{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_53228/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_53228","id":"gutenberg_53228","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53228","summary":null,"tags":["American literature -- Periodicals","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Literature -- Periodicals"],"text":"[Illustration]\n\n\n\n\nECLECTIC MAGAZINE OF FOREIGN LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART.\n\n\nNew Series.       }      FEBRUARY, 1885.      {Old Series complete\nVol. XLI., No. 2. }                           {in 63 vols.\n\n\n\n\nA FAITHLESS WORLD.\n\n\nBY FRANCES POWER COBBE.\n\nA little somnolence seems to have overtaken religious controversy\nof late. We are either weary of it or have grown so tolerant of our\ndifferences that we find it scarcely worth while to discuss them. By\ndint of rubbing against each other in the pages of the Reviews, in the\nclubs, and at dinner parties, the sharp angles of our opinions have\nbeen smoothed down. Ideas remain in a fluid state in this temperate\nseason of sentiment, and do not, as in old days, crystallize into\nsects. We have become almost as conciliatory respecting our views as\nthe Chinese whom Huc describes as carrying courtesy so far as to praise\nthe religion of their neighbors and depreciate their own. \u201cYou, honored\nsir,\u201d they were wont to say, \u201care of the noble and lofty religion of\nConfucius. I am of the poor and insignificant religion of Lao-tze.\u201d\nOnly now and then some fierce controversialist, hailing usually from\nIndia or the colonies where London amenities seem not yet to have\npenetrated, startles us by the desperate earnestness wherewith he\ndisproves what we had almost forgotten that anybody seriously believes.\n\nAs a result of the general \u201claissez _croire_\u201d of our day, it has come\nto pass that a question has been mooted which, to our fathers, would\nhave seemed preposterous: \u201cIs it of any consequence what we believe,\nor whether we believe anything? Suppose that by-and-by we all arrive\nat the conclusion that Religion has been altogether a mistake, and\nrenounce with one accord the ideas of God and Heaven, having (as M.\nComte assures us) outgrown the theological stage of human progress;\nwhat then? Will it make any serious difference to anybody?\u201d\n\nHitherto, thinkers of Mr. Bradlaugh\u2019s type have sung p\u00e6ans of welcome\nfor the expected golden years of Atheism, when \u201cfaiths and empires\u201d will\n\n                            \u201cGleam\n    Like wrecks of a dissolving dream.\u201d\n\nChristians and Theists of all schools, on the other hand, have\nnaturally deprecated with horror and dread such a cataclysm of faith\nas sure to prove a veritable Ragnarok of universal ruin. In either\ncase it has been taken for granted that the change from a world of\nlittle faith, like that in which we live, to a world wholly destitute\nof faith, would be immensely great and far-reaching; and that at the\ndownfall of religion not only would the thrones and temples of the\nearth, but every homestead in every land, be shaken to its foundation.\nIt is certainly a step beyond any yet taken in the direction of\nscepticism to question this conclusion, and maintain that such a\nrevolution would be of trivial import, since things would go on with\nmankind almost as well without a God as with one.\n\nThe man who, with characteristic downrightness, has blurted out most\nopenly this last doubt of all\u2014the doubt whether doubt be an evil\u2014is,\nas my readers will have recognized, Mr. Justice Stephen. In the\nconcluding pages of one of his sledge-hammerings on the heads of his\nadversaries, in the _Nineteenth Century_ for last June, he rung the\nchanges upon the idea (with some reservations, to be presently noted)\nas follows:\u2014\n\n        \u201cIf human life is in the course of being fully\n      described by science, I do not see what materials\n      there are for any religion, or, indeed, what would be\n      the use of one, or why it is wanted. We can get on\n      very well without one, for though the view of life\n      which science is opening to us gives us nothing to\n      worship, it gives us an infinite number of things to\n      enjoy.... The world seems to me a very good world,\n      if it would only last. It is full of pleasant people\n      and curious things, and I think that most men find\n      no great difficulty in turning their minds away\n      from its transient character. Love, friendship,\n      ambition, science, literature, art, politics,\n      commerce, professions, trades, and a thousand other\n      matters, will go equally well, as far as I can see,\n      whether there is, or is not, a God or a future\n      state.\u201d\u2014_Nineteenth Century_, No. 88, p. 917.\n\nHad these noteworthy words been written by an obscure individual, small\nweight would have attached to them. We might have observed on reading\nthem that the\u2014not wise\u2014person who three thousand years ago \u201csaid in\nhis heart, there is no God,\u201d had in the interval plucked up courage\nto say in the magazines that it does not signify whether there be one\nor not. But the dictum comes to us from a gentleman who happens to\nbe the very antithesis of the object of Solomon\u2019s detestation, a man\nof distinguished ability and unsullied character, of great knowledge\nof the world (as revealed to successful lawyers), of almost abnormal\nclear-headedness; and lastly, strangest anomaly of all! who is the\nrepresentative of a family in which the tenderest and purest type of\nProtestant piety has long been hereditary. It is the last utterance\nof the devout \u201cClapham School,\u201d of Venn, Stephen, Hannah More and\nWilberforce, which we hear saying: \u201cI think we could do very well\nwithout religion.\u201d\n\nAs it is a widely received idea just now that the Evolution theory is\ndestined to coil about religion till it strangle it, and as it has\nbecome the practice with the scientific party to talk of religion as\npoliticians twenty years ago talked of Turkey, as a Sick Man destined\nto a speedy dissolution, it seems every way desirable that we should\npay the opinion of Sir James Stephen on this head that careful\nattention to which, indeed, everything from his pen has a claim. Those\namongst us who have held that Religion is of priceless value should\nbring their prepossessions in its favor to the bar of sober judgment,\nand fairly face this novel view of it as neither precious Truth nor\nyet disastrous Error, but as an unimportant matter of opinion which\nScience may be left to settle without anxiety as to the issue. We ought\nto bring our Treasure to assay, and satisfy ourselves once for all\nwhether it be really pure gold or only a fairy substitute for gold, to\nbe transformed some day into a handful of autumn leaves and scattered\nto the winds.\n\nTo estimate the part played by Religion in the past history of the\nhuman race would be a gigantic undertaking immeasurably above my\nambition.[1] A very much simpler inquiry is that which I propose\nto pursue: namely, one into the chief consequences which might be\nanticipated to follow the downfall of such Religion, as at present\nprevails in civilized Europe and America. When these consequences have\nbeen, however imperfectly, set in array we shall be in a position to\nform some opinion whether we \u201ccan do very well without religion.\u201d Let\nme premise:\u2014\n\n1. That by the word Religion I mean definite faith in a Living and\nRighteous God; and, as a corollary therefrom, in the survival of the\nhuman soul after death. In other words, I mean by \u201creligion\u201d that\nnucleus of simple Theism which is common to every form of natural\nreligion, of Christianity and Judaism; and, of course, in a measure\nalso to remoter creeds, which will not be included in the present\npurview. Further, I do _not_ mean Positivism, or Agnosticism, or\nBuddhism, exoteric or esoteric; or the recognition of the \u201cUnknown\nand Unknowable,\u201d or of a \u201cPower not ourselves which makes for\nrighteousness.\u201d These may, or may not, be fitly termed \u201creligions;\u201d but\nit is not the results of their triumph or extinction which we are here\nconcerned to estimate. I shall even permit myself generally to refer to\nall such phases of non-belief as involve denial of the dogmas of Theism\nabove-stated as \u201cAtheism;\u201d not from discourtesy, but because it would\nbe impossible at every point to distinguish them, and because, for the\npurposes of the present argument, they are tantamount to Atheism.\n\n2. That I absolve myself from weighing against the advantages of\nReligion the evils which have followed its manifold corruptions. Those\nevils, in the case even of the Christian religion, I recognize to have\nbeen so great, so hideous, that during their prevalence it might have\nbeen plausibly\u2014though even then, I think, not truly\u2014contended that\nthey out-balanced its benefits. But the days of the worst distortions\nof Christianity have long gone by. The Christianity of our day tends,\nas it appears to me, more and more to resume the character of the\n_Religion of Christ_, _i.e._, the religion which Christ believed and\nlived; and to reject that other and very different religion which\nmen have taught in Christ\u2019s name. As this deep and silent but vast\nchange comes over the spirit of the Christianity of modern Europe, it\nbecomes better and better qualified to meet fearlessly the challenge,\n\u201cShould we do well without religion in its Christian shape?\u201d But it is\nnot my task here to analyze the results of any one type of religion,\nChristian, Jewish, or simply Theistic; but only to register those of\n_Religion itself_, as I have defined it above, namely, faith in God and\nin immortality.\n\nI confess, at starting on this inquiry, that the problem \u201cIs religion\nof use, or can we do as well without it?\u201d seems to me almost as\ngrotesque as the old story of the woman who said that we owe vast\nobligation to the Moon, which affords us light on dark nights,\nwhereas we are under no such debt to the Sun, who only shines by day,\n_when there is always light_. Religion has been to us so diffused a\nlight that it is quite possible to forget how we came by the general\nillumination, save when now and then it has blazed out with special\nbrightness. On the other hand, all the moon-like things which are\nproposed to us as substitutes for Religion,\u2014friendship, science,\nart, commerce, and politics,\u2014have a very limited area wherein they\nshine at all, and leave the darkness around much as they found it.\nIt is the special and unique character of Religion to deal with the\nwhole of human nature _all_ our pleasures and pains and duties and\naffections and hopes and fears, here and hereafter. It offers to the\nIntellect an explanation of the universe (true or false we need not\nnow consider); and, pointing to Heaven, it responds to the most eager\nof its questions. It offers to the Conscience a law claiming authority\nto regulate every act and every word. And it offers to the Heart an\nabsolutely love-worthy Being as the object of its adoration. Whether\nthese immense offers of Religion are all genuine, or all accepted by us\nindividually, they are quite unmatched by anything which science, or\nart, or politics, or commerce, or even friendship, has to bestow. The\nrelation of religion to us is not one-sided like theirs, but universal,\nubiquitous; not moon-like, appearing at intervals, but sun-like,\nforming the source, seen or unseen, of all our light and heat, even\nof the warmth of our household fires. Strong or weak as may be its\ninfluence on us as individuals, it is the greatest thing with which\nwe have to do, from the cradle to the grave. And this holds good\nwhether we give ourselves up to it or reject it. It is the one great\nacceptance, or \u201c_il gran rifiuto_.\u201d Nothing equally great can come in\nour way again.\n\nIn an estimate of the consequences which would follow a general\nrejection of religion, we are bound to take into view the two classes\nof men\u2014those who are devout and those who are not so\u2014who would, of\ncourse, be diversely affected by such a revolution of opinion. As\nregards the first, every one will concede that the loss of so important\na factor in their lives would alter those lives radically. As regards\nthe second, after noting the orderly and estimable conduct of many\nof them, the observer might, _per contra_, not unfairly surmise that\nthey would continue to act just as they do at present were religion\nuniversally exploded. But ere such a conclusion could be legitimately\ndrawn from the meritorious lives of non-religious men in the present\norder of society, we should be allowed (it is a familiar remark) to\nsee the behavior of a whole nation of Atheists. Our contemporaries are\nno more fair samples of the outcome of Atheism than a little party\nof English youths who had lived for a few years in Central Africa\nwould be samples of Negroes. It would take several thousand years to\nmake a full-blooded Atheist out of the scion of forty generations of\nChristians. Our whole mental constitutions have been built up on food\nof religious ideas. A man on a mountain top, might as well resolve\nnot to breathe the ozone in the air, as to live in the intellectual\natmosphere of England and inhale no Christianity.\n\nAs, then, it is impossible to forecast what would be the consequences\nof universal Atheism hereafter by observing the conduct of individual\nAtheists to-day, all that can be done is to study bit by bit the\nchanges which must take place should this planet ever become, as is\nthreatened, a _Faithless World_. In pursuing this line of inquiry it\nwill be well to remember that every ill result of loss of faith and\nhope which we may now observe will be _cumulative_ as a larger and\nyet larger number of persons, and at last the whole community, reject\nreligion together. Atheists have been hitherto like children playing\nat the mouth of a cavern of unknown depth. They have run in and out,\nand explored it a little way, but always within sight of the daylight\noutside, where have stood their parents and friends calling on them to\nreturn. Not till the way back to the sunshine has been lost will the\ndarkness of that cave be fully revealed.\n\nI shall now register very briefly the more obvious and tangible changes\nwhich would follow the downfall of religion in Europe and America, and\nthen devote my available space to a rather closer examination of those\nwhich are less manifest; the drying up of those hidden rills which now\nirrigate the whole subsoil of our civilization.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe first visible change in the Faithless World, of course, would be\nthe suppression of Public and Private Worship and of Preaching; the\nsecularization or destruction everywhere of Cathedrals, Churches, and\nChapels; and the extinction of the Clerical Profession. A considerable\n_hiatus_ would undoubtedly be thus made in the present order of things.