged with an uncontrollable\nwish to be the representative of all the Ministry in his own person.\nJust as he could show patience when a leader of Opposition, he has\nbeen able to be silent when a Minister. However, it has been rather\ninsinuated that he became preternaturally active in the Cabinet\nCouncils--there standing forth a wizard, and cast all his colleagues\ninto a clairvoyant slumber. Strange to say, they remained in the same\ncomatose condition afterwards in both Houses, never waking up though\nspeaking and passing measures. Two members of his Government, however,\nhave broken away--Lords Derby and Carnarvon have escaped from the\nmagician's cell; but they have divulged nothing as to any necromantic\nviolence worked on them. No, Lord Beaconsfield's fair and reasonable\nascendency has been more honestly won. But his marvellous friendships\nhave not been the only softening touches in his career. All England\nfelt a strange thrilling about the heart on the morning when it\nheard that Mr. Disraeli's wife was henceforth to be the Viscountess\nBeaconsfield. It was a domestic idyll suddenly disclosed in the centre\nof British politics. A man who can make his own hearth the scene of\nromance, convert all who know him well into true friends, and win\nall the young people of a nation, must be something more than a\nself-seeker.\n\nStill, though these things might explain Lord Beaconsfield being so\ninteresting, something else has yet to be added to account for the\noverwhelming importance which he has attained in the last period of\nhis career. Not even the success of his party could have given him\nthat unless the policy which secured this prosperity had obtained,\nalso, the exalting of the nation.\n\nIt is this which is his final boast; he has uplifted higher the fame\nof England, and by doing that has made his own renown the greater.\nOnce more, it was achieved in the simplest way. He invented nothing,\nstrained at nothing, but only boldly carried on the traditionary\nEnglish policy, at a moment when his opponents were willing to forget\nit; and in merely proving equal to the opportunity, and daring to make\nBritain act worthily of her history, he has changed by her means the\ndestiny of the Western World. Not only his own countrymen, but Europe\nand nations more distant still, to-day hail him as the greatest of\nmodern English statesmen. That is a title and dignity somewhat higher\nthan an Earldom, and it is under that larger style that those who\nwish to do Lord Beaconsfield full honour will have to allude to him\nhereafter in the national annals.\n\nThese are some of the reasons why we honour and follow him.\n\n  A TORY.\n\n\nII.--WHY WE DISBELIEVE IN HIM.\n\nIf a Whig had been asked ten or a dozen years ago, or indeed six years\nback, to write his impressions of Mr. Disraeli, he would have set\nabout it in a strikingly different spirit from that which the task\nawakens now. Lord Beaconsfield has recently become much too serious\na joke in the national history, but for a very long time the jocosity\nwas light enough. In the eyes of all Liberals who had not fully\nacquired the gravity of their own fundamental principles, there was,\ndown to a very late period, always something diverting about Mr.\nDisraeli. He might and did vex them, but shortly they were again\nsmiling at him. The explanation was this, that for a long time his\npresence in Parliament hardly at all hindered the progress of Liberal\nmeasures. Whenever a legislative reform was proposed, he invariably\nspoke against it, and at some stage afterwards the Conservatives\nvoted in a body the same way. From the voting being subsequent to\nthe speaking, there was an illusive appearance of Mr. Disraeli's\nspeechifying being the cause of the Tory division list. But, in\nreality, there was no such connection, and the Liberals were aware\nof it. They all knew that the Conservatives would have voted just\nthe same without a word being spoken. If, during all the years Lord\nPalmerston was in power, almost the whole of Lord Russell's\nearlier and later official terms, and down to nearly the end of Mr.\nGladstone's Ministry, Mr. Disraeli, instead of making speeches, had\namused his audience by pirouetting on one leg night after night, the\npractical result would have been exactly the same. It could not have\nbeen so entertaining to the Liberals, because, looking at some members\nof the Conservative party, it would have exceeded the bounds of\nbelief to suppose that Mr. Disraeli was really twirling for the whole,\nwhereas it did somehow come to be accepted that he was speaking for\nall of them. The unlooked-for thoughts he pretended to put into their\nminds, and the preposterous words he did put upon their lips, kept\nall Englishmen who were not Conservatives shaking their sides with\nlaughter. It was as if a foreign Will-o'-the-Wisp had strayed into the\nBritish Parliament, always, however, keeping himself and his antics on\nthe Conservative side, as being, we suppose, the worst-drained part of\nthe House, where the morasses lay. Even when, to the amazement of\nthe country generally, Mr. Disraeli found his way into office, the\nmerriment did not stop. Nobody who has reached mature years can forget\nwhat an astounding drollery it was thought to be when Mr. Disraeli was\nmade Chancellor of the Exchequer by Lord Derby. For the time it seemed\nto convert English politics into pantomime. Will-o'-the-Wisp had been\nasked by the country party to undertake the post of chief financier.\nEverybody on the other side was prepared beforehand to laugh at his\nBudgets; and, when they were propounded, the Liberals did laugh a\nlittle more even than they had expected to do. When he brought in\nhis India Bill, the merriment grew perfectly uproarious,--Manchester,\nLiverpool, Glasgow, Belfast, and the other large commercial towns\nexploding one after the other. It was the same when he proposed to\ngive sixteen millions for Irish railways; it was the same with the\nfirst sketches of his Reform Bill. Surely nobody can have forgotten\nthe \"fancy franchises?\" In a word, every domestic measure that\nMr. Disraeli ever proposed was, in the first shape in which it was\npresented, received with mirth from nearly every quarter excepting\nhis immediate rear. There sat his supporters, usually in those years\nwearing rather long faces during the earlier period of the statements,\nand apparently wondering if their ears could possibly be telling them\nrightly.\n\nBut all this, as there is not a single Liberal in the country but will\nadmit, is a good deal altered. Lord Beaconsfield has recently signed\nforeign treaties on England's behalf, insisting most successfully, he\ntells us, on what kind of treaties they should be; he has undoubtedly\nput our armies and fleets into motion; and, while risking war in\nEurope, has actually waged it in Asia and Africa. The bustle of these\nevents, and a certain dazzle and glitter attending them, cause people\nin general, at this moment, to forget all that prior long period of\nnon-success on his part in everything else but making successive\nsteps of personal advancement. What has happened lately in Lord\nBeaconsfield's career has certainly worn a look of importance, and\nit has undoubtedly embodied political power. If, as the Liberals will\nhave it, he is still really Will-o'-the-Wisp as much as ever, he has\nmanaged to get hold of the sword of England, and has for some time\nbeen playing with it to the great wonder of foreign nations. But how\nhas this change in his position been worked? This is the question I\nwant now to consider.\n\nA Hebrew by descent, a Christian by profession, and in politics a\nTory--such is Lord Beaconsfield. This description, on the very face\nof it, is a rather mixed one, and implies a singular career. It\nis, however, the last item which specially fixes my attention. Mr.\nDisraeli, sparse though the instances are, was not the first of his\nrace who changed his faith. Also, there have been, and indeed still\nare, other Hebrews who have entered public life in England, and\nattained conspicuousness in it. But those, while remaining nearly\ninvariably Jews in religion, became Liberals in politics. In fact,\nLord Beaconsfield is the only Hebrew of importance known who turned\nTory. It was--and at first sight it gives a highly religious air to\nthe Conservative party--indispensable to his doing this that he should\nfirst be a Christian. Not being that he would indeed have had to\nwait till the Liberals carried their Bill for the Removal of Jewish\nDisabilities before he could have joined the Conservatives inside\nParliament. That circumstance, again, seems to give to his career a\ncurious aspect. In fact, the reflection is forced upon one so early as\nthis,--what an utter failure Mr. Disraeli must have been if he had\nnot so amazingly succeeded! To be a Hebrew-Tory left just two issues,\neither to become the leader of the party or the very humblest member\nof it. All the circumstances would seem to point to the latter\nalternative as being the natural one, but it is the other which\nhas somehow come about. Mr. Disraeli has flowered into the Earl of\nBeaconsfield, and has now twice been, and will remain for a little\ntime longer, the Prime Minister of Great Britain.\n\nMr. Disraeli did not wait for his celebrity until he entered the House\nof Commons; he gathered the renown of authorship, and I might add,\nremembering the number of constituencies he tried before he was\nelected, the notoriety of out-door political life, before he plucked\nthe fame of statesmanship. At the early age of twenty-two he was a\nliterary lion in London society; his only claim to this premature\npublicity, though it was held to be quite sufficient, being that he\nwas the writer of \"Vivian Grey.\" It is quite impossible to begin to\nspeak of Lord Beaconsfield in any other way than in connection with\n\"Vivian Grey,\" although he is understood not altogether to approve of\none's doing so.\n\nAll the world knows, or is supposed to know, this work. Mr. Disraeli's\nown description of its object was that it was meant to paint the\ncareer of a youth of talent in modern society, ambitious of political\ncelebrity. Nearly everybody has persisted in regarding it as a kind\nof prospective autobiography, which the writer has ever since been\noccupied in realizing. Certainly Mr. Disraeli was at that time a\nyouth, and a youth of talent; he must have been in society or he could\nnot have known a great many people who are sketched in the pages; and\nit is impossible for him to deny that he was ambitious of political\ncelebrity. The means Vivian Grey adopted for attaining that aim\nwere, also, wonderfully like some of those which Mr. Disraeli himself\nafterwards, by some mistake, appeared to use. On the title-page of the\nbook was the well-known quotation from \"Ancient Pistol,\" to whom, in\nthe eyes of some people, Lord Beaconsfield at certain moments of his\ncareer has ever had an indistinct resemblance. \"The world is mine\noyster,\" the motto stated, either on behalf of the writer or the hero;\ngoing on to add the rest, to the effect that either the one or the\nother meant to open it. Lord Beaconsfield has assuredly done so. The\nprofound reflection which prompts the youthful hero of the book to his\ncourse of action was this:--\"How many a powerful noble wants only wit\nto be a Minister; and what wants Vivian Grey to attain the same end?\nThat noble's influence.\" Not many years after this Mr. Disraeli was\nseen in public very close to Lord Chandos. But it was not that Lord\nbut Lord Carabas that Vivian Grey chose for his patron, which is, no\ndoubt, a difference. The story most frankly relates how Vivian wins\nthe marquis by teaching him how to make tomahawk punch, how he wins\nthe marchioness by complimenting her poodle, and how during the task\nhe consoles himself by such thoughts as this:--\"Oh, politics, thou\nsplendid juggle!\" His settled purpose he thus sums up: \"Mankind, then,\nis my great game.\" He expressly states that he is to win this game\nby the use of his \"tongue,\" on which he states he is \"able to perform\nright skilfully;\" but it will, he recognises, be requisite \"to mix\nwith the herd\" and to \"humour their weaknesses.\" The chief guiding\nrule which he lays down for himself in the midst of it all is, \"that\nhe must be reckless of all consequences save his own prosperity.\"\n\nThere are people who still believe that in all this they see sketched\nthe very determinations, maxims, and rules which are to be found\ndeliberately carried out in Mr. Disraeli's actual career. It\nis perplexing. The parallel, they assert, runs into the closest\ncorrespondence of detail. Vivian Grey's model author is Bolingbroke;\nand everybody knows that he, also, was Mr. Disraeli's. The young\nman in the book shows his reverential admiration for Bolingbroke by\ninventing a few passages and putting them into that personage's mouth\nfor the better bamboozling of Lord Carabas; and it is known that Mr.\nDisraeli, at different periods of his life, has taken passages from\nother people and put them into his own mouth. But I cannot pursue this\ncomparison or contrast, or whatever it is, farther: it will be better\nseen as I go on, what grounds people have had for beholding Mr.\nDisraeli in Vivian Grey. For the present it is enough to say, that it\nwas Mr. Disraeli, and not Vivian Grey, who wrote this book. So much as\nthat is quite certain. A fiction of the kind above briefly hinted at\nwas the first fruit of Mr. Disraeli's intellect; it was in penning\nthose pages of caricature of everybody who was notable in London\nsociety that he expended the first fresh enthusiasm of his mind, and\ndisplayed the earlier untainted innocence of his disposition. Lord\nBeaconsfield has spoken of it as a book written by a boy. It was that\nwhich made it so marvellous. This boy began with satire, and it\nmight have been predicted that the juvenile would develop into an\nexceptional man.