\nPublic Worship and Preaching, however much weariness of the flesh\nhas proverbially attended them, have, to say the least, done much to\ncalm, to purify, and to elevate the minds of millions; nor does it\nseem that any multiplication of scientific Lectures or Penny Readings\nwould form a substitute for them. The effacement from each landscape\nof the towers and spires of the churches would be a somewhat painful\nsymbol of the simultaneous disappearance from human life of heavenly\nhope and aspiration. The extinction of the Ministry of Religion, though\nit would be hailed even now by many as a great reformation, would be\nfound practically, I apprehend, to reduce by many perceptible degrees\nthe common moral level; and to suppress many highly-aimed activities\nwith which we could ill dispense. The severity of the strictures always\npassed on the faults of clergymen testifies to the general expectation,\nnot wholly disappointed, that they should exhibit a loftier standard\nof life than other men; and the hortative and philanthropic work\naccomplished by the forty or fifty thousand ministers of the various\nsects and churches in England alone, must form, after all deductions,\na sum of beneficence which it would sorely tax any conceivable secular\norganization to replace in the interests of public morality.\n\nProbably the Seventh Day Rest would survive every other religious\ninstitution in virtue of its popularity among the working classes, soon\nto be everywhere masters of legislation. The failure of the Tenth Day\nholiday in the first French Revolution would also forestall any further\nexperiments in varying the hebdomadal interval so marvellously adapted\nto our mental and physical constitution. As, however, all religious\nmeaning of the day would be lost, and all church-going stopped,\nnothing would hinder the employment of its hours from morning to night\nas Easter Monday and Whit Monday are now employed by the millions in\nour great cities. The nation would, therefore, enjoy the somewhat\ndoubtful privilege of keeping fifty-six Bank Holidays instead of four\nin the year. Judicial and official oaths of all sorts, and Marriage\nand Burial rites, would, of course, be entirely abolished. A gentleman\npronouncing the _Oraison Fun\u00e8bre_ outside the crematorium would replace\nthe old white-robed parson telling the mourners;\u2014\n\n            \u201cBeneath the churchyard tree,\n    In solemn tones, and yet not sad,\n    Of what man is, what man shall be.\u201d\n\nAnother change more important than any of these, in Protestant\ncountries, would be the reduction of the Bible to the rank of an\nhistorical and literary curiosity. Nothing (as we all recognize) but\nthe supreme religious importance attached to the Hebrew Scriptures\ncould have forced any book into the unique position which the Bible\nhas now held for three centuries in English and Scottish education.\nEven that held by the Koran throughout Islam is far less remarkable,\ninasmuch as the latter (immeasurably inferior though it be) is the\nsupreme work of the national literature, whereas we have adopted the\nliterature of an alien race. All the golden fruit which the English\nintellect has borne from Shakespeare downwards may be said to have\ngrown on this priceless Semitic graft upon the Aryan stem.\n\nBut as nothing but its religious interest, over and above its\nhistorical and poetical value, could have given the Bible its present\nplace amongst us, so the rejection of religion must quickly lower its\npopularity by a hundred degrees. Notwithstanding anything which the\nMatthew Arnolds of the future may plead on behalf of its glorious\npoetry and mines of wisdom, the youth of the future \u201cFaithless World\u201d\nwill spare very little time from their scientific studies to read a\nbook brimming over with religious sentiments which to them will be\nnauseous. Could everything else remain unchanged after the extinction\nof religion in England, it seems to me that the unravelling of this\nSyrian thread from the very tissue of our minds will altogether alter\ntheir texture.\n\nWhether the above obvious and tangible results of a general\nrelinquishment of religion would all be _disadvantageous_ may,\npossibly, be an open question. That they would be _trifling_, and that\nthings would go on much as they have done after they had taken place,\nseems to me, I confess, altogether incredible.\n\nI now turn to those less obvious consequences of the expected downfall\nof religion which would take place silently.\n\nThe first of these would be the _belittling_ of life. Religion has been\nto us hitherto (to rank it at its lowest), like a great mountain in\na beautiful land. When the clouds descend and hide the mountain, the\ngrandeur of the scene is gone. A stranger entering that land at such\na time will commend the sweetness of the vales and woods; but those\nwho know it best will say, \u201cIchabod!\u2014The glory has departed.\u201d To do\njustice to the eminent man whose opinion concerning the practical\nunimportance of religion I am endeavoring to combat, he has seen\nclearly and frankly avowed this ennobling influence of religion, and,\nas a corollary, would, I presume, admit the _minifying_ consequences of\nits general abandonment.[2] If the window which Religion opens out\non the infinite expanse of God and Heaven, immeasurably enlarges and\nlightens our abode of clay, the walling of it up cannot fail to narrow\nand darken it beyond all telling. Human nature, ever pulled two ways\nby downward and by aspiring tendencies, cannot afford to lose all the\naid which religious ideas offer to its upward flight. Only when they\ndisappear will men perceive how the two thoughts\u2014of this world as\n_God\u2019s world_, and of ourselves as Immortal beings,\u2014have, between\nthem, lighted up in rainbow hues the dull plains of earth. When they\nfade away, all things, Nature, Art, Duty, Love, and Death, will seem to\ngrow grey and cold. Everything which casts a glamour over life will be\ngone.\n\nEven from the point of view of Art (of which in these days perhaps too\nmuch is made), life will lose _poetry_ if it lose religion. Nothing\never stirs our sympathies like it, or like a glimpse into the inner\nself of our brother man, as affected by repentance, hope, and prayer.\nThe great genius, of George Eliot revealed this to her; and, Agnostic\nas she was, she rarely failed to strike this resonant string of human\nnature, as in \u201cAdam Bede,\u201d \u201cSilas Marner,\u201d and \u201cJanet\u2019s Repentance.\u201d\nFrench novelists who have no knowledge of it, and who describe the\ndeath of a man as they might do that of an ox, while they galvanize our\nimaginations, rarely touch the outer hem of our sympathies. Religion\nin its old anthropomorphic forms was the great inspirer of sculpture,\npainting, poetry, science, and almost the creator of architecture.\nPhidias, Dante, Michael Angelo, Raphael, Milton, Handel, and the\nbuilders of the Egyptian temples and medi\u00e6val cathedrals, were all\nfilled with the religious spirit, nor can we imagine what they would\nhave been without it. In the purer modern types of religion, while\nmusic and architecture would still remain in its direct service, we\nshould expect painting and sculpture to be less immediately concerned\nwith it than in old days, because unable to touch such purely spiritual\nideas. But the elevation, aspiration, and reverence which have their\nroot in religion must continue to inspire those arts likewise, or\nthey will fall into triviality on one side (as there seems danger in\nEngland), or into obscene materialism on the other, as is already\nannually exemplified on the walls of the Paris _Salon_.\n\nAgain, it will not merely belittle life, it will _carnalize_ it to\ntake Religion out of it. The lump without the leaven will be grosser\nand heavier than we have dreamed. Civilization, as we all know, bore\nunder Imperial Rome, and may assume again any day, the hateful type in\nwhich luxury and cruelty, art and sensuality, go hand in hand. That it\never changed its character and has come to mean with us refinement,\nself-restraint, chivalry, and freedom from the coarser vices, is surely\ndue to the fact that it has grown up _pari passu_ with Christianity.\nIn truth it needs no argument to prove that, as the bestial tendencies\nin us have scarcely been kept down while we believed ourselves to be\nimmortal souls, they will have it still more their own way when we feel\nassured we are only mortal bodies.\n\nAnd the life thus belittled and carnalized will be a more cowardly\nlife than men have been wont to lead while they had a Providence over\nthem and a heaven waiting for them. Already, I fear, we may see some\nsigns of this new poltroonery of reflective prudence, which holds that\ndeath is the greatest of all evils, and disease the next greatest;\nand teaches men to prefer a \u201cwhole skin\u201d to honor and patriotism, and\nhealth to duty. Writing of this Hygeiolatry elsewhere, I have remarked\nthat it has almost come to be accepted as a canon of morals that any\npractice which, in the opinion of experts, conduces to bodily health,\nor tends to the cure of disease, becomes _ipso facto_ lawful; and\nthat there are signs apparent that this principle is bearing fruit,\nand that men and women are beginning to be systematically selfish and\nself-indulgent where their health is concerned, in modes not hitherto\nwitnessed. In public life it is notorious that whenever a Bill comes\nbefore Parliament concerning itself with sanitary matters there is\nexhibited by many of the speakers, and by the journalists who discuss\nit, a readiness to trample on personal and parental rights in a way\nforming a new feature in English legislation, and well deserving of\nthe rebuke it has received from Mr. Herbert Spencer. As to military\ncourage, I fear it will also wane amongst us, as it seemed to have\nwaned amongst the French atheistic soldiery at Metz and Sedan. Great as\nare the evils of war, those of a peace only maintained by the nations\nbecause it had become no longer possible to raise troops who would\nstand fire, would be immeasurably worse.\n\nFrom the general results on the community, I now pass to consider those\non the life of the individual which may be expected to follow the\ncollapse of Religion.\n\nMr. Mallock in his \u201cNew Republic,\u201d made the original and droll remark\nthat even Vice would lose much of its savor were there no longer any\nmorality against which it might sin. As Morality will probably not\nexpire\u2014though its vigor must be considerably reduced\u2014by the demise\nof its Siamese twin, Religion, it would seem that Vice need not fear,\neven in such a contingency, the entire loss of the pleasures of\ndisobedience. Nevertheless (to speak seriously), it is pretty certain\nthat the temperature of all moral sentiments will fall so considerably\nwhen the sun of religion ceases to warm them that not a few will perish\nof cold. The \u201cFaithless World\u201d will pass through a moral Glacial\nPeriod, wherein much of our present fauna and flora will disappear.\nWhat, for example, can become, in that frigid epoch of godlessness,\nof _Aspiration_, the sacred passion, the _ambition sainte_ to become\nperfect and holy, which has stirred at one time or other in the breast\nof every son of God; the longing to attain the crowning heights of\ntruth, goodness, and purity? This is surely not a sentiment which can\nlive without faith in a Divine Perfection, existing somewhere in the\nuniverse, and an Immortal Life wherein the infinite progress may be\ncarried on. Even the man whose opinions on the general unimportance of\nreligion I am venturing to question in these pages, admits frankly\nenough that it is not the heroic or saintly character which will be\ncultivated after the extinction of faith. Among the changes which he\nanticipates, one will be that \u201cthe respectable man of the world, the\n_lukewarm, nominal Christian_, who believed as much of his creed as\nhappened to suit him, and _led an easy life_, will turn out to have\nbeen right after all,\u201d Precisely so. The _easy life_ will be the ideal\nlife in the \u201cFaithless World;\u201d and the life of Aspiration, the life\nwhich is a prayer, will be lived no more. And the \u201clukewarm\u201d men of the\nworld, in their \u201ceasy lives,\u201d will be all the easier and more lukewarm\nfor leading them thenceforth unrebuked by any higher example.\n\nAgain, Repentance as well as aspiration will disappear under the\nsnows of atheism. I have written before on this subject in this\nREVIEW,[3] and will now briefly say that Mr. Darwin\u2019s almost\nludicrously false definition of Repentance is an illustration of\nthe inability of the modern scientific mind to comprehend spiritual\nphenomena; much less to be the subject of them. In his _Descent of\nMan_, this great thinker and most amiable man describes Repentance\nas a natural return, after the satisfaction of selfish passions, to\n\u201cthe instinct of sympathy and good will to his fellows which is still\npresent and ever in some degree active\u201d in a man\u2019s mind.... \u201cAnd then,\na sense of dissatisfaction will inevitably be felt\u201d (_Descent of Man_,\np. 90). Thus even on the showing of the great philosopher of evolution\nhimself, Repentance (or rather the \u201cdissatisfaction\u201d he confounds with\nthat awful convulsion of the soul) is only to be looked for under\nthe very exceptional circumstances of men in whom the \u201cinstinct of\nsympathy and good will to their fellows\u201d is ever present, and moreover\n_reasserts itself after they have injured them_\u2014in flat opposition to\nordinary human experience as noted by Tacitus, _Humani generis proprium\nest odisse quem l\u00e6seris_.\n\nThe results of the real spiritual phenomenon of Repentance (not Mr.\nDarwin\u2019s child\u2019s-play) are so profound and far-reaching that it cannot\nbut happen that striking them out of human experience will leave\nlife more shallow. No soul will survive with the deeper and riper\ncharacter which comes out of that ordeal. As Hawthorne illustrated it\nin his exquisite parable of _Transformation_, men, till they become\nconscious of sin, are morally little more than animals. Out of hearts\nploughed by contrition spring flowers fairer than ever grow on the\nhard ground of unbroken self-content. There bloom in them Sympathy\nand Charity for other erring mortals; and Patience under suffering\nwhich is acknowledged to be merited; and lastly, sweetest blossom of\nall! tender Gratitude for earthly and heavenly blessings felt to be\nfree gifts of Divine love. Not a little, perhaps, of the prevalent\ndisease of pessimism is owing to the fact that these flowers of\ncharity, patience, and thankfulness are becoming more and more rare as\ncultivated men cease to feel what old theologians used to call \u201cthe\nexceeding sinfulness of sin;\u201d or to pass through any vivid experiences\nof penitence and restoration. As a necessary consequence they never\nsee the true proportions of good and evil, joy and grief, sin and\nretribution. They weigh jealously human Pain; they never place human\nGuilt in the opposite scale. There is little chance that any man will\never feel how sinful is sin, who has not seen it in the white light of\nthe holiness of God.\n\nThe abrogation of Public Worship was mentioned above as one of the\nvisible consequences of the general rejection of religion. To it must\nhere be added a still direr and deeper loss, that of the use of Private\nPrayer\u2014whether for spiritual or other good, either on behalf of\nourselves or of others; all Confession, all Thanksgiving, in one word\nall effort at communion of the finite spirit with the Infinite. This is\nnot the place in which this subject can be treated as it would require\nto be were the full consequences of such a cessation of the highest\nfunction of our nature to be defined. It may be enough now to say that\nthe Positivists in their fantastic device of addresses to the _grand\n\u00eatre_ of Humanity as a substitute for real prayer to the Living God,\nhave themselves testified to the smaller\u2014the subjective\u2014part of the\nvalue of the practice. Alas for our poor human race if ever the day\nshould arrive when to Him who now \u201cheareth prayer,\u201d flesh shall no\nlonger come!\n\nWith Aspiration, Repentance, and Prayer renounced and forgotten, and\nthe inner life made as \u201ceasy\u201d as the outward, we may next inquire\nwhether in the \u201cFaithless World\u201d the relations between man and man\nwill either remain what they have been, improve or deteriorate? I have\nheard a secularist lecturer argue that the love of God has been a\ngreat hindrance to the love of man; and I believe it is the universal\nopinion of Agnostics and Comtists that the \u201centhusiasm of Humanity\u201d\nwill flourish and form the crowning glory of the future after religion\nis dead. It is obvious, indeed, that the social virtues are rapidly\neclipsing in public opinion those which are personal and religious; and\nif Philanthropy is not to be enthroned in the \u201cFaithless World,\u201d there\nis no chance for Veracity, Piety, or Purity.\n\nBut, not to go over ground which I have traversed already in this\nREVIEW, it will be enough now to remark that Mr. Justice\nStephen, with his usual perspicacity, has found out that there is here\na \u201crift within the lute,\u201d and frankly tells us that we must not expect\nto see Christian Charity after the departure of Christianity. He thinks\nthat temperance, fortitude, benevolence, and justice will always be\nhonored and rewarded, but\u2014\n\n        \u201cIf a purely human morality takes the place of\n      Christian morals, self-command and self-denial, force\n      of character shown in postponing the present to the\n      future (_qy._, selfish prudence?) will take the place\n      of self-sacrifice as an object of admiration. Love,\n      friendship, good-nature, kindness, carried to the\n      height of sincere and devoted affection will always\n      be the chief pleasures of life, whether Christianity\n      is true or false; but Christian charity is not the\n      same as any of these or of all of them put together,\n      and I think, if Christian theology were exploded,\n      Christian charity would not survive it.\u201d\n\nEven if the same sentiment of charity were kept alive in a \u201cFaithless\nWorld,\u201d I do not think its ministrations would be continued on the same\nlines as hitherto. The more kind-hearted an atheist may be (and many\nhave the kindest of hearts) the less, I fancy, he could endure to go\nabout as a comforter among the wretched and dying, bringing with him\nonly such cold consolation as may be afforded by the doctrine of the\n\u201cSurvival of the Fittest.\u201d Every one who has tried to lighten the\nsorrows of this sad world, or to reclaim the criminal and the vicious,\nknows how immense is the advantage of being able to speak of God\u2019s love\nand pity, and of a life where the bereaved shall be reunited to their\nbeloved ones. It would break, I should think, a compassionate atheist\u2019s\nheart to go from one to another death-bed in cottage or workhouse or\nhospital, meet the yearning looks of the dying, and watch the anguish\nof wife or husband or mother, and be unable honestly to say: \u201cThis is\nnot the end. There is Heaven in store.\u201d But Mr. Justice Stephen speaks,\nI apprehend, of another reason than this why Christian charity must\nnot be expected to survive Christianity. The truth is (though he does\nnot say it) that the charity of Science is not merely _different_ from\nthe charity of Religion; it is an _opposite_ thing altogether. Its\nsoftest word is _V\u00e6 Victis_. Christianity (and like it I should hope\nevery possible form of future religion) says, \u201cThe strong ought to bear\nthe burdens of the weak. Blessed are the merciful, the unselfish, the\ntender-hearted, the humble-minded.\u201d Science says, \u201cThe supreme law of\nNature is the Survival of the Fittest; and that law, applied to human\nmorals, means the remorseless crushing down of the unfit. The strong\nand the gifted shall inherit the earth, and the weak and simple go\nto the wall. Blessed are the merciless, for they shall obtain useful\nknowledge. Blessed are the self-asserting, for theirs is the kingdom of\nthis world, and there is no world after it.\u201d\n\nThese Morals of Evolution are beginning gradually to make their way,\nand to be stated (of course in veiled and modest language) frequently\nby those priests of science, the physiologists. Should they ever obtain\ngeneral acceptance, and Darwinian morality take the place of the Sermon\non the Mount, the old _droit du plus fort_ of barbarous ages will be\nrevived with more deliberate oppression, and the last state of our\ncivilization will be worse than the first.\n\nBehind all these changes of public and general concern, lies the\ndeepest change of all for each man\u2019s own heart. We are told that in\na \u201cFaithless World\u201d we may interest ourselves in friendship, and\npolitics, and commerce, and literature, science, and art, and that \u201ca\nman who cannot occupy every waking moment of a long life with some or\nother of these things must be either very unfortunate in regard to his\nhealth, or circumstances, or else must be a poor creature.\u201d\n\nBut it is not necessary to be either unfortunate oneself or a very\n\u201cpoor creature\u201d to feel that the wrongs and agonies of this world of\npain are absolutely intolerable unless we can be assured that they will\nbe righted hereafter; that \u201cthere is a God who judgeth the earth,\u201d and\nthat all the oppressed and miserable of our race, aye, and even the\ntortured brutes, are beheld by Him. It is, I think, on the contrary,\nto be a \u201cpoor creature\u201d to be able to satisfy the hunger of the soul\nafter justice, the yearning of the heart for mercy, with such pursuits\nas money-getting, and scientific research, and the writing of clever\nbooks, and painting of pretty pictures. Not that which is \u201cpoorest\u201d in\nus, but that which is richest and noblest, refuses to \u201coccupy every\nmoment of a long life\u201d with our own ambitions and amusements, or to\nshut out deliberately from our minds the \u201cRiddle of the painful Earth.\u201d\nA curse would be on us in our \u201clordly pleasure-house\u201d were we to do it.\n\nEven if it be possible to enjoy our own good fortune regardless of\nthe woes of others, is it not rather a pitiful wreck and remnant of\nmerely selfish happiness which it is proposed to leave to us? \u201cThe\nworld,\u201d we are told, \u201cis full of pleasant people and curious things,\u201d\nand \u201cmost men find no difficulty in _turning their minds away_ from\nits transient character.\u201d Even our enjoyment of \u201cpleasant people and\ncurious things\u201d must be held, then, on the condition of reducing\nourselves\u2014philosophers that we are, or shall be\u2014to the humble level\nof the hares and rabbits!\u2014\n\n      \u201cRegardless of their doom the little victims play.\u201d\n\nSurely the happiness of any creature, deserving to be called Rational,\ndepends on the circumstance whether he can look on Good as \u201cthe final\ngoal of ill,\u201d or believe Ill to be the final goal of any good he has\nobtained or hopes for;\u2014whether he walk on a firm, even if it be a\nthorny road, or tread on thin, albeit glittering ice, destined ere long\nto break beneath his feet? The faith that there is an ORDER\ntending everywhere to good, and that JUSTICE sooner or later\nwill be done to all,\u2014this, almost universal, faith to which the\nwhole literature of the world bears testimony, seems to me no less\nindispensable for our selfish happiness than it is for any unselfish\nsatisfaction in the aspect of human life at large. If it be finally\nbaulked, and we are compelled to relinquish it for ever at the bidding\nof science, existence alike on our own account and that of others will\nbecome unendurable.\n\nIn all I have said hitherto, I have confined myself to discussing the\nprobable results of the downfall of religion on men in general, and\nhave not attempted to define what they would be to those who have been\nfervently religious; and who we must suppose (on the hypothesis of\nsuch a revolution) to be forcibly driven by scientific arguments out\nof their faith in God and the life to come. To such persons (and there\nare, alas! many already who think they have been so driven, and to whom\nthe sad result is therefore the same) the loss must needs be like that\nof the darkening of the sun. Of all human sorrows the bitterest is to\ndiscover that we have misplaced our love; labored and suffered in vain;\nthrown away our heart\u2019s devotion. All this, and much more, must it be\nto _lose God_. Among those who have endured it there are, of course, as\nwe all know, many who have reconciled themselves to the loss, and some\ntell us they are the happier. Yet, I think to the very last hour of\nlife there must remain in every heart which has once _loved_ God (not\nmerely believed in or feared Him) an infinite regret if it can love Him\nno more; and the universe, were it crowded with a million friends, must\nseem empty when that Friend is gone.\n\nAs to human Love and Friendship, to which we are often bidden to turn\nas the best substitutes for religion, I feel persuaded that, above all\nother things they must deteriorate in a \u201cFaithless World.\u201d To apples\nof Sodom must all their sweetness turn, from the hour in which men\nrecognize their transitory nature. The warmer and more tender and\nreverential the affection, the more intolerable must become the idea of\neternal separation; and the more beautiful and admirable the character\nof our friend, the more maddening the belief that in a few years, or\ndays, he will vanish into nothingness. Sooner than endure the agony\nof these thoughts, I feel sure that men will check themselves from\nentering into the purer and holier relations of the heart. Affection,\npredestined to be cast adrift, will throw out no more anchors, but\nwill float on every wave of passion or caprice. The day in which it\nbecomes impossible for men to vow that they will love _for ever_ will\nalmost be the last in which they will love nobly and purely at all.\n\nBut if these things hold good as regard the prosperous and healthy, and\nthose still in the noon of life, what is to be said of the prospects\nin the \u201cFaithless World,\u201d of the diseased, the poverty-stricken, the\nbereaved, the aged? There is no need to strain our eyes to look into\nthe dark corners of the earth. We all know (though while we ourselves\nstand in the sunshine we do not often _feel_) what hundreds of\nthousands of our fellow-mortals are enduring at all times, in the way\nof bodily and mental anguish. When these overtake us, or when Old Age\ncreeps on, and\n\n    \u201cFirst our pleasures die, and then\n    Our hopes, and then our fears,\u201d\n\nis it possible to suppose it will make \u201clittle difference\u201d what we\nbelieve as to the existence of some loving Power in whose arms our\nfeebleness may find support; or of another life wherein our winter may\nbe turned once more to spring? If we live long enough, the day must\ncome to each of us when we shall find our chief interest in our daily\nnewspaper most often in the obituary columns, till, one after another\nnearly all the friends of our youth and prime have \u201cgone over to the\nmajority,\u201d and we begin to live in a world peopled with spectres. Our\ntalk with those who travel still beside us is continually referring to\nthe dead, and our very jests end in a sigh for the sweet old laughter\nwhich we shall never hear again. If in these solemn years we yet have\nfaith in God and Immortality, and as we recall one dear one after\nanother,\u2014father, mother, brother, friend,\u2014we can say to ourselves,\n\u201cThey are all gone into the world of light; they are all safe and\nrejoicing in the smile of God;\u201d then our grief is only mourning; it\nis not despair. Our sad hearts are cheered and softened, not turned\nto stone by the memories of the dead. Let us, however, on the other\nhand, be driven by our new guide, Science, to abandon this faith and\nthe hope of eternal reunion, then, indeed, must our old age be utterly,\nutterly desolate. O! the mockery of saying that it would make \u201cno great\ndifference!\u201d\n\nWe have been told that in the event of the fall of religion, \u201clife\nwould remain in most particulars and to most people much what it\nis at present.\u201d It appears to me, on the contrary, that there is\nactually _nothing_ in life which would be left unchanged after such a\ncatastrophe.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut I have only conjured up the nightmare of a \u201cFaithless World.\u201d\nGOD LIVES; and in His light we shall see light.\u2014_Contemporary\nReview._\n\n\n\n\nFOOD AND FEEDING.\n\n\nWhen a man and a bear meet together casually in an American forest,\nit makes a great deal of difference, to the two parties concerned at\nleast, whether the bear eats the man or the man eats the bear. We\nhaven\u2019t the slightest difficulty in deciding afterwards which of the\ntwo, in each particular case, has been the eater, and which the eaten.\nHere, we say, is the grizzly that ate the man; or, here is the man\nthat smoked and dined off the hams of the grizzly. Basing our opinion\nupon such familiar and well-known instances, we are apt to take it for\ngranted far too readily that between eating and being eaten, between\nthe active and the passive voice of the verb _edo_, there exists\nnecessarily a profound and impassable native antithesis. To swallow an\noyster is, in our own personal histories, so very different a thing\nfrom being swallowed by a shark that we can hardly realise at first\nthe underlying fundamental identity of eating with mere coalescence.\nAnd yet, at the very outset of the art of feeding, when the nascent\nanimal first began to indulge in this very essential animal practice,\none may fairly say that no practical difference as yet existed between\nthe creature that ate and the creature that was eaten. After the man\nand the bear had finished their little meal, if one may be frankly\nmetaphorical, it was impossible to decide whether the remaining being\nwas the man or the bear, or which of the two had swallowed the other.\nThe dinner having been purely mutual, the resulting animal represented\nboth the litigants equally; just as, in cannibal New Zealand, the chief\nwho ate up his brother chief was held naturally to inherit the goods\nand chattels of the vanquished and absorbed rival, whom he had thus\nliterally and physically incorporated.