\n\nIt was not until 1837, when Mr. Disraeli was about thirty-three years\nold, that he entered Parliament. Maidstone had the honour of finding\nhim his first seat, though he had been willing to represent three\nother boroughs previously, if there had not been reluctance on the\npart of the constituencies. High Wycombe saw his earliest appearance\non the hustings, and, indeed, it beheld him as a candidate more than\nonce, but never as a member. He also offered himself to Marylebone. By\nsome mistake it was supposed that in these instances he came forward\nas a Radical. Certainly his addresses spoke of short Parliaments, the\nballot, and other measures commonly held to be Liberal. Mr. Joseph\nHume, Mr. O'Connell, and Sir F. Burdett fell under the delusion, and\nwrote letters recommending him, though they afterwards withdrew them.\nBut when, a little later, Mr. Disraeli contested Taunton as a Tory he\nexplained it all. It seems that it arose out of a mystification.\nFrom the first he really stood as an \"Anti-Whig,\" which the Liberals\nthought meant a Radical; and Mr. Disraeli, not wishing unnecessarily\nto disturb their minds, had let them go on thinking so. However, there\nwas no doubt whatever as to his politics long before he was finally\nsuccessful at Maidstone. He had become intimate with Lord Chandos,\nand had had his name toasted at banquets by the Aylesbury farmers as\na friend of the agricultural interest. The whole question is one\nscarcely worth debating. I myself believe that the proper description\nof Mr. Disraeli at this time was not strictly either that of Radical\nor Tory; his accurate designation would have run,--\"An intending\npolitician determined somehow to get into Parliament, and looking\neagerly for the first opening.\" Let me also add that, from a review\nof all his tastes, I further believe that he would have preferred the\nopening to offer on the Tory side, if only it had come soon enough.\n\nThe early part of Lord Beaconsfield's Parliamentary life will have\nto be compressed into a very brief space. Where would be the good of\nre-opening in any detail the closed story of those stale politics,\nall as dead as Queen Anne herself; or where the use of treating Mr.\nDisraeli's doings as very seriously forming part of those politics?\nHe simply availed himself of his opportunities. For all practical\npurposes I might nearly skip--strange as that at first sight seems--to\nhis second term of office in the post of Premier. It is only during a\ncomparatively very few of these later years that Lord Beaconsfield has\nbeen of real importance in our politics. Of course, he had always\nmuch significance for his party, but it is of the nation I am speaking\nhere. These individual tactics have only any general interest now\nthrough their making him successively Conservative leader, Chancellor\nof the Exchequer, and Prime Minister. Nothing in this world, I should\nsay, would be more tedious than tracing, for example, how Mr. Disraeli\ntrimmed and tacked between Protection, Reciprocity, Revision of\nTaxation in the interests of the farmers, and a recognition of Free\nTrade. It all resulted in nothing; at least, the one single result\nit has brought forth has been--Lord Beaconsfield. But if a detailed\nretrospect of his lordship's earlier career would now have this dreary\naspect, it was at the time lively enough, from moment to moment, not\nonly on account of his debating smartness, but owing to a certain\ndrollery which it for a long time wore.\n\nA Minister, plainly, must get both his glory and his power from either\ndomestic measures or from foreign policy. Very curiously, considering\nall the facts of Lord Beaconsfield's history down to the beginning of\nthis last term of office, it was only to home matters that he should\nhave looked for any distinction. An impression seems oddly to have\npopularized itself that he has a special genius for foreign affairs,\nand an enormous acquaintance with diplomacy. I can only say, that five\nyears ago nobody knew it. The real truth is, that he had never any\nopportunities before of meddling with events abroad, and that we have\nbeen represented in these recent foreign complications by a Minister\nwho, to that very moment, had had less to do with diplomacy than any\nEnglish Premier for fully three-quarters of a century.\n\nLord Beaconsfield's mind has always been occupied with home affairs,\nand his characteristic views on these come from the quarter whence it\nis supposed all truth has been derived--the East. He somehow picked\nthem up during two years of travel in those parts, from 1829 to 1831.\nAbout the former date, Mr. Disraeli's first brilliant but very brief\nliterary success was over. He had published a second part of \"Vivian\nGrey,\" which the public somehow was too busy to read; and had issued\na further work of satire, \"Popanilla,\" which it also neglected to\nbuy. Mr. Disraeli immediately vanished into the Orient. When, after\nvisiting Jerusalem, and lingering, as he tells us, on the plains of\nTroy, he returned to these shores, he brought back with him the Asian\nMystery and a whole apparatus of political and social principles. He\nhad also some manuscripts, which did not turn out to be of so much\nimportance--\"Contarini Fleming\" and \"The Young Duke.\" It was the most\nsurprisingly fruitful voyage of discovery that any traveller ever\nmade. Years elapsed before all the principles were given to the world,\nbut Mr. Disraeli had them by him. Some of them are, indeed, hinted\nat as early as 1835, when he issued his \"Vindication of the English\nConstitution,\" before he was in Parliament. Still, the system was not\ndivulged in its entirety until he was in the House, and had founded\nwhat became known as the \"Young England School.\" It is to the series\nof political novels which he then wrote that we must turn for the\ncomplete exposition of his fundamental ideas. Somehow, it has always\nseemed to everybody the most natural and fitting thing in the world\nthat Mr. Disraeli should have corrected the inaccuracies of our\nnational history, and shown our social fallacies, by writing works of\nfiction. The instruction with which he began the new training of the\npublic was this--that our history is, in all the latter part of it,\nentirely wrong. In \"Sybil,\" he thus gives his general opinion of the\nway in which it has been written:--\"All the great events have been\ndistorted, most of the important causes concealed, some of the\nprincipal characters never appear, and all who figure are so\nmisunderstood and misrepresented that the result is a complete\nmystification.\"\n\nAssuredly if this, or anything like it, was the state of things, Mr.\nDisraeli had not discovered it one moment too soon, and he was more\nthan justified in making it known. On all the points named in the\nabove summary he supplies most important rectifications. It seems that\nthe people of this country, in so far, that is, as they were not the\nmerest tools of their rulers, were under an entire mistake as to Rome\nwanting any domination in England in Henry the Eighth and Elizabeth's\ntime; and that, strange to say, they also again fell into exactly\nthe same delusion at the expulsion of James I. Mr. Disraeli puts the\npeople who lived at those times right on these matters. But it was\na section of nobles who at the latter juncture were to blame; those,\nnamely, who had been enriched by the spoliation of the Church.\nMr. Disraeli, indeed, gives the very simplest explanation of the\nRevolution of 1688. He states that the great Whig families were afraid\nthat King James meant to reapply the Church lands to the education\nof the people and the support of the poor, and, in their alarm, they\nbrought over Prince William, who gladly came, since it was only in\nEngland that he could reckon on being able to borrow money enough\nto carry on his failing war against France. In and from that hour\nhappened the catastrophe which overwhelmed the English people--the\nCrown became enslaved by a Whig oligarchy. What Mr. Disraeli styles\nVenetian politics rushed in upon us, and these, by the aid of what\nhe further calls Dutch finance--that is, the incurring of a National\nDebt--made foreign commerce necessary, and increased the obligation of\nhome industry; nearly, as might be expected, ruining everything.\n\nAll the more modern period of our history had been, he in the most\nwonderful way explains, a fight to the death between these fearful\nWhig nobles on the one hand, and, on the other, a struggling heroic\nCrown and some enlightened patriotic Tory peers. The true incidents of\nthis dark and stupendous conflict had never been clearly observed\nby the people in general at the time, nor had the real events been\nrecorded in any of the common chronicles. But, as any one will be\nready to allow, Mr. Disraeli could not be blamed for this. What was\nespecially to his credit was that he had himself found out that the\nreal ruler of England, in the era immediately preceding his own, was a\ncertain Major Wildman, whom nobody before Mr. Disraeli had ever in the\nleast suspected of wielding supreme power. I cannot stay to give the\ndetails of this portentous disclosure, but anybody may find them\nin Lord Beaconsfield's surprising pages. But in spite of superhuman\nexertions in the cause of the people by Lord Shelburne, and after\nhim Mr. Pitt, the wicked Whigs always triumphed; the crowning act of\nduplicity on their part being, in fact, the passing of the Reform Bill\nof 1832.\n\nThe above is a highly condensed, but strictly accurate summary of\nLord Beaconsfield's version of our national history. Any reader by\nthe slightest rummaging in his own mind will know how far his own\nimpressions agree with it. But this is only his Lordship's instruction\nof us as to facts: I must proceed to state the principles of action he\nfounds upon them. Here, however, I find myself brought up a little.\nIf the whole truth is to be spoken, this further task is more easily\nannounced than performed. Mr. Disraeli, in those early days, assuredly\nmade a great appearance of stating his political opinions; but it\nalmost seems as if a novel, after all, is not the best means of\nexpounding political doctrine. The more you attempt to lay hold of\nthese principles the more they somehow show a lack of exactness. But\nlet me try.\n\nHe again and again affirms that he is for our having a \"real throne,\"\nwhich he asserts should be surrounded by \"a generous aristocracy;\"\nand he wishes, moreover, for a people who shall be \"loyal and\nreverentially religious.\" All this certainly sounds as if it meant\nsomething very satisfactory. It is only when you try to penetrate into\nit that your over-curiosity leads to perplexity. Neither Mr. Disraeli\nnor Lord Beaconsfield has ever definitely explained, for example, how\nfar a throne being \"real\" means that he or she sitting upon it shall\nhave a personal veto. All that you can quite clearly make out as to\nsecuring \"generousness\" in the aristocracy is that they shall not be\nWhigs; you may suppose that they ought to be, and, in fact, no doubt\nwould be, Tories. Pushed strictly home, it would seem to be implied\nthat every peer who holds property which once belonged to the Church\nshould be stripped of it, and it might be construed to mean that they\nshould become commoners. Then, as to the people at large, how are they\nto be made loyal and religious, since it seems that they are\nneither of these now? From not the least important parts of Lord\nBeaconsfield's teaching, the first step logically to be taken with\nthis view would be to ask the vote back from all of them who now have\nit. His own Household Franchise Bill will have given more work to\ndo in this way. But the passing of that mysterious measure has been\nexplained,--it was, at the moment, a necessary piece of party tactics.\nStrictly regarded, the explanation points to the conclusion that, if\nit could be done safely, the Act ought to be revoked to-morrow. But,\ncertainly, it was no such measure as that he relied upon for elevating\nthe condition of the people. What he did depend upon for doing it he\nhas specified, and it is this,--the revival of Church Convocation on\na particular basis, of which he knows the exact measurement. Possibly\nthe reader, if he is not a political partisan, is growing puzzled.\n\"Was nothing else,\" he may ask, \"proposed in the Disraelian system for\nthe cure of popular evils?\" This, certainly, was not the whole of what\nit included some mention of. For example, the preface to \"Lothair\"\nstates that one of Lord Beaconsfield's aims always was the\nestablishment of what he terms \"a commercial code on the principles\nsuccessfully negotiated by----\" No, it was not by Cobden and Bright,\nfor it will be remembered Lord Beaconsfield did not adhere to\nthat: but the full sentence runs,--\"successfully negotiated by Lord\nBolingbroke at Utrecht.\" He farther states that it is a principle with\nhim that labour requires regulating no less than property. I myself\ncannot assert that I ever met with any one who professed to understand\nwhat this means; but \"labour,\" and \"regulating,\" and \"property\" are\nvery good words, and if there has not been a great waste of language,\nthe remark must signify a good deal. His system, also, does really\nmake allusion to the electorate, for it specifies as another of his\ncherished purposes, \"the emancipation of the constituencies of 1832.\"\nOther people used, in an old-fashioned way, to talk of enfranchising\nnon-electors; but it is the voters that Lord Beaconsfield is for\nemancipating. The two most definite statements of his political\ntheory are to be found in \"Sybil,\" where he makes Gerard say that\n\"the natural leaders of the people, and their only ones, are the\naristocracy;\" and adds, through the mouth of somebody else, that \"the\nChurch has deserted the people,\" to which he attributes their having\nbecome \"degraded.\"\n\nOne of Lord Beaconsfield's very strongest points has always been this\nphysical and moral degradation of the people. He has talked about it\nso much that it has nearly seemed that he had got some plan for doing\nsomething for it. In the sketches he gives in \"Sybil\" of the homes in\nMarner, the dens in which the working classes dwell, and the squalor\nof their condition, he nearly touches the heart. It somehow has\nan effect almost identical with the sentiment of the most advanced\nLiberal politics until you come to the remedies proposed. The use\nwhich Lord Beaconsfield makes of the towns in his teaching is worth\nnoting. Any one who scrutinizes it closely will see that his ideal\nsocial system is the rustic one of the country parish, taking always\nfor granted that it is perfect; and he kindly goes for examples of\nsocial failure to the towns,--the origin and condition of which,\naccording to all strict reasoning, he must be supposed to attribute to\nthe Whig nobility. How accurately this fits in with what is known of\nthe development of modern manufactures every reader will know.\n\nIf anybody should say that he cannot see any accuracy in the\nabove version of the national history, and that there is no real\napplicability to our affairs in such a system, or, as such an one\nwould perhaps style it, pretended system of politics, I can only\nreply that if he is under the impression that he is an admirer of\nLord Beaconsfield, then this is very sad. For these are certainly Lord\nBeaconsfield's views of our history and the scheme of his politics.\nNeither of them, I will venture to add, surprises me. It seems to me\nthat if a political Will-o'-the-Wisp, such as the Liberals for so long\na time would make out Lord Beaconsfield to be, got into the top-boots\nand heavy coat of an English squire, these are just the historical\nconclusions and political generalizations which he would make, when\nhe began trying to think like a country gentleman; and, for anything\nI can say, he would make them with a certain sincerity, that kind of\nratiocinative working being natural to the Will-o'-the-Wisp intellect,\nwhen smitten with a passion for Parliamentary life and an aspiration\nfor counterfeiting philosophy. Moreover, both the home politics and\nthe foreign policy seem to me exactly to fit; they really each display\nlike qualities of mind, and I can see no reason for any one who can\naccept the latter stickling at the former. If what is really at the\nbottom of the objection is, as I suspect it is, a feeling that there\nis something flimsy, artificial, flashy about either, or both, the\npolitics and the policy, is not that asking too much from the light\nglittering source I have described? The Liberals have always done Lord\nBeaconsfield the justice of never expecting more than this from him,\nand he, on his side, has never disappointed their expectations. If\nthey had not previously thought much of him in connection with foreign\npolicy, never in fact believing that he would actually preside at a\ncritical juncture long enough for that question much to signify, there\nis not a person in our party who would not have known beforehand that\nany foreign policy of Lord Beaconsfield, if the occasion for one\never came, would be one of dazzle--Jack-o'-Lantern diplomacy and\nWill-o'-the-Wisp home politics rightly belonging to one another.\nThe bright and bewildering flashes have now for a long time been\nceaselessly playing here and there all over Europe from the direction\nof London; now hitting St. Petersburg; now gilding Berlin; then\nflickering over Constantinople; flaming terribly at Cabul; quivering\nat the Cape; striking Egypt at short intervals; and shimmering their\nmildest at Paris. The activity, as was likely in such a case, has been\nunprecedented. My own conviction is that Lord Beaconsfield has amazed,\nperplexed, it may be astounded, foreign diplomatists throughout Europe\nquite as much as he has done any of his opponents at home.\n\nWhat fitness, I should like to ask, has Lord Beaconsfield ever shown\nfor appreciating the great events which, during his time, have\ngone forward in the world. During this generation, two stupendous\nrearrangements of States, completely recasting all the international\nrelationships of Western Europe, have taken place--the unification\nof Italy and the transformation of Prussia into a German Empire.\nPolitical earthquakes like those do not come about all in a moment;\nthese two were, in fact, long in preparation; there were throes, there\nwere signs, there were symptoms. Some English statesmen--we could name\nseveral on the Liberal side--read the intimations rightly. But\nwhat subtle diplomatic sensitiveness did they challenge in Lord\nBeaconsfield--what preternaturally quick prognostications had he\nof the foreign marvels that were about to happen? Look first to the\nPrussian transformation. He severely blamed Chevalier Bunsen for\nindulging what he styled \"the dreamy and dangerous nonsense called\nGerman nationality.\" Turn to Italy. Lord Beaconsfield characterized\nthe earliest attempts of those patriots determined to win back\nnational life or die as \"mere brigandage.\" He spoke of the \"phantom\nof a United Italy.\" All the world knows that so late even as the\npublication of his novel, \"Lothair,\" he was under the impression that\neverything that had happened in the Italian peninsula and in Sicily\nwas the work of a few secret societies, of whom Garibaldi was the\nfigure-head. Take another example. He glossed over the former policy\nof the Austrian rulers towards Hungary, as innocent as the youngest\nbaby in any cradle in any of our embassies, of discerning that in a\nfew years it would be Hungary that would dominate the empire. In fact,\nLord Beaconsfield has never shown the slightest true prevision of\nanything that was to happen abroad. But I must not be so unfair as\nto forget that Lord Beaconsfield took the side of the North in the\nAmerican Civil War. Accidents will happen at times in the play of any\nkind of intellect; and this, at the very moment, had something of the\nappearance of being an abnormality of the Disraelian mind. When you\nlook into the instance more closely, it proves not fully to contradict\nthe other cases. Mr. Disraeli uttered a prophecy as to the future\nof America, and it was this: \"It will be a mart of arms, a scene of\ndiplomacies, of rival States, and probably of frequent wars.\"\nThe result has vindicated his Lordship--nothing of the sort has\nhappened.[1] Come, however, still nearer home. The French Commercial\nTreaty, which was the first practical attempt to bring the peoples\non each side of the Channel into real intercourse, sure to make\nthem permanent friends in the end, was urgently opposed by Lord\nBeaconsfield. It was towards him that Mr. Cobden had to turn at\nevery stage of his nearly superhuman labours to see what was the next\nobstacle he would have to set himself to try and overcome.\n\nI venture to say that the foreign policy of such a Minister is certain\nto end in being one of isolation. Jack-o'-Lantern is always so busy\nin converting all he does into some private business of his own, that,\nby-and-by, he is sure to be alone in the transaction. Let us test the\ndiplomatic situation as it now stands, by this rule, and, if it turns\nout that the English diplomacy has really established concert on our\npart with anybody, it will have of necessity to be admitted by me that\nI have been quite wrong in all that is said above. The position I take\nup is that a Will-o'-the-Wisp could not in his movements bring himself\nto coincide long enough with anybody else's activity to give any such\nresult.\n\nFrance is nearer to us than any other Continental Power, not only\ngeographically but politically. How has the recent foreign policy\nturned out with respect to her? Our very first diplomatic move,\nthat of hastily snatching at the Suez Canal shares, risked our\nunderstanding with France entirely. We do not hear much about Egypt\nnow from the supporters of the Government. There are good reasons for\nit. Nothing could possibly have resulted worse than everything we did\nin that quarter. France did not allow a march to be stolen upon her;\nand the next moment we had Italy on our hands as well as France.\nBut come to the Berlin Conference. France there, in pursuance of a\ntraditional policy, backed up Greece. Lord Beaconsfield stood quite\naloof from France. Come down to the very latest moment. The alliance\nbetween Germany and Austria is the one recent occurrence which is\nof all others most distasteful to Frenchmen, and Lord Salisbury, on\nbehalf of his chief, not merely goes into slightly profane raptures\nover it, but works hard to create the impression that they two,\nindirectly though not directly, brought it about. This is how matters\nhave been made to stand between us and France. With respect to Germany\nand Austria-Hungary, our Government is, of course, not within their\narrangements, but, practically there seems to be an outside relation\nimplied. Those two Powers are understood to reckon upon England as in\nsome way restraining France if Russia made any move. At any rate, if\nFrance joined Russia, it is whispered, we should have to do something\nwhich would somehow aid Austria and Germany. Why, Chancellor\nBismarck's chuckling at this position of things can distinctly be\nheard all the way from Varzin. Prince Gortschakoff is by no means the\none at whom he is laughing hardest. Nothing need be said, I suppose,\nas to our relations with Russia: it is the special boast of our\nGovernment that in the case of the greatest Asiatic Power next to\nourselves they have prevented any understanding at all. Just so, too,\nwe have alienated Greece and the newly-formed Principalities. But\nthere is Turkey. All that we have done has told in her favour,--surely\nwe are at one with her? Lord Beaconsfield has just countermanded the\norders to our fleet to get up steam and direct the muzzles of its\nguns towards Turkey. But a wonderful success, we are told, has already\nresulted from this. What does the recent flourish of telegrams really\namount to? That the Porte has added one more sheet to the plentiful\nwaste-paper heap of its proclamations. What our people were known to\ndesire was a change of Minister: and Turkey, in place of that, offers\nto name Baker Pasha to look after the moral and social improvement of\nAsia Minor. The test of whether it is Will-o'-the-Wisp, or an ordinary\nstatesman, who is at the head of our affairs gives the result I\nanticipated. England stands absolutely alone, and the last touch of\npreposterousness is added to the situation by the statement that it\nwas at the advice of Russia that the Porte pretended to yield to our\ndemands, and that though the Northern Powers are getting into motion\nagain for some ends of their own, they do not in the least intend to\nmeddle with us in Asia Minor. Indeed, I should think not. A splendid\nmorass lies in that part of the world, with Turkey on one side and\nRussia on the other, and Jack-o'-Lantern has led us right into the\nmiddle of it. That is the present issue of the Beaconsfield foreign\npolicy which was to have produced European concert,--we have Asia\nMinor on our hands, solitarily; and are going to set about immediately\nreforming it, before the next elections, against the willingness of\nTurkey, but with the sanction of Russia, and by the means of Baker\nPasha. In the meantime, or at any time, Russia may use the situation\nagainst us just as best suits her.\n\nI think it will now be admitted that Lord Beaconsfield's foreign\npolicy is every whit as wonderful as the measures of home politics he\nought to be urging, if he was only at liberty for that; and further,\nthat they both bespeak exactly the same order of mind.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI must now try to bring together the personal impressions his Lordship\nmakes on the mind of a Liberal. The noble Earl is very brilliant.\nThat, of course, is accepted on all sides: there never was a member\nof the Wisp family who was not. Not to be brilliant would be against\ntheir nature; in fact, shine is their peculiarity. Moreover, standing\nnow behind the event, we seem to see Lord Beaconsfield in Mr. Disraeli\nfrom the very beginning. Those who had the privilege of beholding him\non his very first appearances in London high society, in, say, the\nCountess of Blessington's _salon_, where he would be grouped with\nCount D'Orsay, Prince Napoleon, and Count Morny, give a gorgeous\ndescription of him. It seems that he did not depend for celebrity\nsolely upon his witticisms, either printed or spoken, but relied,\nalso, in some measure, on the splendour of his walking canes. The\njewels on his hands are said to have rivalled, and at times excelled,\nthe pearls upon his lips; the display in both respects bearing witness\nthat his native tastes were Oriental. His ringlets, in particular, are\nsaid to have been the admiration, if not the envy, of the ladies. It\nseemed almost necessary to give up a line or two to these personal\nparticulars, for the younger people of this generation never saw Mr.\nDisraeli in his full splendour. As he developed his later powers,\nhe moderated his earlier waistcoats. But he never was an ordinary\ncommoner; he always moved in our public life like a superior being\nin disguise. He was with us but not of us. Since he is an Earl, the\nimpression he makes has become more natural. The promotion to\nour peerage gives to some personages an artificial aspect; in Mr.\nDisraeli's case, the effect was simplifying; and though, after all,\nit is not quite gorgeous enough, it is befitting. There is a\nlittle something not quite in the English style,--a slight foreign\nincongruity; still, that was always there, and it is, in fact, less\nnoticeable now under the coronet and beneath the ermine.