\n\nA jelly-speck, floating about at his ease in a drop of stagnant water\nunder the field of a microscope, collides accidentally with another\njelly-speck who happens to be travelling in the opposite direction\nacross the same miniature ocean. What thereupon occurs? One jelly-speck\nrolls itself gradually into the other, so that, instead of two,\nthere is now one: and the united body proceeds to float away quite\nunconcernedly, without waiting to trouble itself for a second with\nthe profound metaphysical question, which half of it is the original\npersonality, and which half the devoured and digested. In these minute\nand very simple animals there is absolutely no division of labor\nbetween part and part; every bit of the jelly-like mass is alike head\nand foot and mouth and stomach. The jelly-speck has no permanent limbs,\nbut it keeps putting forth vague arms and legs every now and then from\none side or the other; and with these temporary and ever-dissolving\nmembers it crawls along merrily through its tiny drop of stagnant\nwater. If two of the legs or arms happen to knock up casually against\none another, they coalesce at once, just like two drops of water on\na window-pane, or two strings of treacle slowly spreading along the\nsurface of a plate. When the jelly-speck meets any edible thing\u2014a\nbit of dead plant, a wee creature like itself, a microscopic egg\u2014it\nproceeds to fold its own substance slimily around it, making, as\nit were, a temporary mouth for the purpose of swallowing it, and a\ntemporary stomach for the purpose of quietly digesting and assimilating\nit afterwards. Thus what at one moment is a foot may at the next moment\nbecome a mouth, and at the moment after that again a rudimentary\nstomach. The animal has no skin and no body, no outside and no inside,\nno distinction of parts or members, no individuality, no identity.\nRoll it up into one with another of its kind, and it couldn\u2019t tell you\nitself a minute afterwards which of the two it had really been a minute\nbefore. The question of personal identity is here considerably mixed.\n\nBut as soon as we get to rather larger creatures of the same type,\nthe antithesis between the eater and the eaten begins to assume\na more definite character. The big jelly-bag approaches a good\nmany smaller jelly-bags, microscopic plants, and other appropriate\nfoodstuffs, and, surrounding them rapidly with its crawling arms,\nenvelops them in its own substance, which closes behind them and\ngradually digests them. Everybody knows, by name at least, that\nrevolutionary and evolutionary hero, the am\u0153ba\u2014the terror of\ntheologians, the pet of professors, and the insufferable bore of\nthe general reader. Well, this parlous and subversive little animal\nconsists of a comparatively large mass of soft jelly, pushing forth\nslender lobes, like threads or fingers, from its own substance, and\ngliding about, by means of these tiny legs, over water-plants and\nother submerged surfaces. But though it can literally turn itself\ninside out, like a glove, it still has some faint beginnings of a\nmouth and stomach, for it generally takes in food and absorbs water\nthrough a particular part of its surface, where the slimy mass of its\nbody is thinnest. Thus the am\u0153ba may be said really to eat and drink,\nthough quite devoid of any special organs for eating or drinking.\n\nThe particular point to which I wish to draw attention here, however,\nis this: that even the very simplest and most primitive animals do\ndiscriminate somehow between what is eatable and what isn\u2019t. The\nam\u0153ba has no eyes, no nose, no mouth, no tongue, no nerves of taste,\nno special means of discrimination of any kind; and yet, so long as it\nmeets only grains of sand or bits of shell, it makes no effort in any\nway to swallow them; but the moment it comes across a bit of material\nfit for its food, it begins at once to spread its clammy fingers around\nthe nutritious morsel. The fact is, every part of the am\u0153ba\u2019s body\napparently possesses, in a very vague form, the first beginnings of\nthose senses which in us are specialised and confined to a single spot.\nAnd it is because of the light which the am\u0153ba thus incidentally\ncasts upon the nature of the specialised senses in higher animals that\nI have ventured once more to drag out of the private life of his native\npond that already too notorious and obtrusive rhizopod.\n\nWith us lordly human beings, at the extreme opposite end in the scale\nof being from the microscopic jelly-specks, the art of feeding and the\nmechanism which provides for it have both reached a very high state of\nadvanced perfection. We have slowly evolved a tongue and palate on the\none hand, and French cooks and _p\u00e2t\u00e9 de foie gras_ on the other. But\nwhile everybody knows practically how things taste to us, and which\nthings respectively we like and dislike, comparatively few people ever\nrecognize that the sense of taste is not merely intended as a source of\ngratification, but serves a useful purpose in our bodily economy, in\ninforming us what we ought to eat and what to refuse. Paradoxical as it\nmay sound at first to most people, nice things are, in the main, things\nthat are good for us, and nasty things are poisonous or otherwise\ninjurious. That we often practically find the exact contrary the case\n(alas!) is due, not to the provisions of nature, but to the artificial\nsurroundings in which we live, and to the cunning way in which we\nflavor up unwholesome food, so as to deceive and cajole the natural\npalate. Yet, after all, it is a pleasant gospel that what we like is\nreally good for us, and, when we have made some small allowances for\nartificial conditions, it is in the main a true one also.\n\nThe sense of taste, which in the lowest animals is diffused equally\nover the whole frame, is in ourselves and other higher creatures\nconcentrated in a special part of the body, namely the mouth, where the\nfood about to be swallowed is chewed and otherwise prepared beforehand\nfor the work of digestion. Now it is, of course, quite clear that\nsome sort of supervision must be exercised by the body over the kind\nof food that is going to be put into it. Common experience teaches\nus that prussic acid and pure opium are undesirable food stuffs in\nlarge quantities; that raw spirits, petroleum, and red lead should be\nsparingly partaken of by the judicious feeder; and that even green\nfruit, the bitter end of cucumber, and the berries of deadly nightshade\nare unsatisfactory articles of diet when continuously persisted in.\nIf, at the very outset of our digestive apparatus, we hadn\u2019t a sort of\nautomatic premonitory adviser upon the kinds of food we ought or ought\nnot to indulge in, we should naturally commit considerable imprudences\nin the way of eating and drinking\u2014even more than we do at present.\nNatural selection has therefore provided us with a fairly efficient\nguide in this respect in the sense of taste, which is placed at the\nvery threshold, as it were, of our digestive mechanism. It is the duty\nof taste to warn us against uneatable things, and to recommend to our\nfavorable attention eatable and wholesome ones; and, on the whole,\nin spite of small occasional remissness, it performs its duty with\ncreditable success.\n\nTaste, however, is not equally distributed over the whole surface of\nthe tongue alike. There are three distinct regions or tracts, each\nof which has to perform its own special office and function. The tip\nof the tongue is concerned mainly with pungent and acrid tastes; the\nmiddle portion is sensitive chiefly to sweets and bitters; while the\nback or lower portion confines itself almost entirely to the flavors of\nroast meats, butter, oils, and other rich or fatty substances. There\nare very good reasons for this subdivision of faculties in the tongue,\nthe object being, as it were, to make each piece of food undergo three\nseparate examinations (like \u201csmalls,\u201d \u201cmods,\u201d and \u201cgreats\u201d at Oxford),\nwhich must be successively passed before it is admitted into full\nparticipation in the human economy. The first examination, as we shall\nshortly see, gets rid at once of substances which would be actively\nand immediately destructive to the very tissues of the mouth and body;\nthe second discriminates between poisonous and chemically harmless\nfoodstuffs; and the third merely decides the minor question whether\nthe particular food is likely to prove then and there wholesome or\nindigestible to the particular person. The sense of taste proceeds,\nin fact, upon the principle of gradual selection and elimination;\nit refuses first what is positively destructive, next what is more\nremotely deleterious, and finally what is only undesirable or\nover-luscious.\n\nWhen we want to assure ourselves, by means of taste, about an unknown\nobject\u2014say a lump of some white stuff, which may be crystal, or glass,\nor alum, or borax, or quartz, or rocksalt\u2014we put the tip of the tongue\nagainst it gingerly. If it begins to burn us, we draw it away more or\nless rapidly, with an accompaniment in language strictly dependent\nupon our personal habits and manners. The test we thus occasionally\napply, even in the civilised adult state, to unknown bodies is one that\nis being applied every day and all day long by children and savages.\nUnsophisticated humanity is constantly putting everything it sees up to\nits mouth in a frank spirit of experimental inquiry as to its gustatory\nproperties. In civilised life, we find everything ready labelled and\nassorted for us; we comparatively seldom require to roll the contents\nof a suspicious bottle (in very small quantities) doubtfully upon the\ntongue in order to discover whether it is pale sherry or Chili vinegar,\nDublin stout or mushroom ketchup. But in the savage state, from which,\ngeologically and biologically speaking, we have only just emerged,\nbottles and labels do not exist. Primitive man, therefore, in his sweet\nsimplicity, has only two modes open before him for deciding whether the\nthings he finds are or are not strictly edible. The first thing he does\nis to sniff at them, and smell being, as Mr. Herbert Spencer has well\nput it, an anticipatory taste, generally gives him some idea of what\nthe thing is likely to prove. The second thing he does is to pop\nit into his mouth, and proceed practically to examine its further\ncharacteristics.\n\nStrictly speaking with the tip of the tongue one can\u2019t really taste at\nall. If you put a small drop of honey or of oil of bitter almonds on\nthat part of the mouth, you will find (no doubt to your great surprise)\nthat it produces no effect of any sort; you only taste it when it\nbegins slowly to diffuse itself, and reaches the true tasting region\nin the middle distance. But if you put a little cayenne or mustard\non the same part, you will find that it bites you immediately\u2014the\nexperiment should be tried sparingly\u2014while, if you put it lower down\nin the mouth you will swallow it almost without noticing the pungency\nof the stimulant. The reason is, that the tip of the tongue is supplied\nonly with nerves which are really nerves of touch, not nerves of taste\nproper; they belong to a totally different main branch, and they go\nto a different centre in the brain, together with the very similar\nthreads which supply the nerves of smell for mustard and pepper. That\nis why the smell and taste of these pungent substances are so much\nalike, as everybody must have noticed; a good sniff at a mustard-pot\nproducing almost the same irritating effects as an incautious mouthful.\nAs a rule, we don\u2019t accurately distinguish, it is true, between these\ndifferent regions of taste in the mouth in ordinary life; but that is\nbecause we usually roll our food about instinctively, without paying\nmuch attention to the particular part affected by it. Indeed, when one\nis trying deliberate experiments in the subject, in order to test the\nvarying sensitiveness of the different parts to different substances,\nit is necessary to keep the tongue quite dry, in order to isolate the\nthing you are experimenting with, and prevent its spreading to all\nparts of the mouth together. In actual practice this result is obtained\nin a rather ludicrous manner\u2014by blowing upon the tongue, between each\nexperiment, with a pair of bellows. To such undignified expedients does\nthe pursuit of science lead the ardent modern psychologist. These\ndomestic rivals of Dr. Forbes Winslow, the servants, who behold the\nenthusiastic investigator alternately drying his tongue in this\nridiculous fashion, as if he were a blacksmith\u2019s fire, and then\nsqueezing out a single drop of essence of pepper, vinegar, or beef-tea\nfrom a glass syringe upon the dry surface, not unnaturally arrive at\nthe conclusion that master has gone stark mad, and that, in their\nprivate opinion, it\u2019s the microscope and the skeleton as has done it.\n\nAbove all things, we don\u2019t want to be flayed alive. So the kinds of\ntastes discriminated by the tip of the tongue are the pungent, like\npepper, cayenne, and mustard; the astringent, like borax and alum;\nthe alkaline, like soda and potash; the acid, like vinegar and green\nfruit; and the saline, like salt and ammonia. Almost all the bodies\nlikely to give rise to such tastes (or, more correctly, sensations\nof touch in the tongue) are obviously unwholesome and destructive\nin their character, at least when taken in large quantities. Nobody\nwishes to drink nitric acid by the quart. The first business of this\npart of the tongue is, therefore, to warn us emphatically against\ncaustic substances and corrosive acids\u2014against vitriol and kerosene,\nspirits of wine and ether, capsicums and burning leaves or roots,\nsuch as those of the common English lords-and-ladies. Things of this\nsort are immediately destructive to the very tissues of the tongue\nand palate; if taken incautiously in too large doses, they burn the\nskin off the roof of the mouth; and when swallowed they play havoc,\nof course, with our internal arrangements. It is highly advisable,\ntherefore, to have an immediate warning of these extremely dangerous\nsubstances, at the very outset of our feeding apparatus.\n\nThis kind of taste hardly differs from touch or burning. The\nsensibility of the tip of the tongue is only a very slight modification\nof the sensibility possessed by the skin generally, and especially by\nthe inner folds over all delicate parts of the body. We all know that\ncommon caustic burns us wherever it touches; and it burns the tongue,\nonly in a somewhat more marked manner. Nitric or sulphuric acid attacks\nthe fingers each after its own kind. A mustard plaster makes us tingle\nalmost immediately; and the action of mustard on the tongue hardly\ndiffers, except in being more instantaneous and more discriminative.\nCantharides work in just the same way. If you cut a red pepper in\ntwo and rub it on your neck it will sting you just as it does when\nput into soup (this experiment, however, is best tried upon one\u2019s\nyounger brother; if made personally, it hardly repays the trouble and\nannoyance). Even vinegar and other acids, rubbed into the skin, are\nfollowed by a slight tingling; while the effect of brandy, applied,\nsay, to the arms, is gently stimulating and pleasurable, somewhat\nin the same way as when normally swallowed in conjunction with the\nhabitual seltzer. In short, most things which give rise to distinct\ntastes when applied to the tip of the tongue, give rise to fainter\nsensations when applied to the skin generally. And one hardly needs\nto be reminded that pepper or vinegar placed (accidentally as a rule)\non the inner surface of the eyelids produces a very distinct and\nunpleasant smart.\n\nThe fact is, the liability to be chemically affected by pungent or\nacid bodies is common to every part of the skin; but it is least felt\nwhere the tough outer skin is thickest, and most felt where that skin\nis thinnest, and the nerves are most plentifully distributed near the\nsurface. A mustard plaster would probably fail to draw at all on one\u2019s\nheel or the palm of one\u2019s hand; while it is decidedly painful on one\u2019s\nneck or chest; and a mere speck of mustard inside the eyelid gives one\npositive torture for hours together. Now the tip of the tongue is just\na part of one\u2019s body specially set aside for this very object, provided\nwith an extremely thin skin, and supplied with an immense number of\nnerves, on purpose so as to be easily affected by all such pungent,\nalkaline, or spirituous substances. Sir Wilfrid Lawson would probably\nconclude that it was deliberately designed by Providence to warn us\nagainst a wicked indulgence in the brandy and seltzer aforesaid.\n\nAt first sight it might seem as though there were hardly enough of such\npungent and fiery things in existence to make it worth while for us to\nbe provided with a special mechanism for guarding against them. That is\ntrue enough, no doubt, as regards our modern civilized life; though,\neven now, it is perhaps just as well that our children should have an\ninternal monitor (other than conscience) to dissuade them immediately\nfrom indiscriminate indulgence in photographic chemicals, the contents\nof stray medicine bottles, and the best dried West India chilies. But\nin an earlier period of progress, and especially in tropical countries\n(where the Darwinians have now decided the human race made its first\n_d\u00e9but_ upon this or any other stage), things were very different\nindeed. Pungent and poisonous plants and fruits abounded on every\nside. We have all of us in our youth been taken in by some too cruelly\nwaggish companion, who insisted upon making us eat the bright, glossy\nleaves of the common English arum, which without look pretty and juicy\nenough, but within are full of the concentrated essence of pungency\nand profanity. Well, there are hundreds of such plants, even in cold\nclimates, to tempt the eyes and poison the veins of unsuspecting cattle\nor childish humanity. There is buttercup, so horribly acrid that cows\ncarefully avoid it in their closest cropped pastures; and yet your cow\nis not usually a too dainty animal. There is aconite, the deadly poison\nwith which Dr. Lamson removed his troublesome relatives. There is\nbaneberry, whose very name sufficiently describes its dangerous nature.\nThere are horseradish, and stinging rocket, and biting wall-pepper,\nand still smarter water-pepper, and wormwood, and nightshade, and\nspurge, and hemlock, and half a dozen equally unpleasant weeds. All of\nthese have acquired their pungent and poisonous properties, just as\nnettles have acquired their sting, and thistles their thorns, in order\nto prevent animals from browsing upon them and destroying them. And\nthe animals in turn have acquired a very delicate sense of pungency\non purpose to warn them beforehand of the existence of such dangerous\nand undesirable qualities in the plants which they might otherwise be\ntempted incautiously to swallow.\n\nIn tropical woods, where our \u201chairy quadrumanous ancestor\u201d (Darwinian\nfor the prim\u00e6val monkey, from whom we are presumably descended) used\nplayfully to disport himself, as yet unconscious of his glorious\ndestiny as the remote progenitor of Shakespeare, Milton, and the late\nMr. Peace\u2014in tropical woods, such acid or pungent fruits and plants\nare particularly common, and correspondingly annoying. The fact is, our\nprimitive forefather and all the other monkeys are, or were, confirmed\nfruit-eaters. But to guard against their depredations a vast number\nof tropical fruits and nuts have acquired disagreeable or fiery rinds\nand shells, which suffice to deter the bold aggressor. It may not be\nnice to get your tongue burnt with a root or fruit, but it is at least\na great deal better than getting poisoned; and, roughly speaking,\npungency in external nature exactly answers to the rough gaudy labels\nwhich some chemists paste on bottles containing poisons. It means to\nsay, \u201cThis fruit or leaf, if you eat it in any quantities, will kill\nyou.\u201d That is the true explanation of capsicums, pimento, colocynth,\ncroton oil, the upas tree, and the vast majority of bitter, acrid,\nor fiery fruits and leaves. If we had to pick up our own livelihood,\nas our naked ancestors had to do, from roots, seeds, and berries,\nwe should far more readily appreciate this simple truth. We should\nknow that a great many more plants than we now suspect are bitter or\npungent, and therefore poisonous. Even in England we are familiar\nenough with such defences as those possessed by the outer rind of the\nwalnut; but the tropical cashewnut has a rind so intensely acrid that\nit blisters the lips and fingers instantaneously, in the same way\nas cantharides would do. I believe that on the whole, taking nature\nthroughout, more fruits and nuts are poisonous, or intensely bitter, or\nvery fiery, than are sweet, luscious, and edible.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d says that fidgety person, the hypothetical objector (whom one\nalways sets up for the express purpose of promptly knocking him down\nagain), \u201cif it be the business of the forepart of the tongue to warn us\nagainst pungent and acrid substances, how comes it that we purposely\nuse such things as mustard, pepper, curry-powder, and vinegar?\u201d Well,\nin themselves all these things are, strictly speaking, bad for us;\nbut in small quantities they act as agreeable stimulants; and we take\ncare in preparing most of them to get rid of the most objectionable\nproperties. Moreover, we use them, not as foods, but merely as\ncondiments. One drop of oil of capsicum is enough to kill a man, if\ntaken undiluted; but in actual practice we buy it in such a very\ndiluted form that comparatively little harm arises from using it.\nStill, very young children dislike all these violent stimulants, even\nin small quantities; they won\u2019t touch mustard, pepper, or vinegar, and\nthey recoil at once from wine or spirits. It is only by slow degrees\nthat we learn these unnatural tastes, as our nerves get blunted and\nour palates jaded; and we all know that the old Indian who can eat\nnothing but dry curries, devilled biscuits, anchovy paste, pepper-pot,\nmulligatawny soup, Worcestershire sauce, preserved ginger, hot pickles,\nfiery sherry, and neat cognac, is also a person with no digestion, a\nfragmentary liver, and very little chance of getting himself accepted\nby any safe and solvent insurance office. Throughout, the warning\nin itself is a useful one; it is we who foolishly and persistently\ndisregard it. Alcohol, for example, tells us at once that it is bad\nfor us; yet we manage so to dress it up with flavoring matters and\ndilute it with water that we overlook the fiery character of the spirit\nitself. But that alcohol is in itself a bad thing (when freely indulged\nin) has been so abundantly demonstrated in the history of mankind that\nit hardly needs any further proof.\n\nThe middle region of the tongue is the part with which we experience\nsensations of taste proper\u2014that is to say, of sweetness and\nbitterness. In a healthy, natural state all sweet things are pleasant\nto us, and all bitters (even if combined with sherry) unpleasant. The\nreason for this is easy enough to understand. It carries us back at\nonce into those prim\u00e6val tropical forests where our \u201chairy ancestor\u201d\nused to diet himself upon the fruits of the earth in due season.\nNow, almost all edible fruits, roots, and tubers contain sugar; and\ntherefore the presence of sugar is, in the wild condition, as good a\nrough test of whether anything is good to eat as one could easily find.\nIn fact, the argument cuts both ways: edible fruits are sweet because\nthey are intended for man and other animals to eat; and man and other\nanimals have a tongue pleasurably affected by sugar because sugary\nthings in nature are for them in the highest degree edible. Our early\nprogenitors formed their taste upon oranges, mangoes, bananas, and\ngrapes; upon sweet potatoes, sugar-cane, dates, and wild-honey. There\nis scarcely anything fitted for human food in the vegetable world (and\nour earliest ancestors were most undoubted vegetarians), which does\nnot contain sugar in considerable quantities. In temperate climates\n(where man is but a recent intruder), we have taken, it is true, to\nregarding wheaten bread as the staff of life; but in our native tropics\nenormous populations still live almost exclusively upon plantains,\nbananas, breadfruit, yams, sweet potatoes, dates, cocoanuts, melons,\ncassava, pineapples, and figs. Our nerves have been adapted to the\ncircumstances of our early life as a race in tropical forests; and we\nstill retain a marked liking for sweets of every sort. Not content with\nour strawberries, raspberries, gooseberries, currants, apples, pears,\ncherries, plums, and other northern fruits, we ransack the world for\ndates, figs, raisins, and oranges. Indeed, in spite of our acquired\nmeat-eating propensities, it may be fairly said that fruits and seeds\n(including wheat, rice, peas, beans, and other grains and pulse) still\nform by far the most important element in the foodstuffs of human\npopulations generally.\n\nBut besides the natural sweets, we have also taken to producing\nartificial ones. Has any housewife ever realised the alarming condition\nof cookery in the benighted generations before the invention of sugar?\nIt is really almost too appalling to think about. So many things that\nwe now look upon as all but necessaries\u2014cakes, puddings, made dishes,\nconfectionery, preserves, sweet biscuits, jellies, cooked fruits,\ntarts, and so forth\u2014were then practically quite impossible. Fancy\nattempting nowadays to live a single day without sugar; no tea, no\ncoffee, no jam, no pudding, no cake, no sweets, no hot toddy before one\ngoes to bed; the bare idea of it is too terrible. And yet that was\nreally the abject condition of all the civilised world up to the middle\nages. Horace\u2019s punch was sugarless and lemonless; the gentle Virgil\nnever tasted the congenial cup of afternoon tea; and Socrates went from\nhis cradle to his grave without ever knowing the flavor of peppermint\nbull\u2019s eyes. How the children managed to spend their Saturday _as_, or\ntheir weekly _obolus_, is a profound mystery. To be sure, people had\nhoney; but honey is rare, dear, and scanty; it can never have filled\none quarter the place that sugar fills in our modern affections. Try\nfor a moment to realise drinking honey with one\u2019s whiskey-and-water,\nor doing the year\u2019s preserving with a pot of best Narbonne, and you\nget at once a common measure of the difference between the two as\npractical sweeteners. Nowadays, we get sugar from cane and beetroot in\nabundance, while sugar-maples and palm-trees of various sorts afford\na considerable supply to remoter countries. But the childhood of the\nlittle Greeks and Romans must have been absolutely unlighted by a\nsingle ray of joy from chocolate creams or Everton toffee.\n\nThe consequence of this excessive production of sweets in modern times\nis, of course, that we have begun to distrust the indications afforded\nus by the sense of taste in this particular as to the wholesomeness\nof various objects. We can mix sugar with anything we like, whether\nit had sugar in it to begin with or otherwise; and by sweetening and\nflavoring we can give a false palatableness to even the worst and most\nindigestible rubbish, such as plaster-of-Paris, largely sold under the\nname of sugared almonds to the ingenuous youth of two hemispheres.\nBut in untouched nature the test rarely or never fails. As long as\nfruits are unripe and unfit for human food, they are green and sour;\nas soon as they ripen they become soft and sweet, and usually acquire\nsome bright color as a sort of advertisement of their edibility. In\nthe main, bar the accidents of civilisation, whatever is sweet is good\nto eat\u2014nay more, is meant to be eaten; it is only our own perverse\nfolly that makes us sometimes think all nice things bad for us, and all\nwholesome things nasty. In a state of nature, the exact opposite is\nreally the case. One may observe, too, that children, who are literally\nyoung savages in more senses than one, stand nearer to the primitive\nfeeling in this respect than grown-up people. They unaffectedly like\nsweets; adults, who have grown more accustomed to the artificial meat\ndiet, don\u2019t as a rule, care much for puddings, cakes, and made dishes.\n(May I venture parenthetically to add, any appearance to the contrary\nnotwithstanding, that I am not a vegetarian, and that I am far from\ndesiring to bring down upon my devoted head the imprecation pronounced\nagainst the rash person who would rob a poor man of his beer. It is\nquite possible to believe that vegetarianism was the starting-point of\nthe race, without wishing to consider it also as the goal; just as it\nis quite possible to regard clothes as purely artificial products of\ncivilization, without desiring personally to return to the charming\nsimplicity of the Garden of Eden.)\n\nBitter things in nature at large, on the contrary, are almost\ninvariably poisonous. Strychnia, for example, is intensely bitter,\nand it is well known that life cannot be supported on strychnia alone\nfor more than a few hours. Again, colocynth and aloes are far from\nbeing wholesome food stuffs, for a continuance; and the bitter end of\ncucumber does not conduce to the highest standard of good living. The\nbitter matter in decaying apples is highly injurious when swallowed,\nwhich it isn\u2019t likely to be by anybody who ever tastes it. Wormwood and\nwalnut-shells contain other bitter and poisonous principles; absinthe,\nwhich is made from one of them, is a favorite slow poison with the\nfashionable young men of Paris, who wish to escape prematurely from \u201cLe\nmonde o\u00f9 l\u2019on s\u2019ennuie.\u201d But prussic acid is the commonest component in\nall natural bitters, being found in bitter almonds, apple pippins, the\nkernels of mango-stones, and many other seeds and fruits. Indeed, one\nmay say roughly that the object of nature generally is to prevent the\nactual seeds of edible fruits from being eaten and digested; and for\nthis purpose, while she stores the pulp with sweet juices, she encloses\nthe seed itself in hard stony coverings, and makes it nasty with bitter\nessences. Eat an orange pip, and you will promptly observe how\neffectual is this arrangement. As a rule, the outer rind of nuts is\nbitter, and the inner kernel of edible fruits. The tongue thus warns us\nimmediately against bitter things, as being poisonous, and prevents us,\nautomatically, from swallowing them.