\n\nBut--and this is the point sought to be brought out in the above\nremarks--it was evident from the earliest moment that this splendid\nperson meant to achieve social success. And he has certainly done\nit. There would be injustice in pretending that he has not had other\nmotives; but celebrity was his leading passion. He has himself made\na frank confession on this point. In the days when it was not yet\ncertain that there was a political career before him, the likelihood\nrather being that he might have wholly to depend upon literature as\nhis means of distinction, he rushed into poetry, having just failed in\nprose. But he warned the public in the preface of his \"Revolutionary\nEpick,\" that if they did not purchase and admire it, he had done with\nsong. \"I am not,\" so ran the na\u00efvely self-disclosing sentence, \"one of\nthose who find consolation for the neglect of my contemporaries in the\nimaginary plaudits of posterity.\" No, nothing in this world, we are\nquite certain, would ever have consoled Mr. Disraeli for the neglect\nof his contemporaries. But he took sure measures not to undergo it. He\npositively raged to get into Parliament; trying one constituency\nafter another, and only succeeding with the fourth. To judge from the\nfierceness of Mr. Disraeli's struggles, there was in his eyes nothing\nworth living for, if he were not inside the House of Commons. But he\nhad got into the newspapers before he got into Parliament. The town\nwas kept ringing with Mr. Disraeli's name. In London he was just as\nmuch talked of forty-seven years ago as he is to-day.\n\nIf the rudeness of a little terseness is passed over, I may fairly say\nthat publicity was Mr. Disraeli's passion; in the circumstances of\nhis position, audacity was his only means; and, with his style of\ncharacter and intellect, inaccuracy was his necessity. A very few\nwords will establish each point. Was he not studiously audacious? The\nfirst book he wrote was a skit on the whole of the higher circle of\nLondon society; the candidate he sought to set aside at his first\nParliamentary contest was the son of the then Premier; before he was\nin Parliament he threatened O'Connell; he had not been in the House\nlong before he attacked Sir Robert Peel. It was a glorious audacity on\nhis part, considering the disadvantage of his race, to throw into the\nface of the British public the supremacy of \"Semitic\" blood, and to\nconfound us all with the Asian Mystery. But, in turning next to his\ninaccuracies, we are positively awed by the number and the enormity\nof the blunders Mr. Disraeli and Lord Beaconsfield between them have\ncommitted, in, as it would seem, the most natural way. It was a mere\ntrifle that, when propounding his second Budget, Mr. Disraeli should\nhave thought that he had a surplus to the _bagatelle_ amount of\n\u00a3400,000, until Mr. Gladstone kindly explained to him and to the\ncountry that it was a deficiency of that small sum. Some people would\nbe touched deeper to find that in his \"Life of Lord George Bentinck\"\nhe is of opinion that the crucifixion of the Saviour took place in the\nreign of Augustus C\u00e6sar. In the course of the debates on one of the\nearly Reform measures, he thought, when Lord Dunkellin made a\nproposal relating to the \"rental valuation\" in connection with voting\nqualification, that it was payment of rates that was in question. In\nhis oration on the death of the Duke of Wellington, he, as all Europe\nsoon knew, mistook long passages from an article written by M. Thiers\nas being his own composition. He fell into just the same error as to\nsome splendid sentences of Lord Macaulay and also, as to a fine burst\nof eloquence belonging really to the late Mr. David Urquhart. Very\nearly in his career, when acknowledging his health proposed by\nmistake in the guise of an old scholar of the famous public school\nof Winchester, he became momentarily under the impression that he was\nreally educated on that noble foundation, though he had never stood\nunder its roof. Very late in his career, so late as the affair known\nas the Pigott appointment, he believed that the Rev. Mr. Pigott, the\nrector of his own parish, had voted against him at the poll in his own\ncounty some time after that reverend gentleman's death. But there\nis really no end to these instances of Lord Beaconsfield having\ninnocently said the thing that is not. With respect to a number of\nexamples of another kind, it would be puzzling to know whether to put\nthem in the category of audacities or inaccuracies; the only way of\nquite getting over the difficulty would, perhaps, be to consider them\nas belonging to both. For instance, in 1847, he quoted Mr. J. S. Mill\nas a friend of Protection, and said Mr. Pitt was the author of Free\nTrade. On a not very far back occasion, he remarked: \"I never attacked\nany one in my life.\" Perhaps, with that quotation, it is right to\nstop.\n\nOne of the peculiarities of Lord Beaconsfield's mind has seemed to\nsome people an affectation, that, namely, by which, in reference\nto any case of much importance, he is sure to miss what seems to\neverybody else the significant feature of the business, and to fasten\non some detail which arrests nobody else. Hardly any one will have yet\nforgotten the instance of the \"Straits of Malacca,\" and only just the\nother day a new example was furnished. The revival of trade being the\ntopic, while everybody else's thoughts went to cotton and iron and\npottery, Lord Beaconsfield's lighted upon--chemicals. It is all\nexplained on the footing I earlier hinted, that in Lord Beaconsfield's\nmind the imagination is in just the place the reason occupies in the\nminds of ordinary people. This makes it obligatory that he shall avoid\nthe common facts, and make some opportunity for exaggerating the value\nof some detail overlooked by everybody else. It is only in this way\nthat Lord Beaconsfield conclusively certifies to himself that his\nintellect has really acted.\n\nI am myself quite sincere in saying that I believe there is in all\nthis a certain kind of sincerity in Lord Beaconsfield. Where most\npeople remember, his Lordship fancies; and in his case what is most\nconvenient, naturally offers itself. This has very much increased his\nbrilliancy, for the process leaves its practiser utterly unhampered.\nBut nobody should ask for both strict accuracy and Lord Beaconsfield's\nquick, free wit. It is demanding an unreasonable combination. If other\npeople had only _not_ remembered, his career would have been even\nstill finer than it is. That is what has partially spoiled things for\nhim. It is even possible that this amazing foreign policy of his may\nbe in a measure explainable on certain suggestions of what we may call\npictorial working rules, if we were only inside his mind. Certainly\nhis home politics give some hints that they were framed on a principle\nof picturesqueness,--a very sophisticated canon of rustic taste can\nbe detected dimly lying at the bottom of them. By only leaving out the\ntowns, and repressing the growth of modern manufactures, and subduing\nforeign commerce, something might possibly--I cannot say--be made of\nthem. In this foreign diplomacy, there is a certain imaginativeness in\nbringing dark-skinned soldiers from Asia into Europe, in turning our\nhomely English Queen into an Oriental Empress, in becoming possessor\nof a fresh island in the Mediterranean, in shifting a frontier line\nin India, in adding a new province in Africa. All this has meant\nmassacre, and fire, and bloodshed, with the imminent risk of very much\nmore of all of them; and Sir Stafford Northcote, as Chancellor of the\nExchequer, has been kept working as hard as a sprite in a pantomime\npouring out millions of our taxation. But if it be Will-o'-the-Wisp we\nhave at the head of affairs, nothing of this is likely very greatly to\naffect him. Assuredly, nothing of it has affected Lord Beaconsfield,\nand we may be sure he is ready to go over it all again to-morrow.\n\nIf it was worth while, very large deductions would have to be made\nfrom Lord Beaconsfield's seeming success if we look rationally at his\nwhole career. No man who is supposed to have been anything like so\nsuccessful as he is popularly held to be, ever had so many and such\nstriking failures to look back upon. Looking at him as connected with\nletters, he is the author of works which have failed more completely\nthan any written by any one who himself became known. Judged by their\nambitious aims, these literary non-successes of Lord Beaconsfield are\ngigantic. The epic poem (\"The Revolutionary Epick\") which Mr. Disraeli\nsupposed was to place him--he himself tells us so--by the side of,\nor else between, Homer and Milton, nobody would read; the play\n(\"Alarcos\") which he states he wrote to \"revive the British stage,\"\nis never acted. Not one of his novels, when his political position has\nceased to advertize them, will remain in the hands of the public. If\nyou look back on his Parliamentary career, the dazzle came late, and\nafter a dreary distance had been travelled. The political party he\nfounded, \"The Young England School,\" has for twenty-five years been\nas dead as the door-nail which typified the death of Marley. Nothing\nwhatever came of it. The one only notable legislative measure that\nstands in his name,--the Reform Bill,--really belongs to the other\nside. Scrutinize his career how you will, and some abatements of this\nkind have to be made. He is supposed to have had a charm over men,--it\nhas failed with the strong ones. Peel he tried very hard to win, but\nhad to take up with Lord George Bentinck instead. At this moment he is\nsupposed to be in favour with the Court: the impression he made upon\nthe Prince Consort was far from satisfactory. He has quite recently\nlost Lord Derby and Lord Carnarvon; and there was a time when the\nMarquis of Salisbury and he stood in a very different relationship.\n\nLord Beaconsfield's social system is that of a novelist; his\nfinance was ever that of a Will-o'-the-Wisp; and he has now added a\nJack-o'-Lantern diplomacy. Surely nothing more is needed to justify\ndisbelief in him.\n\n  A WHIG.\n\n    [Footnote 1: Since writing the above I have met with an\n    article in the October No. of _The North American Review_, on\n    \"Louis Napoleon and the Southern Confederacy,\" which puts this\n    alleged friendship for the North in a very doubtful light.\n    Among some State Papers found in Richmond, a despatch from\n    Mr. Slidell says,--\"Lindsay saw Disraeli, who expressed great\n    interest in our affairs, and fully concurred in the views of\n    the Emperor.\" Louis Napoleon was then intriguing hard to get\n    the South recognised.]\n\n\n\n\nCONTEMPORARY LIFE AND THOUGHT IN FRANCE.\n\n    SUMMARY.--_Politics_: Agitations during the Parliamentary\n    Recess--Unjust Accusations levelled at the\n    Ministry--Reforms carried out or projected in the Public\n    Instruction--Justice--Public Works--Activity and Liberalism of\n    the Ministry--Its want of Cohesion and Unity--Renewal of the\n    Socialist Agitation--Return of the Amnestied--Election of M.\n    Humbert in Paris--M. Blanqui's and M. Louis Blanc's Addresses\n    in the Provinces--Socialist Congress at Marseilles--Reaction\n    against these exaggerations--Dangers caused by the attitude\n    of the Conservative Party inspired by the Clerical\n    spirit--Efforts to create a Republican Conservative Party--\"Le\n    Parlement\"--Unfortunate effect of the Ministry's Anti-clerical\n    Campaign--Legitimist Banquets--The Bonapartist Party and\n    its hopes--M. Naquet's Campaign in favour of Divorce.\n    _Literature_: Novels--Mme. Greville, Mme. Bentzon, M.\n    Lemonnier, M. Gualdi, M. Daudet, M. Zola, Flaubert, M.\n    Theuriet--\"L'Eglise Chr\u00e9tienne,\" by M. Renan--\"Rodrigue\n    de Villandrando,\" by M. Quicherat--\"M\u00e9moires de Mme.\n    de R\u00e9musat\"--\"Nouvelle Revues\". _Science_: Geographical\n    Studies--\"G\u00e9ographie Universelle\"--\"La Terre et les Hommes,\"\n    by Elis\u00e9e Reclus--Map of France on scale of 1/100000--Lectures\n    on Historical Geography, by M. A. Longnon. _Fine Arts_:\n    Subjects opened to Competition--Death of MM. Viollet Le Duc,\n    Cham, Taylor. _Theatres_: Le Grand Opera, l'Op\u00e9ra Populaire,\n    Pasdeloup and Colonne Concerts--Professor Hermann--The\n    Hanlon-Lees--\"Jonathan,\" by M. Gondinet--\"Les Mirabeau,\" by M.\n    Claretie--Le Th\u00e9\u00e2tre des Nations.\n\n\nThe Parliamentary recess is generally a time of political tranquillity\nfor the country, and leisure or peaceful occupation for the Ministers;\nnot so, however, in France this year. M. Blanqui's candidature at\nBordeaux; M. Humbert's election in Paris; the return of the amnestied\nfrom New Caledonia; the Workmen's Congress in Marseilles; the\nLegitimist banquets of September 29; MM. J. Ferry's, Louis\nBlanc's, and Blanqui's tours in the provinces; the inauguration of\nDenfert-Rochereau's, Arago's, and Lamorici\u00e8re's monuments, have kept\nFrance in a state of perpetual agitation, if not disturbance. And\neven the business world, which generally slumbers quietly through the\nsummer months, has been stung with a craze for speculation. A number\nof financial companies have sprung up, based chiefly on most unsound\nand absurd combinations, some of which threaten to collapse before\nthey have even begun to work. The great jobber, M. Philippart, who\nso upset the Bourse some years ago, reappeared in greater force than\never, only to get another ducking at the end of a couple of months.\nEven the Republican party, which hitherto seemed to have kept out of\nthe way of dangerous speculations, has been drawn into the current,\nand names of Republican deputies, senators, and municipal councillors\nhave appeared on the lists of the administrative councils by way of an\nadvertisement to subscribers. Nor, with so many causes of disturbance\nat home, was the country free from anxieties abroad: the settlement of\nthe financial supervision to be exercised conjointly with England in\nEgypt; the difficulties raised with regard to the same by Italy, who\nwould have wished to form a third in this new order of syndicate; and\nTurkey's opposition to the decisions of the Berlin Congress concerning\nGreece, must have caused M. Waddington more than one sleepless night.