\n\n\u201cBut how is it,\u201d asks our objector again, \u201cthat so many poisons are\ntasteless, or even, like sugar of lead, pleasant to the palate?\u201d\nThe answer is (you see, we knock him down again, as usual) because\nthese poisons are themselves for the most part artificial products;\nthey do not occur in a state of nature, at least in man\u2019s ordinary\nsurroundings. Almost every poisonous thing that we are really liable to\nmeet with in the wild state we are warned against at once by the sense\nof taste; but of course it would be absurd to suppose that natural\nselection could have produced a mode of warning us against poisons\nwhich have never before occurred in human experience. One might just\nas well expect that it should have rendered us dynamite-proof, or have\ngiven us a skin like the hide of a rhinoceros to protect us against the\nfuture contingency of the invention of rifles.\n\nSweets and bitters are really almost the only tastes proper, almost\nthe only ones discriminated by this central and truly gustatory\nregion of the tongue and palate. Most so-called flavorings will be\nfound on strict examination to be nothing more than mixtures with\nthese of certain smells or else of pungent, salty, or alkaline\nmatters, distinguished as such by the tip of the tongue. For instance,\nparadoxical as it sounds to say so, cinnamon has really no taste at\nall, but only a smell. Nobody will ever believe this on first hearing,\nbut nothing on earth is easier than to put it to the test. Take a small\npiece of cinnamon, hold your nose tightly, rather high up, between\nthe thumb and finger, and begin chewing it. You will find that it is\nabsolutely tasteless; you are merely chewing a perfectly insipid bit\nof bark. Then let go your nose, and you will find immediately that it\n\u201ctastes\u201d strongly, though in reality it is only the perfume from it\nthat you now permit to rise into the smelling-chamber in the nose. So,\nagain, cloves have only a pungent taste and a peculiar smell, and the\nsame is the case more or less with almost all distinctive flavorings.\nWhen you come to find of what they are made up, they consist generally\nof sweets or bitters, intermixed with certain ethereal perfumes, or\nwith pungent or acid tastes, or with both or several such together.\nIn this way, a comparatively small number of original elements,\nvariously combined, suffice to make up the whole enormous mass of\nrecognisably different tastes and flavors.\n\nThe third and lowest part of the tongue and throat is the seat of\nthose peculiar tastes to which Professor Bain, the great authority\nupon this important philosophical subject, has given the names of\nrelishes and disgusts. It is here, chiefly, that we taste animal food,\nfats, butters, oils, and the richer class of vegetables and made\ndishes. If we like them, we experience a sensation which may be called\na relish, and which induces one to keep rolling the morsel farther\ndown the throat, till it passes at last beyond the region of our\nvoluntary control. If we don\u2019t like them, we get the sensation which\nmay be called a disgust, and which is very different from the mere\nunpleasantness of excessively pungent or bitter things. It is far less\nof an intellectual and far more of a physical and emotional feeling. We\nsay, and say rightly, of such things that we find it hard to swallow\nthem; a something within us (of a very tangible nature) seems to rise\nup bodily and protest against them. As a very good example of this\nexperience, take one\u2019s first attempt to swallow cod-liver oil. Other\nthings may be unpleasant or unpalatable, but things of this class are\nin the strictest sense nasty and disgusting.\n\nThe fact is, the lower part of the tongue is supplied with nerves in\nclose sympathy with the digestion. If the food which has been passed by\nthe two previous examiners is found here to be simple and digestible,\nit is permitted to go on unchallenged; if it is found to be too rich,\ntoo bilious, or too indigestible, a protest is promptly entered against\nit, and if we are wise we will immediately desist from eating any more\nof it. It is here that the impartial tribunal of nature pronounces\ndefinitely against roast goose, mince pies, _p\u00e2t\u00e9 de foie gras_, sally\nlunn, muffins and crumpets, and creamy puddings. It is here, too, that\nthe slightest taint in meat, milk, or butter is immediately detected;\nthat rancid pastry from the pastrycook\u2019s is ruthlessly exposed, and\nthat the wiles of the fishmonger are set at naught by the judicious\npalate. It is the special duty, in fact, of this last examiner to\ndiscover, not whether food is positively destructive, not whether it is\npoisonous or deleterious in nature, but merely whether it is then and\nthere digestible or undesirable.\n\nAs our state of health varies greatly from time to time, however, so\ndo the warnings of this last sympathetic adviser change and flicker.\nSweet things are always sweet, and bitter things always bitter; vinegar\nis always sour, and ginger always hot in the mouth, too, whatever our\nstate of health or feeling; but our taste for roast loin of mutton,\nhigh game, salmon cutlets, and Gorgonzola cheese varies immensely\nfrom time to time, with the passing condition of our health and\ndigestion. In illness, and especially in sea-sickness, one gets the\ntaste carried to the extreme: you may eat grapes or suck an orange in\nthe chops of the Channel, but you do not feel warmly attached to the\nsteward who offers you a basin of greasy ox-tail, or consoles you with\npromises of ham sandwiches in half a minute. Under those too painful\nconditions it is the very light, fresh, and stimulating things that\none can most easily swallow\u2014champagne, soda-water, strawberries,\npeaches, not lobster salad, sardines on toast, green Chartreuse, or hot\nbrandy-and-water. On the other hand, in robust health, and when hungry\nwith exercise, you can eat fat pork with relish on a Scotch hillside,\nor dine off fresh salmon three days running without inconvenience. Even\na Spanish stew, with plenty of garlic in it, and floating in olive\noil, tastes positively delicious after a day\u2019s mountaineering in the\nPyrenees.\n\nThe healthy popular belief, still surviving in spite of cookery, that\nour likes and dislikes are the best guide to what is good for us, finds\nits justification in this fact, that whatever is relished will prove on\nthe average wholesome, and whatever rouses disgust will prove on the\nwhole indigestible. Nothing can be more wrong, for example, than to\nmake children eat fat when they don\u2019t want it. A healthy child likes\nfat, and eats as much of it as he can get. If a child shows signs of\ndisgust at fat, that proves that it is of a bilious temperament, and it\nought never to be forced into eating it against its will. Most of us\nare bilious in after life just because we were compelled to eat rich\nfood in childhood, which we felt instinctively was unsuitable for us.\nWe might still be indulging with impunity in thick turtle, canvas-back\nducks, devilled white-bait, meringues, and Nesselrode puddings, if we\nhadn\u2019t been so persistently overdosed in our earlier years with things\nthat we didn\u2019t want and knew were indigestible.\n\nOf course, in our existing modern cookery, very few simple and\nuncompounded tastes are still left to us; everything is so mixed up\ntogether that only by an effort of deliberate experiment can one\ndiscover what are the special effects of special tastes upon the tongue\nand palate. Salt is mixed with almost everything we eat\u2014_sal sapit\nomnia_\u2014and pepper or cayenne is nearly equally common. Butter is put\ninto the peas, which have been previously adulterated by being boiled\nwith mint; and cucumber is unknown except in conjunction with oil\nand vinegar. This makes it comparatively difficult for us to realise\nthe distinctness of the elements which go to make up most tastes as\nwe actually experience them. Moreover, a great many eatable objects\nhave hardly any taste of their own, properly speaking, but only a\nfeeling of softness or hardness, or glutinousness in the mouth, mainly\nobserved in the act of chewing them. For example, plain boiled rice is\nalmost wholly insipid; but even in its plainest form salt has usually\nbeen boiled with it, and in practice we generally eat it with sugar,\npreserves, curry, or some other strongly flavored condiment. Again,\nplain boiled tapioca and sago (in water) are as nearly tasteless as\nanything can be; they merely yield a feeling of gumminess; but milk, in\nwhich they are oftenest cooked, gives them a relish (in the sense here\nrestricted), and sugar, eggs, cinnamon, or nutmeg are usually added\nby way of flavoring. Even turbot has hardly any taste proper, except\nin the glutinous skin, which has a faint relish; the epicure values\nit rather because of its softness, its delicacy, and its light flesh.\nGelatine by itself is merely very swallowable, we must mix sugar, wine,\nlemon-juice, and other flavorings in order to make it into good jelly.\nSalt, spices, essences, vanilla, vinegar, pickles, capers, ketchups,\nsauces, chutneys, lime-juice, curry, and all the rest are just our\ncivilised expedients for adding the pleasure of pungency and acidity\nto naturally insipid foods, by stimulating the nerves of touch in the\ntongue, just as sugar is our tribute to the pure gustatory sense, and\noil, butter, bacon, lard, and the various fats used in frying to the\nsense of relish which forms the last element in our compound taste.\nA boiled sole is all very well when one is just convalescent, but in\nrobust health we demand the delights of egg and bread-crumb, which are,\nafter all only the vehicle for the appetising grease. Plain boiled\nmacaroni may pass muster in the unsophisticated nursery, but in the\npampered dining-room it requires the aid of toasted parmesan. Good\nmodern cookery is the practical result of centuries of experience in\nthis direction; the final flower of ages of evolution, devoted to the\nequalisation of flavors in all human food. Think of the generations of\nfruitless experiment that must have passed before mankind discovered\nthat mint sauce (itself a cunning compound of vinegar and sugar) ought\nto be eaten with leg of lamb, that roast goose required a corrective in\nthe shape of apple, and that while a pre-established harmony existed\nbetween salmon and lobster, oysters were ordained beforehand by nature\nas the proper, accompaniment of boiled cod. Whenever I reflect upon\nsuch things, I become at once a good Positivist, and offer up praise\nin my own private chapel to the Spirit of Humanity which has slowly\nperfected these profound rules of good living.\u2014_Cornhill Magazine._\n\n\n\n\nBYGONE CELEBRITIES AND LITERARY RECOLLECTIONS.\n\nBY CHARLES MACKAY, LL.D.\n\n\nIII.\n\nNAPOLEON III.\u2014LORD WILLIAM PITT LENNOX.\u2014ARCHBISHOP WHATELY.\n\n\nIt was during the unsettled times that preceded the great French\nRevolution of 1848\u2014I think it was in January of that year\u2014that one\nof Mr. Rogers\u2019s breakfasts was attended by Prince Louis Napoleon\nBuonaparte, afterwards Napoleon III.; Dr. Whately, the Protestant\nArchbishop of Dublin; Lord William Pitt Lennox, the son of the Duke\nof Richmond (who distinguished himself at the battle of Waterloo, and\ndied many years afterwards as Governor-General of Canada); and myself.\nI was previously acquainted with all these gentlemen, and had met\nthe Prince a few days previously at the house of Mr. John MacGregor,\nformerly Secretary of the Board of Trade, and member of Parliament for\nGlasgow. The Prince, who was then forty years of age, had long been a\nresident in London as an exile, spoke English exceedingly well, had\nthoroughly studied the working of the British constitution, and had\nlearned to respect and apparently to love the English people. He was\nvery taciturn and undemonstrative; his dull grey eyes seemed to have\nlittle speculation in them, and to have been given to him, if such\nan expression may be used, to look inwards upon himself rather than\noutwards upon the world. They brightened up at rare intervals when\nanything was said that particularly interested him. On this occasion\nthe talk of the breakfast table turned a good deal upon French politics\nand the probability, more or less imminent, of a revolutionary outbreak\nin Paris, consequent upon the unwise opposition of Louis Philippe\nand his too obsequious minister, M. Guizot, to the question of the\nextension of the franchise and the reform of the French Parliament.\nAs I had within a fortnight or three weeks returned from Paris, where\nI had associated with some leading liberal politicians, among others\nwith B\u00e9ranger the poet and the Abb\u00e9 de Lamennais, my opinion upon the\nsituation was asked, I think, by Mr. Rogers, and whether I thought\nthe agitation would subside. \u201cNot,\u201d I said, \u201cunless the King yields.\u201d\n\u201cHe won\u2019t yield, I think,\u201d said the Prince; \u201che does not understand\nthe seriousness of the case.\u201d I told the Prince that B\u00e9ranger, who\nknew the temper and sympathised with the opinions of the people, had\npredicted the establishment of a Republic, consequent upon the downfall\nof the monarchy, within less than a twelvemonth. Lamennais did not\ngive the King so long a lease of power, but foresaw revolution within\nsix months. The Prince remarked that \u201cif there were barricades in the\nstreets of Paris, such as those by which his way to the throne was won\nin 1830, the King would not give orders to disperse the mob by force\nof arms.\u201d \u201cWhy do you think so?\u201d asked Mr. Rogers. \u201cThe King is a weak\nman, a merciful man. He does not like bloodshed. I often think he was\na fool not to have had me shot after the affair of Strasburg. Had our\ncases been reversed I know that I would have had him shot without\nmercy,\u201d I thought little of this remark at the time, but in after\nyears, when the exiled Prince became the powerful emperor, my mind\noften reverted to this conversation, and I thought that if King Louis\nPhilippe had done what the Prince considered he ought to have done\u2014and\nas he would have been fully justified by law, civil and military, as\nwell as by state policy, in doing\u2014the whole course of European history\nwould have been changed. Personally, the Prince was highly esteemed by\nall who knew him. Stern as a politician, and in pursuit of the great\nobject of his ambition, as in the famous _coup d\u2019\u00e9tat_ of 1851 by\nwhich he raised himself at a bound from the comparatively humble and\nuncertain chair of a President to the most conspicuous imperial throne\nin the world\u2014he was, in private life, of a singularly amiable temper.\nHe never forgot in his prosperity the friends or even the acquaintances\nof his adversity; never ceased to remember any benefit that had been\nconferred upon him, and not only to be grateful for it, but to show\nhis gratitude by acts of kindness and generosity, if the kindness or\ngenerosity could be of benefit to the fortunes of the persons on whom\nit was bestowed. When he sought the hand in marriage of a Princess of\nthe House of Austria, and the honor was declined for the occult and\nunwhispered reason that he was a parvenu and an upstart, and that his\nthrone was at the mercy of a revolution (and what throne is not?), he\nmarried for pure love and affection a noble lady of inferior rank, and\nraised her to a throne which she filled for many years with more grace\nand splendor than any contemporary sovereign born in the purple of\nroyalty had ever exhibited, Queen Victoria alone excepted.\n\nThe Prince thoroughly understood the character of the French people.\nNapoleon I. had called the English a nation of shopkeepers. Napoleon\nIII. knew that the French were entitled in a far greater degree than\nthe English to that depreciatory epithet. He knew that in their hearts\nthey did not care so much for liberty and fraternity as they did for\n\u201cequality,\u201d\u2014that what they wanted in the first place was peace, so\nthat trade and industry might have a chance to prosper; and secondly,\nthat France as a nation might be the predominant power in Europe. For\nthe first reason, they required a master who would maintain order; for\nthe second reason, they idolised the name of the first Napoleon. These\ntwo things were patent to the mind of Napoleon III., and formed the\nkeystone of his domestic and foreign policy.\n\nWhen London, about three months after the breakfast at Mr. Rogers\u2019, was\nthreatened, on April 10, 1848, by an insurrectionary mob of Chartists,\nunder the guidance of a half-crazy Irishman, named Feargus O\u2019Connor,\nwho afterwards died in a lunatic asylum, the Prince volunteered to act\nas a special constable, for the preservation of the peace, in common\nwith many thousands of respectable professional men, merchants, and\ntradesmen. I met him in Trafalgar Square, armed with the truncheon\nof a policeman. On this occasion, the Duke of Wellington, then\ncommander-in-chief of the British army, had taken the precaution to\nstation the military in sufficient numbers at all the chief strategical\npoints of the metropolis ready, though concealed from the notice of\nthe multitude, to act on an emergency. Happily their services were not\nrequired. The sovereign was popular; the upper and middle classes were\nunanimous; a large section of the laboring classes had no sympathy with\nChartism, and the display of the civic force, with bludgeons and staves\nonly, without firearms of any kind, was quite sufficient to overawe the\nrioters. I stopped for a minute to exchange greetings with the Prince,\nand said I did not think from all that I had heard that the Chartists\nwould resort to violence, and that their march through the streets\nwould be orderly. The Prince was of the same opinion, and passed upon\nhis beat among other police special constables in front of the National\nGallery.\n\nAs Lord William Lennox was of the breakfast party, I took the\nopportunity to ask him a question with regard to a disputed point.\nI had lately visited Brussels, the city in which I had passed my\nschool-boy days, and which was consequently endeared to my mind by\nmany youthful associations. The mother of Lord William, the beautiful\nDuchess of Richmond, had given a great ball on the night preceding the\nbattle of Waterloo, in June, 1815, at which Lord William, then in his\nsixteenth year, was present. Every lover of poetry will remember the\nsplendid description of this ball and of the subsequent battle which\noccurs in the third canto of Byron\u2019s \u201cChilde Harold.\u201d The passage is\nunsurpassed in any language for the vigor, the picturesqueness, and the\nmagnificence of its thought and diction, and in its relation to one of\nthe most stupendous events in modern history.\n\n    There was a sound of revelry by night,\n      And Belgium\u2019s capital had gather\u2019d then\n    Her Beauty and her Chivalry, and bright\n      The lamps shone o\u2019er fair women and brave men;\n      A thousand hearts beat happily; and when\n    Music arose with its voluptuous swell,\n      Soft eyes look\u2019d love to eyes which spake again,\n    And all went merry as a marriage bell;\n    But hush! hark: a deep sound strikes like a rising knell.\n\nIt has been generally asserted and believed that the ball was given\nby the duchess in the grand hall of the stately H\u00f4tel de Ville in the\nGrande Place, and when in Brussels I heard the assertion repeated by\nmany people, though denied by others. One old citizen, who remembered\nthe battle well, affirmed it to have been at the H\u00f4tel de Ville, which\nhe saw brilliantly lighted up for the occasion, and passed among the\ncrowd of equipages that filled the Grande Place, when setting down\nand taking up the ladies who graced the assembly with their presence.\nAnother equally old and trustworthy inhabitant declared that to his\npersonal knowledge the ball was given in the \u201cPalais d\u2019Aes,\u201d a large\nbuilding that adjoins the palace of the King of the Belgians, and is\nnow used as a barrack; while a third affirmed it to have been held\nin the handsome hotel, adjoining the Chamber of Deputies, which was\nformerly occupied by Sir Charles Bagot, the British Ambassador to\nBrussels and the Hague in 1830. Thinking there could be no better\nauthority than one who was present on the occasion, one, moreover,\nwho was so nearly allied to the giver of the entertainment, I asked\nLord William to decide the point. He replied at once that all these\nassertions were unfounded. His father, the Duke, took a large house\nin a back street, called the \u201cRue de la Blanchisserie\u201d (street of the\nlaundry), abutting on the boulevard, opposite the present Botanic\nGarden, and that the ball took place in the not extraordinarily\nspacious drawing-room of that mansion. He said, moreover, that the\nlines\u2014\n\n    Within the window\u2019d niche of that high hall\n    Sat Brunswick\u2019s fated chieftain,\n\nconveyed an idea of magnitude which the so-called \u201chigh hall\u201d did not\nin reality possess.\n\nArchbishop Whately here said: \u201cIf we may be permitted without breach of\ngood manners to speak of Waterloo in the presence of Prince Napoleon,\nI may remark that the correction of the very minor error just made\nby Lord William, though exceedingly interesting is not of great\nimportance. Though contradicted again and again, the report still\ncirculates, and is still believed, that the Duke of Wellington was\nsurprised on the eve of the battle of Waterloo by the rapid march of\nthe emperor, and was thus taken at a disadvantage.\u201d\n\n\u201cI never believed the report,\u201d said the Prince, \u201cthough I have my own\nviews about the battle. I visited Waterloo in the winter of 1832, with\nwhat feelings you may imagine.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe truth as regards the alleged surprise,\u201d said the Archbishop,\n\u201cappears to be, as Lord Byron explained in a note to the passage in\n\u2018Childe Harold,\u2019 that the Duke had received intelligence of Napoleon\u2019s\nmarch, and at first had the idea of requesting the Duchess of Richmond\nto countermand the ball; but, on reflection, considered it desirable\nthat the people of Brussels should be kept in ignorance of the course\nof events. He, therefore, desired the duchess to let the ball proceed,\nand gave commands to all the general officers who had been invited\nto appear at it, each taking care to quit the room at ten o\u2019clock\nquietly, and without giving any notification, except to each of the\nunder officers, to join their respective divisions _en route_. There is\nno doubt that many of the subalterns who were not in the secret were\nsurprised at the suddenness of the order.\u201d\n\n\u201cI heard, when I visited the field of Waterloo less than a month ago,\u201d\nI said, \u201cthat many of the officers joined the march in their dancing\nshoes, so little time was left for them to obey orders.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt has been proved to the satisfaction of every real inquirer into\nthe facts,\u201d said Mr. Rogers, \u201cthat as far as the duke himself and\nhis superior officers were concerned, there was no surprise in the\nmatter. You know the daring young lady, who presumed on her beauty to\nbe forgiven for her impertinence, who asked the Duke point-blank at an\nevening party whether he had not been surprised at Waterloo. \u2018Certainly\nnot!\u2019 he replied \u2018but I am now.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cA proper rebuke,\u201d said Lord William, \u201cI hope the lady felt it.\u201d\n\nByron, in the beautiful stanzas to which allusion has been made,\ndescribes the wood of Soignes, erroneously called Soignies, in the\nenvirons of Brussels, a portion of the great Forest of Ardennes:\n\n    And Ardennes waves above them her green leaves,\n      Dewy with Nature\u2019s tear-drops as they pass.\n    Grieving, if aught inanimate e\u2019er grieves,\n      Over the unreturning brave.\n\nIn a note to this passage he speaks of Ardennes as famous in\nBoiardo\u2019s \u201cOrlando,\u201d as immortal in Shakespeare\u2019s \u201cAs You Like It.\u201d\nWhatever may have been the case with Boiardo, it is all but certain\nthat Shakespeare\u2019s \u201cArden\u201d was not the Ardennes near Brussels,\nbut the forest of Arden, in Warwickshire, near his native town of\nStratford-on-Avon. He frequented this \u201cArden\u201d in his youth, perhaps in\nchasing the wild deer of Sir Thomas Lucy, perhaps in love-rambles with\nAnne Hathaway. Portions of this English forest still remain, containing\nin a now enclosed park\u2014the property of a private gentleman\u2014some\nvenerable oak trees, one of which as I roughly measured it with my\nwalking-stick is upwards of thirty feet in circumference within a yard\nof the ground. This tree, with several others still standing, must\nhave been old in the days of Shakespeare; and in the shadow of which\nhe himself may have reclined in the happy days ere he went to London\nin search of fame and fortune. \u201cArden,\u201d spelled Ardennes in French,\nis a purely Celtic word, meaning the high forest, from _Ard_, high,\nand _Airdean_, heights. The English district is still called \u201cArden,\u201d\nand the small town of Henley, within its boundaries, is described as\nHenley-in-Arden to distinguish it from the many other Henleys that\nexist in England.\n\nLord William Lennox married the once celebrated cantatrice, Miss Wood,\nfrom whom he was divorced. He was a somewhat voluminous author of\nthird-rate novels, and a frequent contributor to the periodical press.\nHe died in 1880, in his eighty-first year.\n\nDr. Whately, Archbishop of Dublin, was the author of a very able\ntreatise on Logic and Rhetoric, long the text-book of the schools;\nand also of a once famous _jeu d\u2019esprit_ entitled \u201cHistoric Doubts\nconcerning Napoleon Buonaparte,\u201d in which he proved irrefragably by\nfalse logic likely to convince idle and unthinking readers, that\nno such person as Napoleon Buonaparte ever did exist or could have\nexisted. In this clever little work he ridiculed, under the guise of\nseeming impartiality and critical acumen, the many attempts that had\nbeen made, especially by French writers of the school of Voltaire, to\nprove that Jesus Christ was a purely imaginary character, as much a\nmyth as the gods of Grecian and Roman mythology. Mr. Greville, in his\n\u201cMemoirs of the Courts of George III., George IV., and William IV.,\u201d\nrecords that he met Whately, Archbishop of Dublin, at a dinner-party,\nand describes him \u201cas a very ordinary man in appearance and\nconversation, with something pretentious in his talk, and as telling\nstories without point.\u201d Nevertheless he admitted him to be \u201ca very able\nman.\u201d My opinion of the Archbishop was far more favorable. The first\nthing that struck me with regard to him was the clear precision of\nhis reasoning, as befitted a man who had written with such undoubted\nauthority on Logic and Rhetoric, and the second his rare tolerance for\nall conscientious differences of opinion on religious matters. Two\nyears previously I had sat next to him on the platform of the inaugural\nmeeting held by the members of The Athen\u00e6um at Manchester in support of\nthat institution. Several bishops had been invited, and had signified\ntheir intention to be present, but all of them except Dr. Whately had\nwithdrawn as soon as it was publicly announced that Mr. George Dawson,\na popular lecturer and Unitarian preacher of advanced opinions, was\nto address the audience. Mr. Dawson, who was at the time a very young\nman, spoke with considerable eloquence and power, and impressed the\naudience favorably, the Archbishop included. \u201cI think,\u201d said Dr.\nWhately, turning to me at the conclusion of the speech, \u201cthat my\nreverend brethren would have taken no harm from being present to-night,\nand more than one of them, whom I could name, would be all the better\nif they could preach with as much power and spirit, as this boy has\ndisplayed in his speech.\u201d On another occasion, when I was in Dublin in\n1849. I heard that several ultra-orthodox Protestant clergymen in the\ncity had been heard to express regret that Dr. Whately was so lax in\nhis religious belief, and set so bad an example to his clergy. I asked\nin what manner, and was told in reply that he had publicly spoken of\nDr. Daniel Murray, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, then in his\n81st year, as \u201ca good man, a very good man,\u201d adding the hope that he\nhimself should be found worthy to meet Murray in Heaven.\n\nThis large-minded prelate died in 1863, in his seventy-seventh year.\n\n\nIV.\n\nTHE REV. HENRY HART MILMAN\u2014THE REV. ALEXANDER DYCE\u2014THOMAS MILLER.\n\nIt was in the summer of 1844, a few days after the interment in\nWestminster Abbey of Thomas Campbell, the poet, author of the\n\u201cPleasures of Hope\u201d and many other celebrated poems, that I received\nan invitation to breakfast with Samuel Rogers, to meet the Rev. Dr.\nMilman, the officiating clergyman on that solemn occasion. There were\ntwo other guests besides myself; the Rev. Alexander Dyce, well known\nas a commentator on Shakespeare, and Mr. Thomas Miller\u2014originally a\nbasket-maker\u2014who had acquired considerable reputation as a poet and\nnovelist and a hard-working man of letters.\n\nDr. Milman was at the time rector of St. Margaret\u2019s\u2014the little church\nthat stands close to Westminster Abbey and interferes greatly with the\nview of that noble cathedral. He was afterwards Dean of St. Paul\u2019s, and\nwas known to fame as the author of the successful tragedy of \u201cFazio,\u201d\nof many poetical volumes of no great merit, and of a \u201cHistory of the\nJews\u201d and a \u201cHistory of Christianity,\u201d both of which still retain their\nreputation.