\n\nHas the Ministry been weakened or strengthened by the toils of the\nParliamentary recess? The attitude of the Chambers when they meet\n(Nov. 27) for the first time in their new, or rather old, quarters\nwill show. According to the enemies it has, both in the Republican\nand Monarchical camp, it is in a state of complete dislocation; and\nM. Waddington, in particular, is unable to exercise any authority over\nhis colleagues. This is the favourite theme, nightly recurred to,\nof M. E. de Girardin, who, under colour of Radicalism, seems to be\nentering on a campaign against the Republic of 1879, in favour of\nPrince Jerome Napoleon, similar to his former one against the Republic\nof 1848, in favour of Prince Louis Napoleon. The injustice of most\nof his attacks, it must be acknowledged, borders on dishonesty.\nComplaints are made of the Ministry's weakness and inaction. But on\nwhat grounds? By the one side, because it leaves the Socialists\nfree to put forward their views; by the other, because it lets the\nRoyalists banquet in peace, and expels neither the Orleans princes\nnor the Bonapartes. People in France always regard Government as a\ngendarme whose business it is to imprison or escort to the frontier\nthose whose opinions are displeasing to them; if not, they declare\nthere is no Government. Or else it is still looked upon as a\nProvidence, whose duty it is to make the people happy from morning\ntill night. If trade be dull and the crops bad, as they are this year,\nthe Government is pronounced incapable, and the change to have been\nnot worth the cost. People cannot understand that a Government's sole\nmission is to give a general direction to politics, to attend to the\nwise administration of the country, to protect the liberty and the\nrights of all, even of those who do not like it, and see to the\ncarrying out of existing laws and the making of new ones. The present\nMinistry has not seriously failed in any one of these duties, and to\ncharge it with inaction would be most unjust. The new appointments\nhave almost all been excellent; particularly in the administration\nof public instruction, where considerable changes have been made, the\nmost competent men have in every instance been chosen without regard\nto political party. The remodelling of the Council of State was an\nabsolute necessity, as the Ministry could not work with men radically\nhostile to its views. This remodelling was carried out with extreme\nmoderation; if the voluntary retirement of MM. Aucoc, Groualle,\nGoussard, &c., gave it a more radical character, the retiring members,\nnot the Ministry, are to blame. Of the activity of the Minister of\nPublic Instruction there can be no doubt; he has even been laughed at\nfor his zeal in propagating his views, as shown in his southern tour,\nduring which he found time to make a series of speeches in favour of\nthe famous Clause 7, that deprives unauthorized religious bodies of\nthe right of teaching, and to plan important material improvements in\nthe constitution of the Faculties of Letters, Science, Medicine, and\nLaw. The inspection of the infant-schools, of the drawing-instruction,\nhave at length been properly organized, and a project for the reform\nof secondary instruction has been elaborated. With regard to the\nadministration of justice, M. Le Royer has drawn up a very important\nscheme, whereby the courts of justice will be reduced to one-half the\npresent number, important economies effected, the administration\nof justice accelerated, and the number of unemployed magistrates,\nbarristers, and lawyers, which constitutes one of the evils of the\ncountry and of the Parliamentary assemblies, diminished.\n\nCan M. de Freycinet be accused of inaction, seeing that every day he\nis told he will sink under the load of vast undertakings he has on\nhand for the improvement of the harbours and the completion of the\nrailway and canal system? What accusations can be brought against\nGeneral Gresley, seeing that our military organization is making daily\nprogress, and that the autumn man[oe]uvres have been more satisfactory\nthis year than ever? The very criticisms addressed to the Ministry\nwith regard to its weakness towards its enemies prove how it has\nrespected the common liberty. It is, however, the habit in France,\nwhen a Government allows the attacks of party free play to laugh at\nits timidity, and when it puts them down to accuse it of persecution.\nThe thing to do, therefore, is to apply the principle said to have\nbeen formulated by the President of the Republic himself--\"To let\neverything be said, and nothing done.\"\n\nThe only point whereon the criticisms of the Cabinet's adversaries\nseem in some sense well-founded, is the charging it with having no\ndefinite political line, and being consequently incapable of any\nhomogeneous influence either upon the Chambers or public opinion.\nIt is quite certain that the Cabinet is wanting in unity; that\nMM. Waddington, L\u00e9on Say, and Gresley represent a less strongly\naccentuated political shade than MM. Le Royer, Jaur\u00e9guiberry, Tirard,\nand Cochery, and these again a less strongly marked shade than MM.\nJ. Ferry, De Freycinet, and Lep\u00e8re. Each Minister has his particular\nplans, and occasionally the question suggests itself how far his\ncolleagues approve and support him. In any case, the Cabinet's most\nimportant projects, M. Le Royer's judicial reform, M. de Freycinet's\nplans, the Ferry laws, were accepted rather than desired by M.\nWaddington, who cannot in consequence be considered to exercise\nany paramount sway over his colleagues. This subdivision of the\nMinisterial responsibility is unquestionably to be deplored, and\nimpairs the strength of the Government; but is it not the fault of\nthe Ministers, or rather the result and the faithful image of the\nRepublican majority, whose unity proceeds solely from the necessity\nof fighting against Monarchical parties, and which represents very\ndifferent tendencies? A homogeneous Ministry representing one of these\ntendencies only would command no majority. The Republic is still in\nthe period of struggle and formation. It cannot observe the rules\nof the Parliamentary system quite regularly yet. Every Ministry is\nfatally a coalition Ministry, and consequently without unity. When it\nis, like the present one, agreed as to its general lines of policy,\nat once liberal and moderate, and sufficiently sympathetic to both\nChambers, it would be hard, we must acknowledge, to find a better, and\nto wish for a change would be madness.\n\nNot the constitution of the Ministry, but rather the political\ncondition of the country, may, indeed, be productive of difficulties\nand dangers to the Republic. Were we to believe the reactionary papers\nand the anxious spirits, the greatest danger France is exposed to\narises from the revival of Socialistic ideas occasioned by the\nreturn of the insurgents of the Commune. That disquieting signs and\ntendencies show themselves in that direction is true. The amnestied,\nwho should have been received as penitent and pardoned culprits,\nhave, by many--by M. Talandier, M. L. Blanc, and others of the Extreme\nLeft--been welcomed as reinstated martyrs. People even went so far on\ntheir arrival as to dare to raise a cry of \"Vive la Commune.\" One of\nthe most criminal, M. Alphonse Humbert, who edited in 1871 a filthy\nand bloodthirsty paper, _Le P\u00e8re Duchesne_, and in it directly\nprovoked the murder of Gustave Chaudey, has been elected municipal\ncouncillor of Paris by the Javel Ward. Though the Comit\u00e9 Socialiste\nd'aide aux Amnisti\u00e9s had rudely repudiated all community of\naction with the Republican committee presided over by V. Hugo, and\ncontemptuously alluded to it as _le comit\u00e9 bourgeois_, the _Rappel_\ndid not hesitate to support this candidature, stained as it was\nwith blood. Hardly is old Blanqui released from his imprisonment at\nClairvaux when he starts for a tour in the south to propagate his\nrevolutionary doctrines, and finds people credulous enough to applaud\nthe senile declamations in which he accuses M. Gr\u00e9vy and M. Gambetta\nof having sold themselves to the Jesuits and the Orleanists. M. Louis\nBlanc, whilst issuing in book form, under the title of \"Dix ans de\nl'Histoire d'Angleterre\" (L\u00e9vy), the wise and impartial letters\nhe addressed to _Le Temps_ from London between 1860 and 1870, has\nreverted to his dreams of 1848, and, more intent on winning a vain\npopularity than on consolidating the Republican _r\u00e9gime_, has aroused\nthe passions and desires of an ignorant multitude by unfolding to them\nthe chimerical and deceptive picture of a complete remodelling of the\nFrench Constitution, and the prosperity which, according to him, might\nbe secured to all if they would lay down their liberties and their\nrights for the benefit of a Socialist State. Finally, the Workmen's\nCongress in Marseilles revealed with the utmost na\u00efvet\u00e9 the false\nnotions, the gross ignorance, and the bad instincts that M. Blanqui\ndraws out from a fanatic monomania, and M. Louis Blanc encourages\nfrom desire for noisy popularity. The majority of the Congress\nplainly declared that they preferred the revolutionary course of an\ninsurrection to the peaceful course of voting and legal action, that\ngradual progress was a chimera, that individual property must be\nconverted into collective property, and that such conversion could\nonly be effected by force. What was, perhaps, even more disquieting at\nthe Marseilles Congress than these brutal declarations, was the almost\nfabulous ignorance, stupidity, and credulity displayed by most of the\ndelegates, who must, nevertheless, be among the most intelligent and\neducated members of the Syndical Chambers. Neither in England nor in\nGermany would an assembly of workmen put up with such silly and empty\ndiscussions in which not a single practical question was treated\nseriously, and the general reform of society was accomplished in three\nor four high-sounding and pretentious phrases. The ignorance of the\nmultitude is an immense danger, leaving it a prey to every illusion\nand dream and to the brutal impulse of its instincts.\n\nWithout being blind to the gravity of these symptoms, or denying that\nmuch of the leaven that produced the Commune is still to be found\namongst the inhabitants of the great towns, I do not think the fact\npresents any immediate danger, or that there is any chance of a rising\nin Paris, or a revival of the Commune. The late manifestations have\ndone exactly the reverse of furthering the end in view. At Bordeaux,\nBlanqui, who was elected in the first instance, failed in the second.\nHis journey, triumphant at the outset, ended amidst murmurs on the\none hand and indifference on the other. Humbert's election excited\nthe disgust of the most advanced Republicans, and has insured the\nrejection of every new proposal of pardon for the members of the\nCommune. The folly talked at the Marseilles Congress provoked the\nprotests of a strong minority in the very heart of the Congress, which\nenergetically defended the principles of good sense and public order.\nIf the revival of Socialism threaten the existence of the Republic, it\nis not so much on account of the possibility of its bringing back the\nCommune as that it may serve to provoke an anti-Republican reaction.\n\nThis is much more to be dreaded at present than any demagogical\nexcesses. The attitude of the Conservative party presents much\ngreater dangers to the Republic than that of the Socialist party. The\nRepublic's only chance is its free acceptance by the _bourgeoisie_\nand the formation of a large Conservative but not reactionary party\nto counteract the impatience of the progressive element. Until now no\nsuch party exists. Many Conservatives have undoubtedly stuck to the\nRepublic, but they are absorbed by the progressive Republican mass;\nthe others have preserved a hostile attitude, and cherish visions of a\nMonarchical or Imperialist restoration. Clerical ideas confirm them\nin this attitude, and render them the irreconcilable enemies of the\npresent order of things; they follow the inspirations of the clergy,\nwho are convinced that no Republic can give them the liberty of\naction they desire, and who, moreover, consider themselves persecuted\nwherever they are not masters. The thing is to convince this\nConservative mass, now enrolled under the banner of clericalism, that\nit is possible to give the clergy the honours and the liberty they\ndeserve, whilst confining them strictly within the religious domain,\nand that the public _r\u00e9gime_ can be a secular one without recourse to\npersecution. This is what the few members of the old Left Centre who\nrefused to join the ranks of the Ministerial Left, and are headed by\nMM. Dufaure, De Montalivet, Ribot, Lamy, &c., are trying to convince\nthe Conservatives of. They have started a new paper, _Le Parlement_,\nto vent their ideas, conducted with talent and earnestness, which if\nit succeed in its object will have done the Republic good service by\ncalling a Republican Right into existence, whereas at present only a\nRepublican Left exists, without any counterweight, and bounded by two\nabysses, the Commune on the one hand and Bonapartism on the other.\n\nCertain members of the Republican party and even of the present\nMinistry thought that the deplorable influence Catholicism exercises\non public affairs might be counteracted by open contest, and this\nwas the origin of Clause 7, and the war at present waged everywhere\nagainst the Catholic bodies and the action of the clergy.\nUnfortunately there is a fatal solidarity between the Catholic\nreligion itself and its most compromising representatives; the regular\nand secular clergy are united by the closest ties; it is impossible to\ndeal a blow at the clergy on one point without in appearance attacking\nreligion itself. Moreover it loves strife, and above all persecution;\nit feeds upon it; it wins the sympathy of the simple-minded by\nresisting, in the name of conscience, all even the most legitimate\nattacks against the authority it has usurped. The duty of a wise\nGovernment, therefore, is as far as possible to let all religious\nquestions lie dormant, to cultivate towards them a salutary\nindifference, to avoid the possibility of being accused either of\nfavouring or persecuting the clergy, so as to secure the countenance\nof all those who, without being hostile to the Church, have no wish\nto be its blind servants. One must be content to resist the Church's\nencroachments without attacking it in its own precincts. The present\nMinistry has stirred up, we think with unfortunate precipitancy,\nquestions which might still have remained awhile untouched, and thus\nneedlessly lessened the number of its partisans. But to be fair, it is\ncertainly very difficult to be impartial and indifferent in face of\na body in open revolt against the Government, whose bishops,\nlike Monseigneur Freppel at the inauguration of the monument to\nLamorici\u00e8re, preach contempt for the Constitution and the law. The\nbehaviour of the Belgian episcopate, on the occasion of the new school\nlaw, has proved that neither justice nor moderation is to be expected\nfrom the Catholic Church. Whence violent minds are too disposed to\nconclude that reconciliation being impossible, intolerance must be met\nby violence, and fanaticism by persecution.\n\nWere it not for this unfortunate clerical question, the opposition to\nthe Republican form of Government would be reduced to a minimum. The\nLegitimist banquets organized throughout the country in commemoration\nof the Comte de Chambord's birthday, September 29th, testified to the\nridiculous weakness of a number of aged children who indulge in the\nphrases and fables of a bygone time. This flourish of forks was met\nby all parties with ironical compassion. The Bonapartist party has\nbut imperfectly recovered from the blow dealt it in the death of the\nPrince Imperial. Prince Jerome Napoleon may alter his outward line,\nbecome as reserved as formerly he was unguarded in his language,\norganize his house on a princely footing, have his organs amongst the\npress, rally round him a great number of those who but now overwhelmed\nhim with the most ribald insults; he will never either wipe out a too\nwell-known past, or with all his intelligence make up for the total\nabsence of military prestige or personal regard. Nevertheless,\nBonapartism is so decidedly the fatal incline towards which France\nwill always be impelled if she become disgusted with the Republic,\nthat he appears to some the only issue in case of a new revolution,\nand more than one of those who had of late reattached themselves to\nthe Republic were seen to turn their eyes to Prince Napoleon when\nHumbert's election or the Socialist speeches at Marseilles renewed\ntheir old terrors. Universal suffrage is always threatening France\nwith sudden surprises. If, as some politicians wish, the _scrutin de\nliste_ be substituted for the _scrutin d'arrondissement_, it might\nyet be that the name of Napoleon would find a formidable echo in the\npopular mass, and eclipse all the new names which want its legendary\nand historical prestige. This might happen, especially if the\ndepression of trade and the clerical contest were by degrees to weary\nand disgust the mass of the electors with political questions, as\nwould appear to have been the case at the legislative elections of\nBordeaux and the Paris municipal elections, when more than two-fifths\nof the electors abstained from voting. It might, above all, happen if\nthe Chambers continue to postpone all the reform laws, those relating\nto the army, to education, and to the magistracy, which await\ndiscussion and passing from session to session.\n\nMany look forward to a time when these everlasting political questions\nwill cease to burn so fiercely, when the suppression of State or\nChurch will no longer be a daily question, and more modest and\npractical measures of reform can be taken in hand. A committee of\nlawyers has elaborated an important scheme for the reform of our\ncriminal procedure, long known to be seriously defective. Will there\nbe an opportunity of bringing it before the Chambers? Even more\ninteresting is the divorce question, which has found an able,\npersevering, and eloquent advocate in M. Naquet. Of all others, this\nreform is the most urgent. Those acquainted with family life in France\nknow the fatal moral consequences arising from judicial separation,\nthe only resource of ill-assorted couples. Not to speak of the\nflagrant injustice which allows the man to separate from his wife on\naccount of offences she is obliged to tolerate in him, the two, though\nseparated, remain jointly and severally liable. The woman is obliged,\nin a number of instances, such as the marriage of a child confided to\nher care, to obtain the husband's authorization, whilst she, on her\npart, can drag in the mire the name of her husband which she continues\nto bear, or pass off children upon him which are not his. Separation\nhas all the drawbacks of divorce, besides others peculiar to it, which\ndivorce remedies. M. Naquet has treated the question from the tribune,\nas also in a series of articles published in the _Voltaire_, wherein\nhe cites a number of heartrending cases in which divorce would be\nthe only possible remedy, and, finally, in the lectures he has been\nholding in all the large towns. His campaign has been crowned with\nsuccess, and the law will, it is believed, be passed by the Chambers.\nNo small credit is due to M. Naquet, for he had to contend with\nprejudices of several kinds--the religious prejudices of Catholicism,\nwhich does not admit the power of the civil law to cancel a sacrament\nof the Church; the political prejudices of Republican theorists, who\naffect to attach a more sacred and indelible character to the civil\nconsecration of the magistrate than to the religious one of the\npriest; the prejudices of immoral and unprincipled men, who form a\nnumerous class everywhere, who never having felt the restraints of\nmoral law are not troubled by the misfortunes springing from unhappy\nmarriages, but, on the contrary, are glad to take advantage of them;\nfinally, with the prejudices of some serious-minded persons, who are\nafraid that in sanctioning divorce the Republic may appear to violate\nthe respect due to marriage. The last aspect of the question has\nbeen ably supported by a deputy, M. Louis Legrand, in his interesting\nstudy, \"Le Mariage;\" but M. Naquet finds no difficulty in proving\nthat marriage is more respected where divorce is possible than where\njudicial separation only can be obtained, nor in showing religious men\nthat the Church has always recognised fourteen cases in which marriage\nbecomes void, whilst the French law only recognises one, mistaken\nidentity, which practically never occurs.\n\nWe have but to open a French novel, or visit the theatre, to convince\nourselves of the necessity of divorce. Mme. Gr\u00e9ville, in \"Lucie Rodey\"\n(Plon), depicts a young woman reduced by her husband to the most\nwretched condition, with no resource but resignation and a pardon\nall but dishonourable to her; Mme. Bentzon, in \"Georgette\" (L\u00e9vy),\ndescribes with exquisite delicacy the painful position of a woman who,\nseparated from her husband, and living on terms the world condemns\nwith a man of elevated character, is driven in the presence of her\ninnocent daughter to blush for a position the disgrace of which her\nown elevation of sentiment had hitherto veiled from her. Half\nthe novels in France turn on the domestic misery arising from the\nindissolubility of the marriage tie. Hackneyed as the subject is, it\npresents so many aspects that new effects can always be derived\nfrom it. Such dramas will ever remain the most touching source the\nimagination of the novelist has to draw upon. From the princess to the\npeasant, humanity is the same in its affections and sufferings. If you\nwant to know how the peasant suffers read \"Un Coin de Village,\" by M.\nCamille Lemonnier (Lemerre), a picturesque and piquant young writer,\nwho combines the touching grace of Erckmann-Chatrian with a power of\nrealistic observation quite his own. If you wish for something more\n_recherch\u00e9_, dealing with the richer and higher classes of society,\nM. Gualdi, a young naturalized Italian, French in talent, provides\nyou with a drama of the most brilliant originality in his \"Mariage\nExtraordinaire\" (Lemerre). A charming but poor girl, Elise, is on the\npoint of marrying a man she does not love to save her parents from\nruin. She is attached to a young man, Giulio, worthy of her, but poor\nalso; he has been obliged to expatriate himself, and Elise's mother\nmakes her believe that her _fianc\u00e9_ has forgotten and betrayed her.\nThe Comte d'Astorre, an elegant and magnificent _viveur_, with a\ngenerous soul under his frivolous exterior, is touched by Elise's\nfate; to enable her to escape a hateful marriage he offers her the\nshelter of his name and house, promising that he will consider himself\nas a friend, not a husband. For a time the compact is kept, but the\nComte d'Astorre ends by falling in love with his wife; the quondam\n_viveur_ becomes the timid, trembling, and na\u00eff suitor. Elise ends\nby allowing herself to be moved, and when poor Giulio comes back from\nIndia, true to the faith he had sworn, she repulses him, first in\nthe name of duty, and soon, one is made to feel, in the name of a new\nnascent love. This singular and delicate theme is treated by M. Gualdi\nwith a refinement of touch that indicates the acute psychologist, and\nthe passionate scene between Giulio and Elise on their meeting again\nis really beautiful.\n\nTo ascend a step higher in the social hierarchy and learn what a\nqueen, wounded in her feelings as a woman and a mother, can suffer,\nread M. A. Daudet's last novel, \"Les Rois en Exil\" (Dentu), in which\nhe continues to work the vein he opened so successfully in \"Le Nabab,\"\nthe portraiture of Parisian life, viewed from its most brilliant side\nas from that most flecked with impurity, disorder, and adventure. In\nthe \"Nabab,\" M. Daudet had the advantage of describing the world he\nhad been most familiar with, since his two chief personages were M. de\nMorny, whose secretary he had been for several years, and M. Bravay,\nhis former friend. But this advantage was also a defect, for no true\nnovel is possible with very well-known contemporary personages for\nthe characters; and the \"Nabab,\" marvellous as regards truth and vivid\ndetail, was poor as regards composition. In \"Les Rois en Exil\"\nwe again meet with a number of well-known personages: the King of\nHanover, the Queen of Spain, the Prince of Orange, the Queen of\nNaples, Don Carlos. Elys\u00e9e M\u00e9raut, the little prince's tutor, is\nsaid to be the portrait of an excellent youth, by name Th\u00e9rion, also\nentrusted with a prince's education, and who was horrified to find\nthat he believed more firmly in the principles of legitimacy and\ndivine right than his pupil's parents. The father of Elys\u00e9e M\u00e9raut,\nthe old Legitimist peasant who sees his son's future insured because\nthe Comte de Chambord promises to bear him in mind, is no other than\nA. Daudet's own father. But all the real portraits are secondary\ncharacters that form the background of the picture. The leading\npersonages of the drama, Christian II., the dethroned king of Illyria,\nwho takes his exile very lightly, and forgets it by wallowing in the\nmire of Parisian dissipations; his wife, the noble Fr\u00e9derique, who\nlives but for one thing, the recovery of the throne of her husband and\nson, and in that hope endures every affront; their trusty attendants,\nthe two Rosens; and finally John L\u00e9vis, the unscrupulous man of\nbusiness, who knows the tariff of all the vices, and with his wife\nS\u00e9phora, takes advantage of the dissolute weakness of Christian\nII.,--all these leading figures, though compounded of traits, if not\nreal at least profoundly true, are the author's own creation. They\nare artistically superior, moreover, to those of the \"Nabab,\" more\ncomplete, more lifelike even, for they are stripped of such traits as\nare too personal, secondary, fleeting, contrary to actual reality, and\nwear rather the character of types. Types they truly are, this king\nand queen, representative of all the grandeur and vileness, the\nheroism and cowardice, the noble pride and foolish prejudice, dwelling\nin the exiled sovereigns who came to Paris, some to weep for monarchy,\nothers to hold its carnival, some as to the centre of pleasure,\nothers to that of political intrigue; and is there not a philosophy,\nhistorical and political, in M. Daudet's novel, in his picture\nof Christian II. forced to abdicate his royal pretensions after\nsacrificing them to the love of an unworthy woman who has fooled him,\nand Fr\u00e9derique bidding farewell to all the hopes that centred in\nher little Zara, forgetting everything besides being a mother, and\ndevoting all her powers towards rescuing her child from the sickness\nthat is killing him? It is unfair to M. Daudet to say that he only\npossesses the art of painting the _chatoyant_ lights, the picturesque\noutside of Parisian life, the dresses, the furniture, and the scenery;\nto represent him as merely a skilful manufacturer of _bimbeloterie_.\nWe may tax him with abuse of description, and that habit of\n_reportage_ peculiar to the daily press; and it would be vain to look\nin him for the sobriety that enhances the beauty of some immortal\nworks of art; but such sobriety is incompatible with an art which aims\nat painting human life in all its aspects, all its details, all its\ncolours. Neither Shakspeare, Dickens, nor Balzac is sober. To be\nsure M. Daudet is neither a Dickens nor a Balzac, but his delicate\nsensibility makes him penetrate far below the outer crust, to the\nhuman ground of the characters, and the life they live is a real one.\nOn account of this, the first quality of a novelist, one forgives the\nbrutality and the pretentious passages, an imitation, the one of M.\nZola, the other of M. de Goncourt, and the inequalities of a style\nwhich is, nevertheless, in wonderful harmony with the world he paints.\n\nThat which constitutes M. Daudet's great superiority over other\nnovelists of the realistic school, is that he has no contempt for\nhumanity, that he always loves it, often pities, and sometimes admires\nit. Nothing can be more false, more unpleasant, or, we may venture\nto say, more tiresome, than the view taken by a certain would-be\nscientific pessimism of humanity, as being nothing but a compound of\nvileness, vapidness, and folly. M. Zola is learning it to his cost.\nAfter the immense success of \"L'Assommoir,\" due to the great power of\nthe painter, as also to the horror inspired by scenes of unparalleled\ncrudeness, he wished to outdo himself and depict in \"Nana\" the\nlowest depths of Parisian corruption. To make the impression the more\ncomplete, he has not let in a single breath of pure air; or introduced\na single character which was not insipidly stupid and sensual,\nenslaved by the lowest appetites, incapable of a single noble thought\nor generous sentiment. The effect on the public was weariness rather\nthan disgust. _Le Voltaire_, which had expected to make its fortune by\nbringing out the book in _feuilletons_, was greatly surprised to see\nits circulation rapidly fail, actually on account of M. Zola's novel.\nWe are afraid the same thing will happen with regard to the work\nannounced by M. Flaubert. This great writer and conscientious\nartist is unfortunately persuaded, in spite of his admiration for I.\nTourgu\u00e9neff (that true painter of humanity, of its virtues as of its\nvices), that the novel should confine itself to the portrayal of the\nmediocre and uniform mass which makes up the majority of men. Already\nin \"L'Education Sentimentale\" he sought to show the vulgarity and\ncoarseness that generally conceal themselves under what is called\nlove; in the novel he is now engaged on he shows us two men brutalized\nby the mechanical routine of a bureaucratic career, studying every\nhuman science, and finding in the study merely an occasion for the\nbetter display of their incurable folly. Such mistakes committed\nby men of genius cause us the better to appreciate less powerful\ncertainly, but more human, works, by writers who seek to render life\nattractive to us, such as A. Theuriet, for instance, who has just\nproduced a new novel, \"Le Fils Mangars\" (Charpentier). M. Theuriet is\none of the few French writers of fiction who, instead of dealing\nwith the tragedies of guilty passion succeed in shedding a dramatic\ninterest over the affections and sufferings of pure young hearts.\nIn this he resembles the English novelists. Innocent love forms the\ngroundwork of his books, and constitutes their poetry and their charm.\n\"Le Fils Mangars\" is the first of a series of studies entitled \"Nos\nEnfants,\" dealing with the various complications arising out of the\ndisagreement of parents and children. In \"Le Fils Mangars\" we are\nintroduced to a father, who has devoted all his efforts towards\namassing a fortune for his son, has to that end made use of dishonest\nmeans, and finds his punishment in the loyalty of the one for whom\nhe committed the wrong. His son refuses to benefit by the wealth\ndishonestly acquired, and falls in love with the daughter of one of\nthe men his father has ruined. This poignant theme is handled with the\nairy and attractive delicacy that characterizes Theuriet's touch.\n\nWere the surly critics to be trusted, we should not be leaving the\ndomain of fiction in turning to the new volume M. Renan has devoted\nto the history of the sources of Christianity, entitled \"L'Eglise\nChr\u00e9tienne\" (L\u00e9vy). It deals with the definitive constitution of the\nChurch, at the moment when dogma forms itself by contact with, and\nin opposition to, the various heresies, and the organization of\nthe hierarchy takes place. It is true that M. Renan could, if he so\nwished, be a wonderful writer of fiction. With what art he brings on\nhis personages, how admirably he infuses life into the thousand dry\nand scattered fragments collected by erudition, and forms them into a\nco-ordinate and complete whole! With what psychological penetration\nhe enters into the minds of his personages, and makes us familiarly\nacquainted with the Roman C\u00e6sars or the Church Fathers! What wealth\nof imagination! what witchery of style! At times he is, no doubt, led\naway by his imagination; too often the desire to invest old facts with\nlife and reality leads him to compare, or even assimilate, the present\nwith the past, and, in his exposition of ancient ideas, to mix them up\nwith his own, ideas so peculiar to our time and to M. Renan himself,\nthat the intermixture produces a false impression. It is daring to\nascribe the Fourth Gospel to Cerinthus, and still more so to regard\nthe letter of the Lyons Church on the martyrdom of Pothin and his\ncompanions as a proof of the Lyonnese being false-minded, and to\nconnect the fact with the Socialist tendencies of modern Lyons. From\nhis comparing Hadrian in some respects to Nero, we gather that M.\nRenan has yielded to the indulgence he had already testified towards\nNero in his volume on \"L'Antechrist,\" an indulgence grounded on the\nartistic tastes, or rather pretensions, of the royal stage-player. But\nthese blemishes, and occasional breaches of historical truth or good\ntaste, ought not to blind us to the historical value of a work which,\nif it be the work of a great artist, is likewise that of a scholar of\nthe first order. Numbers of men can pore over texts and critics, but\nto revive the past, and introduce into the domain of history, and\nmake the general public familiar with subjects reserved hitherto to\ntheologians and critics by profession, is the work of a genius only.\nScholars find much to censure in Michelet's \"Histoire de Franceau\nmoyen Age;\" but whatever its inexactitudes, he is the only man who has\nsucceeded in restoring to life the France of bygone days. And is not\nlife one of the most important elements of reality? Even an imperfect\nacquaintance with a living man enables one to form a truer notion\nof the man than the most minute autopsy of a dead body. Moreover,\nas regards the past we have not the whole body, but only\nscattered fragments; the breath of genius must pass over these dry\nbones--restore to them flesh, blood, colour, movement, and voice.\n\nBut genius can only do her magic work when the materials that are\nto serve for this wonderful transformation have been collected\nby erudition. M. Renan would not have been able to construct his\nhistorical monument had not German criticism prepared the way for\nhim. Erudition occasionally arrives at astonishing results by digging,\neither in the earth which has swallowed up the ancient buildings or\nin the dust of the archives. Here is an individual who played a very\nimportant part in the fifteenth century in the struggle between France\nand England, who, though a stranger and fighting more especially as an\nadventurer greedy of spoil, helped to restore France to independence,\nwho was almost unknown, whose name was not mentioned in any of our\nhistories. M. I. Quicherat has brought him to life, and \"Rodrigue de\nVillandrando\" (Hachette) will see his name cited in all the histories\nof the reign of Charles VII. The book is a model of historical\nreconstruction. It is wonderful to see how, with a series of scattered\nindications, most of them the very driest of documents, not only the\nincidents of a life, but the features of a character, can be pieced\ntogether again.\n\nSuch a character as Rodrigue's is not very complicated, it is true.\nThere are historical personages to penetrate the depths of whose\nnature an accumulation of documents and testimony would be necessary.\nSuch is Napoleon, whom each day throws some new light upon, and on\nwhom, after his having been magnified beyond all measure, posterity\nwill, no doubt, be called to pass severe judgment. Never was such\noverwhelming testimony pronounced against him as in the \"M\u00e9moires de\nMadame de R\u00e9musat,\" the first volume of which is just out. Mme. de\nR\u00e9musat was so placed as to be more thoroughly acquainted than any one\nwith the character of Napoleon. Lady-in-waiting to Josephine, and wife\nof one of Napoleon's \"Ma\u00eetres du palais,\" she bowed for a long while\nto the ascendancy of Napoleon's genius, and the liking he testified\nfor her was sufficiently strong to awaken, though unjustly, the\nmomentary jealousy of Josephine. The speaker is not an enemy,\ntherefore, but an old friend who tries to explain at once her\nadherence to the imperial r\u00e9gime and the motives that caused her to\nalter her political creed. She is thus in the best state of mind,\naccording to M. Renan, for judging a great man or a doctrine, that of\nhaving believed and believing no longer. Add to this the sweetness of\nmind natural to a woman, and the kind of indulgence peculiar to times\nwhen sudden political changes lead to frequent changes of opinion. All\nthese considerations only render Mme. de R\u00e9musat's testimony the more\noverwhelming for Napoleon, and its value is singularly increased on\nits being seen to agree with that which all the sincere witnesses of\nthe time, Ph. de S\u00e9gur, Miot de M\u00e9lito, as well as Sismondi, lead us\nto infer. The genius of Napoleon is not diminished, and nothing is\nmore remarkable than the conversations related by Mme. de R\u00e9musat,\nwherein he judges everything, literature, politics, and history, with\na haughty originality from the point of view of his own interests and\npassions. Some of his sayings relative to the government of men\nare worthy of Machiavelli. The reasonings whereby he explains and\njustifies the assassination of the Duc d'Enghien would form a splendid\nchapter to the \"Prince.\" But from the moral point of view Napoleon\nstrikes us as the most perfect type of a tyrant. No moral law exists\nfor him; he does not admit the obligation of any duty; he does not\neven recognise those duties of a sovereign, that subordination of\nthe individual to the interests of the State, which constitute the\ngreatness of a Cromwell or a Frederick II.; he recognises but one law,\nthat of his nature, which insists on dominating and being superior to\neverything that surrounds him. _Quia nominor Leo_, is his only\nrule. Morals always have their revenge on those whose encroaching\npersonality refuses to recognise laws. Writers or sovereigns, whatever\ntheir genius, relapse into falsehood and extravagance. This was\nNapoleon's fate. You are always conscious in him of the _parvenu_\nacting a part--the _commediante tragediante_, as Pius VII. put it.\nHe had fits of goodness, of weakness even, but his human and generous\nsides had been crushed by his frightful egoism. He liked to make those\nhe loved best suffer. He treated his wife and his mistresses with\nbrutal contempt; he could no longer lament the death of those who\nseemed dearest to him. \"Je n'ai pas le temps de m'occuper des morts,\"\nhe said to Talleyrand. By the side of this great figure Mme. de\nR\u00e9musat has, in her Memoirs, sketched many others--the frivolous,\ngood, touching, and unfortunate Josephine; the amiable Hortense\nBeauharnais, the dry, cold Louis, Napoleon's sisters, jealous, proud,\nand immoral; and others--but all pale before the imperial colossus.\n\nBesides M. Daudet's novel, M. Renan's new volume, and the Memoirs of\nMme. de R\u00e9musat, the last three months have witnessed another literary\nevent of some consequence--the birth of an important Review, which\naims at the position occupied for thirty years past by the _Revue\ndes Deux Mondes_. The _Nouvelle Revue_ was started and is edited by a\nwoman, Mme. Edmond Adam, known as a writer under the name of Juliette\nLamber. A new phenomenon this in the literary world, the strangest\nfeature of it being that Mme. Adam has taken exclusively upon herself\nthe bulletin of foreign politics. If the task of editing a Review be\narduous for a man, who in the interest of his undertaking must brave\nevery enmity and quench his individual sympathies, how much more\nso for a woman whose staff of contributors is recruited from the\n_habitu\u00e9s_ of her _salon_, and who must be constantly tempted to carry\ninto her official transactions the habits of gracious hospitality\nwhich have made her house one of the most courted political and\nliterary centres of Paris?\n\nThe aim of the _Nouvelle Revue_ also is to be up with the times; it is\ninclined to judge an article rather by the fame of the name at the end\nof it than by its own intrinsic merit; it will insert the superficial\nlucubrations of General Turr or M. Castelar, which but for the\nsignature are worthless. It gives political questions an importance\nhardly appreciated by those who find all their political needs\nsupplied by the daily press, and look to a Review for literary or\nscientific interests. Finally, the chief obstacle in the way of the\n_Nouvelle Revue_ is that our best essayists are bound not only by\nchains of gratitude and habit, but also by chains of gold, to the\n_Revue des Deux Mondes_. Nevertheless there is plenty of room in\nour literary world for a new review, so far at least as writers\nare concerned. If she makes talent her aim, and not merely opinions\nagreeing with her own, Mme. Adam will not want for contributors. To\nget readers will be more difficult in a country of routine, where\nthe _Revue des Deux Mondes_ has become an indispensable item of every\nrespectable family's household furniture. Until now the _Nouvelle\nRevue_ has been successful; the sale has reached from 6000 to 8000\ncopies per number, and, without having yet published anything very\nfirst-rate, it has been fairly well supplied with pleasant articles.\nThe recollections of the singer Duprez have hitherto been its greatest\nattraction. A novel by Mme. Gr\u00e9ville, and articles by MM. de Bornier,\nBigot, and de Gubernatis also deserve mention.\n\nPerhaps, after all, our judgment is partial, and the success of the\n_Nouvelle Revue_ is due to its attention to the immediate interests of\nthe present, and the space allotted to politics. The number of those\nwho take an interest in literature daily grows smaller in France.\nOf those not absorbed by politics some forsake pure literature for\nerudition, and the greater number give themselves up to science. It is\nowing to the scholars that the _Revue Philosophique_ is succeeding\nso brilliantly; all the scientific societies are flourishing, and\nL'Association pour l'Encouragement des Sciences again verified\nits growing advancement at its late meeting at Montpellier. The\ngeographical section, recently founded, promises to become one of the\nmost active, for geographical studies, so long neglected in France,\nhave suddenly made an extraordinary start. The Geographical Society\nnow has 1700 members, and has built itself a magnificent _h\u00f4tel_;\nthe Alpine Club, a geographical rather than a climbing society, is\nincreasing so rapidly in numbers that it is impossible to give\nthe exact figure. It amounts to several thousand. If unscrupulous\nspeculators have taken advantage of this reawakening zeal for\ngeographical study to publish a swarm of superficial and hastily\ncompiled handbooks, and carelessly engraved maps, some works of real\nmerit have appeared that do credit to our French editors. And here\nthe firm of Hachette holds the first rank. \"La Tour du Monde\" is an\nillustrated journal of travels, admirably arranged and printed; the\ngreat Historical Atlas and Universal Dictionary of Geography of M.\nVivien de Saint Martin have but one fault, the excessive tardiness of\ntheir publication. M. Elis\u00e9e Reclus's handsome work, \"La Terre et les\nHommes,\" on the contrary, is issued with unexceptionable regularity.\nThe fifth volume, now approaching completion, comprises the countries\nof Northern Europe, principally Russia, which is now attracting the\nattention of historians and politicians generally. M. Reclus's point\nof view is especially calculated to answer to the nature of the\npresent interest, for he enters more particularly into the relations\nof the people to the soil; to the administrative geography, details\nconcerning which are to be found everywhere, he pays only secondary\nattention, devoting himself more especially to the physical geography,\ncustoms, and institutions. His book is more particularly a work on\ngeology, ethnography, and sociology; and therein lies its originality\nand usefulness. Hachette is also engaged in publishing a map of France\nthat exceeds in beauty and precision everything that has ever been\nproduced of the kind until now. It is drawn by the Service des Chemins\nVicinaux at the expense of the Ministry of Interior, and will consist\nof 467 sheets. The scale is 1/100000. The admirable engraver, M.\nErhard, has been entrusted with the execution, which is beyond\ncriticism alike as regards fulness of detail, clearness, and\ncolouring. Each sheet costs only 75c., a moderate sum, considering the\nexceptional merit of the work, the most considerable of its kind since\nthe Staff map. A proof of the importance attached in these days to the\nstudy of geography is the foundation of Chairs of Geography in several\nof our Faculties of Letters--Bordeaux, Lyons, Nancy--and a course of\nlectures on historical geography at the \u00c9cole des Hautes \u00c9tudes. This\ncourse will be given by M. A. Longnon, whose works on \"Les Pagi de la\nGaule\" and \"La G\u00e9ographie de la Gaule au sixi\u00e8me si\u00e8cle,\" have made\nhim a European authority. By the combined use of the philological\nlaws of the transmutation of sounds, historical documents, and\narch\u00e6ological data, he has reached a precision it seemed impossible to\nattain in these matters. He may be said to have founded a new science,\nand the happiest results are to be expected from his teaching.\n\nThere is always a lull in the artistic as in the literary and\nscientific world during the summer and autumn, so that there is little\nof importance to be noted. The designs sent in for the monument to\nRabelais, for the statue of the Republic, for a decorative curtain to\nbe executed by the Gobelins, all public works opened to competition,\nhave been exhibited. The question of such competitions was much\ndiscussed on the occasion. It seems at first sight the best way of\nsecuring the highest work, but practically it is not so. Artists of\nacknowledged merit do not generally care to enter into competition\nwith brother artists; they shrink from the expense, often\nconsiderable, which, in case of failure, is thrown away. That\nincurred, for instance, by the competitors for the statue of the\nRepublic, amounted to about 4000 francs, and the premium awarded to\nthe three best designs to just that sum. It would evidently always be\nbetter, when a really fine work is required, to choose the artist most\ncapable of executing it well, and leave him free to follow his own\ninspiration. This method seems too little democratic for the days in\nwhich we live, so under colour of democracy a number of poor devils\nare made to involve themselves in enormous expenses for nothing.\n\nThe most notable events of the last three months in the artistic world\nhave been the deaths of men variously famous. M. Viollet Le Duc leaves\nbehind him the twofold reputation of a learned arch\u00e6ologist of the\nfirst order and an arch\u00e6ological architect still more remarkable. He\nhad fame, indeed, of a third kind--as a stirring and noisy politician,\nwho, from having been one of Napoleon III.'s familiar associates, and\na constant guest at Compi\u00e8gne, became one of the most advanced members\nof the Municipal Council of Paris, a _courtisan_ of the multitude.\nBut one is glad to forget him under these unfavourable aspects and\nto think of him only as the author of the two great historical\ndictionaries of \"L'Architecture\" and \"Le Mobilier,\" and the clever and\nlearned restorer of our medi\u00e6val monuments. Thanks to him, Notre Dame\nhas been completed and finished, and reconstituted in the very spirit\nof the thirteenth century; thanks to him, we have at Pierrefonds\nthe perfect model of a feudal castle. An indefatigable worker,\nthis Radical has allied his name in a manner as glorious as it is\nindissoluble to the visible memorials of Catholic and Monarchical\nFrance.\n\nOf a slighter, but perhaps more universal kind still was the\nreputation of the caricaturist Cham, or, to speak more correctly,\nthe Viscomte de No\u00e9. Son of a French peer known for his retrograde\nopinions, Cham worked all his life for the Republican papers, though\npeople say he adhered to his Legitimist opinions. But he enjoyed\nan independence in the Republican papers which would not have been\nallowed him by the reactionary press; and a caricaturist's first\ncondition is to have plenty of elbow-room to be able to give free\nplay to his humour. The spring of Cham's humour was inexhaustible.\nAn indifferent and monotonous draughtsman, his mind was wholly and\nentirely in the story of his drawings. The war of ridicule he waged\nin 1848 against the Socialistic theories of Proudhon, Pierre Leroux,\nCabet, and Consid\u00e9rant exercised an undoubted influence on the public\nmind. His comic reviews of the annual Salon contained, amongst many\namusing follies, some just and stinging criticisms. Cham leaves no\nsuccessor, Bertall, who is a cleverer draughtsman, has none of his\nwit; Gr\u00e9vin can only sketch with exquisite grace the ladies of the\ndemi-monde and the young fops of the boulevard; Gill's political\ncaricatures are either bitter or violent. The lively and good-natured\nraillery of Cham has no doubt vanished for ever.\n\nIn conjunction with these two artists the name of a man should be\nmentioned, who, himself an indifferent artist, was the unfailing\npatron, the providence of artists, Baron Taylor, who died almost at\nthe same time as Cham. He it was who taught artists to form themselves\ninto associations against want. He was in particular the soul of the\nSoci\u00e9t\u00e9 des Artistes Dramatiques, and amongst the immense crowd that\nattended his funeral were, no doubt, hundreds indebted to him for an\neasy career and a sure means of existence.\n\nWe are a long way removed from the time when the life of an artist was\none long struggle with misery, when men of the first class continued\nobscure or barely maintained themselves by their works. Many\ndifficulties still remain no doubt, but how much smoother the road\nhas become! Musicians, more especially, found themselves in those\ndays condemned to obscurity and oblivion. Now, thanks to concerts and\ntheatres, they can almost always have the public for their judges. The\nOpera is at present in the hands of an enterprising and intelligent\ndirector, M. Vaucorbeil, who is anxious to rescue it from the groove\nit has been dragging on in for so long, with its current repertory of\ntwo or three antiquated works, barely bringing out a new one in four\nor five years. True, we have not got beyond good intentions until\nnow, M. Gounod still intending to retouch the \"Tribu de Zamora,\" M. A.\nThomas to finish his \"Fran\u00e7oise de Rimini,\" and M. Saint-Saens still\nunsuccessful in getting his \"Etienne Marcel\" accepted. Besides the\nGrand Op\u00e9ra there is L'Op\u00e9ra Populaire located in the Ga\u00eet\u00e9's old\nquarters, which intends, it is said, to revive the lost traditions of\nthe lyric theatre, and to be the theatre of the young generation and\nof reform. But at present it is to the Pasdeloup and Colonne Concerts\nthat the rising musical school owes the opportunity of making itself\nheard, and the Parisian public its familiar acquaintance with foreign\nworks. The great reputation M. Saint-Saens now enjoys was made at\nColonne's Concerts at the Ch\u00e2telet. Lately Schumann's \"Manfred\" was\ngiven there. At the Cirque the \"Symphonie Fantastique,\" by Berlioz,\nwas played with immense success, also for the first time a pianoforte\nconcerto by the Russian composer, Tschaikovsky, and M. Pasdeloup\nshortly intends to give a performance of the whole of the music of\n\"Lohengrin.\"\n\nConsidered apart from music, the theatre is far from improving, and\nhas, moreover, become the scene of performances that bear no relation\nto dramatic art. At the Nouveaut\u00e9s, Professor Hermann, of Vienna, is\nperforming sleight-of-hand feats bordering on the miraculous; at the\nVari\u00e9t\u00e9s the Hanlon-Lees have transformed the stage into a gymnasium,\nwhere they defy every law of equilibrium and gravity. Holden's\nMarionettes, also one of the great attractions of the day, are not\nmore dislocated or agile than these wonderful mountebanks. In the way\nof new plays the great rage at present is \"Jonathan,\" M. Gondinet's\nlatest work, which is being played at the Gymnase. Neither its wit\nnor its cleverness, any more than the talent of the actors, are to\nbe denied; but what are we to think of a dramatic art whose sole end\nwould seem to be to get accepted on the stage a story so scandalous\nthat a brief account of it would be intolerable? By dint of shifts,\ndoubtful insinuations, fun, and spirit, the sight of it is just\nrendered endurable. No heed is paid to truth, nor to either character\nor manners. It is the last utterance of the literary decadence. We\nthought that with \"B\u00e9b\u00e9\" we had reached the utmost limits of this kind\nof piece. To \"Jonathan\" is due the honour of having extended those\nlimits.\n\nOne feels grateful to those who, like M. Claretie, dare to shed a\npurer atmosphere over the stage. \"Les Mirabeau\" is far from being\na masterpiece. It exhibits, like all M. Claretie's works, rather a\ncareless facility, but at the same time a true understanding of the\nRevolutionary period; the tone is strong and healthy, and some\nscenes, in which Mdlle. Rousseil shows herself a great actress, are\nexceedingly dramatic. It is given at an enterprising theatre, the\nTh\u00e9\u00e2tre des Nations, which is devoting itself to historical\ndrama, and, in a double series of dramatic matin\u00e9es held on Sunday\nafternoons, is giving, on the one hand, a set of plays relating to\nevery epoch of French history, on the other, a set of foreign plays\ntranslated into French, and intended to promote the knowledge of\nthe dramatic works of other countries, ancient as well as modern; an\ningenious and happy undertaking, to which we cannot but wish every\nsuccess.\n\n  G. MONOD.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTranscriber's Note:\n\nSome of the words from the Article, \"Hinduisn and Jainism\" contain\nvowels with macron accents (line above the letter). These are\ndepicted as [=A], [=a], [=i], [=u]. Some words in the article\ncontain stand-alone acute accents, which have been retained.\n\ne.g., As\u00b4oka; Pars\u00b4van[=a]tha; Pajj[=u]san; S[=a]dhvin[=i];\nS\u00b4iva-r[=a]tri; Up[=a]s\u00b4raya;\n\n\nErrata:\n\nPage 555: 'Governmeut' corrected to 'Government'\n\n\"... was forced upon the Government by the attitude of Russia....\"\n\nPage 580: 'botantist' corrected to 'botanist'.\n\n\"... by the German botantist, Hildebrand,...\"\n\nPage 642: 'is' corrected to 'Is'\n\n\"... in bonds and debentures? Is not part of the profit realized....\"\n\nPage 714: Extraneous 'the' removed.\n\"Besides the Grand Op\u00e9ra there is L'Op\u00e9ra Populaire [the] located....\"","title":"The Contemporary Review, Volume 36, December 1879","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":92758}