\n\nThe conversation turned principally on the funeral of the poet, at\nwhich both Mr. Dyce and myself had been present. The pall-bearers were\namong the most distinguished men of the time, for their rank, their\ntalent, and their high literary and political positions. They included\nSir Robert Peel, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, the Duke of Argyll,\nthe Earl of Strangford, and the Duke of Buccleuch, the last named the\ngenerous nobleman\u2014noble in nature as well as in rank\u2014who had offered,\nwhen a lad in his teens, to pay the debts of his illustrious namesake,\nSir Walter Scott, when the great novelist had fallen upon evil days\nin the full flush of his fame and popularity. A long procession of\nauthors, sculptors, artists, and other distinguished men followed the\ncoffin to the grave. Many Polish exiles were conspicuous among them. As\nDr. Milman pronounced the affecting words of the burial service, \u201cashes\nto ashes, dust to dust,\u201d a Polish gentleman made his way through the\nranks of mourners, and drawing a handful of earth from a little basket\nwhich he carried, exclaimed in a clear voice, \u201cThis is Polish earth for\nthe tomb of the friend of Poland,\u201d and sprinkled it upon the coffin.\nThis dramatic incident recalled to my mind, as it no doubt did to that\nof other spectators, Campbell\u2019s unwearied exertions in the cause of\nPoland, and of the indignant lines in the \u201cPleasures of Hope,\u201d\n\n    Hope for a season bade the world farewell,\n    And Freedom shriek\u2019d when Kosciusko fell.\n\nMr. Rogers, reminded, perhaps, of a grievance by the presence at the\nbreakfast table of Dr. Milman, seemed to brood over an injustice that\nhe thought had been done him with reference to the late poet. When\nCampbell, under the pressure of some pecuniary difficulty, complained\nof the scanty rewards of literature, and especially of poetry, Mr.\nRogers was reported to have recommended him to endeavor to procure\nemployment as a clerk. This was thought to be very unfeeling; but\non this occasion Mr. Rogers explained to the whole company that he\nhad been misunderstood, and that he had not meant any unkindness. \u201cI\nmyself,\u201d he said, \u201cwas a clerk in my early days, and never had to\ndepend upon poetry for my bread; and I only suggested that in Mr.\nCampbell\u2019s \u2018case,\u2019 and in that of every other literary man, it would be\nmuch better if the writing of poetry were an amusement only and not a\nbusiness.\u201d\n\n\u201cNo doubt,\u201d said Mr. Dyce, \u201cbut men of genius are not always the\nmasters of their own youth, and cannot invariably choose their careers\nor make choice of a profession which requires means and time to qualify\nfor it. You, for instance, Mr. Rogers, when a clerk, were clerk to your\nfather, and qualified yourself under his auspices for partnership in,\nor succession to the management of, his prosperous bank. Mr. Campbell\nhad no such chances.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is a large question,\u201d said Dr. Milman. \u201cThe love of literature in\na man of genius, rich or poor\u2014especially if poor, is an all-absorbing\npassion; and shapes his life, regret it as we may. Literature has\nrewards more pleasant than those of money, pleasant though money\nundoubtedly is. If money were to be the \u2018be-all\u2019 and \u2018end-all\u2019 of life,\nit would be better to be a rich cheesemonger or butcher than a poor\nauthor. But no high-spirited, intelligent, and ambitious youth could be\nof this opinion and shape his life by it. Sensitive youths drift into\npoetry, as prosaic and adventurous youths drift into the army or the\nnavy.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe more\u2019s the pity,\u201d replied Mr. Rogers, \u201cas by drifting into poetry\nthey too often drift into poverty and misery. I trust, however, you\nwill all understand that the idle and the malevolent gossips did, and\ndo me, gross unjustice when they say that I recommended Campbell to\naccept a clerkship rather than continue to rely upon poetry. I never\nthought of doing so. I merely expressed a general wish that every man\nof genius, not born to wealth, should have a profession to rely upon\nfor his daily bread.\u201d\n\n\u201cA wish that all men would agree in,\u201d said Mr. Dyce, \u201cand that after\nall had no particular or exclusive reference to Mr. Campbell. He did\nnot find the literature which he adorned utterly unprofitable. He\nmade money by his poetry and by his literary labor generally, besides\ngaining a pension of three hundred pounds per annum on the Civil List,\nand the society of all the most eminent men of his time, which he could\nnot have done as a cheesemonger or a butcher, however successful he\nmight have become in these pursuits.\u201d\n\n\u201cThese are all truisms,\u201d said Mr. Rogers, somewhat sharply, as if\nannoyed. \u201cWhat I complain of is that the world, the very ill-natured\nworld, should have spread abroad the ridiculous story that I\nrecommended Mr. Campbell, in his declining years, to apply for a\nclerkship.\u201d\n\n\u201cI think no one believes that you did so,\u201d said Dr. Milman, \u201cor that\nyou could have done so. Your sympathy with men of letters is well known\nand has been proved too often, not by mere words only, but by generous\ndeeds, for such a story to obtain credence.\u201d\n\n\u201cFalsehoods,\u201d replied Mr. Rogers, still with a tone of bitterness,\n\u201care not cripples. They run fast, and have more legs than a centipede.\nI saw it stated in print the other day that I depreciate Shakespeare\nand think him to have been over-rated. I know of no other foundation\nfor the libel than that I once quoted the opinion expressed of him by\nBen Jonson, his dearest friend and greatest admirer. Though Ben Jonson\ncalled Shakespeare \u2018the Swan of Avon,\u2019\n\n                          Soul of the age,\n    The applause, delight, and wonder of the stage,\n\nand affirmed that:\n\n    He was not for an age, but for all Time,\n\nhe did not hesitate to express the wish, in answer to one who boasted\nthat Shakespeare had never blotted a line, \u2018would to Heaven he had\nblotted a thousand.\u2019 Ben Jonson saw the spots on the glorious face of\nthe sun of Shakespeare\u2019s genius, and was not accused of desecrating his\nmemory because he did so; but because _I_ quoted that very saying and\napproved of it, I have been accused of an act of treason against the\nmajesty of the great poet. Surely my offence was no greater than that\nof Ben Jonson! If there were treason in the thought, it was treason\nthat I shared with him who had said he loved Shakespeare with as much\nlove as was possible to feel on this side of idolatry.\u201d\n\n\u201cI think,\u201d remarked Dr. Milman, \u201cthat such apparently malevolent\nrepetitions of a person\u2019s remarks are the results of careless ignorance\nor easy-going stupidity, rather than of positive ill-nature or a wilful\nperversion of the truth.\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is very curious,\u201d said Mr. Dyce, \u201chow very few people can repeat\ncorrectly what they hear, and that nine people out of ten cannot repeat\na joke without missing the point or the spirit of it.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd what a widely prevalent tendency there is to exaggerate,\nespecially in numbers. If some people see a hundred of anything, they\ncommonly represent the hundred as a thousand and the thousand as ten\nthousand.\u201d\n\n\u201cNot alone in numbers,\u201d interposed Mr. Rogers, \u201cbut in anything. If I\nquoted Ben Jonson\u2019s remark in relation to Shakespeare once only, the\nrumor spreads that I quoted it frequently; and so the gossip passes\nfrom mouth to mouth with continual accretion. Perhaps I shall go down\nto posterity as an habitual reviler and depreciator of Shakespeare.\u201d\n\n\u201cPerhaps you won\u2019t go down to posterity at all,\u201d said Mr. Dyce,\ngood-naturedly.\n\n\u201cPerhaps not,\u201d replied Mr. Rogers, \u201cbut if my name should happen to\nreach that uncertain destination I trust I may be remembered, as Ben\nJonson is, as a true lover of Shakespeare. But great as Shakespeare is,\nI don\u2019t think that our admiration should ever be allowed to degenerate\ninto slavish adoration. We ought neither to make a god of him nor a\nfetish. And I ask you, Mr. Dyce, as a diligent student of his works and\nan industrious commentator upon them, whether you do not think that\nvery many passages in them are unworthy of his genius. If Homer nods,\nwhy not Shakespeare?\u201d\n\n\u201cI grant all that,\u201d replied Mr. Dyce, \u201cnay more! I assert that many of\nthe plays attributed to him were not written by him at all. And more\neven than that. Several of his plays were published surreptitiously,\nand without his consent, and never received his final corrections or\nany revision whatever. The faults and obscurities that are discoverable\neven in the masterpieces of his genius, were not due to him at all,\nbut to ignorant and piratical booksellers, who gave them to the world\nwithout his authority, and traded upon his name. Some also must be\nattributed to the shorthand writers who took down the dialogue as\nrepeated by the actors on the stage. It is curious to reflect how\nindifferent Shakespeare was to his dramatic fame. He never seems to\nhave cared for his plays at all, and to have looked at them, to use the\nslang of the artists of our days, as mere \u2018_pot-boilers_,\u2019 compositions\nthat brought him in money, and enabled him to pay his way, but in which\nhe took no personal pride whatever.\u201d\n\n\u201cHis heart was in his two early poems\u2014\u2018Venus and Adonis,\u2019 and the\n\u2018Rape of Lucrece,\u2019\u201d said Dr. Milman, \u201cthe only compositions, it should\nbe observed, that were ever published by his authority, and to which he\nappended his name. His sonnets, which some people admire so much\u2014an\nadmiration in which I do not share\u2014were published surreptitiously,\nwithout his consent, and probably more than one-half of them were not\nwritten by him. Some of them are undoubtedly by Marlowe, and some by\nauthors of far inferior ability. Shakespeare\u2019s name was popular at the\ntime; there was no law of copyright, and booksellers did almost what\nthey pleased with the names and works of celebrated men; and what seems\nextraordinary in our day, the celebrated men made no complaint\u2014most\nprobably because there was no redress to be obtained for them if they\nhad done so. The real law of copyright only dates from the eighth\nyear of the reign of Queen Anne, 1710, or nearly a century after\nShakespeare\u2019s death.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut authors in those early days, even in the absence of a well-defined\nlaw of copyright,\u201d said Mr. Miller, \u201creceived payment for their works;\nwitness the receipt of John Milton for five pounds on account of\n\u2018Paradise Lost\u2019\u2014now in the possession of our host\u2014and which we have\nall seen.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut that was long after the death of Shakespeare,\u201d said Mr. Dyce, \u201cand\nit does not appear that Shakespeare ever received a shilling for the\ncopyright of any of his works. Perhaps he received gratuities from the\nEarls of Southampton and Pembroke, and the other rich young men about\ntown, for whom it is supposed that he wrote many of his sonnets. That\nhe also must have received considerable sums for his representation of\nhis plays at the Globe Theatre is evident from the well-ascertained\nfact that he retired from theatrical business with a competent fortune\nand lived the life for some years of a prosperous country gentleman.\u201d\n\nAs it has been asserted in my presence by an eminent literary\nman, within a month of the present writing, that Samuel Rogers\nsystematically depreciated Shakespeare, and that he was above all\nthings a cynic, I think it right, in justice to his memory, to repeat\nthe conversation above recorded. Though it took place nearly forty\nyears ago, I wrote down the heads of it in my notebook on the very\nday when it occurred; and by reperusal of it I have refreshed my memory\nso as to be certain of its accuracy. Mr. Rogers doubtless said very\npungent and apparently ill-natured things in his time; no professed\nwit, such as he was, can always, or indeed very often, refrain from\nshooting a barbed dart either to raise a laugh and to strengthen an\nargument, or to dispense with one; but there was no malevolence in the\nheart, though there might appear to be some on the tongue, of Samuel\nRogers. To love literature, and to excel in poetical composition, were\nunfailing passports to his regard, his esteem, and if necessary, his\npurse. One of the guests of the morning on which these conversations\ntook place, and who bore his part in them, was a grateful recipient\nand witness of his beneficence. Thomas Miller, who began life as a\njourneyman basket-maker, working for small daily wages in the fens\nof Lincolnshire, excited the notice of his neighbors by his poetical\ngenius, or it may have been only talent, and by their praises of his\ncompositions, filled his mind with the desire to try his literary\nfortune in the larger sphere of London. He listened to the promptings\nof his ambition, came to the metropolis, launched his little skiff on\nthe wide ocean of literary life, and by dint of hard work, indomitable\nperseverance, unfailing hope, and incessant struggles, managed to earn\na modest subsistence. He speedily found that poetry failed to put money\nin his purse, and prudently resorted to prose. When prose in the shape\nof original work\u2014principally fiction\u2014just enabled him to live from\nday to day, he took refuge in the daily drudgery of reviewing in the\n_Literary Gazette_, then edited by Mr. Jerdan, a very bad paymaster.\nHe had not been long in London before he made the acquaintance or Mr.\nRogers, and after a period of more or less intimacy, received from that\ngentleman the good, though old, and as it often happens, the unwelcome\nadvice that he should cease to rely wholly upon literature for his\ndaily bread. As poor Miller could not return to basket-making\u2014except\nas an employer of other basket-makers, for which he had not sufficient,\nor indeed any, capital\u2014and as, moreover, he had no love for any\npursuits but those of literature, he resolved, if he could manage it,\nto establish himself as a bookseller and publisher. Mr. Rogers, to\nwhom he confided his wish, approved of it, and generously aided him to\naccomplish it, by the advance without security of the money required\nfor the purpose. The basket-maker carried on the business for a few\nyears with but slight success, and once informed me that he had made\nmore money by the sale of note paper, of sealing-wax, of ink, and of\nred-tape, than he had made by the sale of his own works, or those of\nanybody else.\n\nMr. Rogers established another poet in the bookselling and publishing\nbusiness, but with far greater success than attended his efforts in the\ncase of the basket-maker. Mr. Edward Moxon, a clerk or shopman in the\nemploy of Messrs. Longman, who wrote in his early manhood a little book\nof sonnets that attracted the notice of Mr. Rogers, to whom they had\nbeen sent by the author with a modest letter, became by the pecuniary\naid and constant patronage of the \u201cBard of Memory,\u201d one of the most\neminent publishers of the time. He was known to fame as \u201cthe Poet\u2019s\npublisher,\u201d and issued the works not only of Mr. Rogers himself, but\nof Campbell, Wordsworth, Southey, Savage, Landor, Coleridge, and many\nother poetical celebrities. He also published the works of Ben Jonson,\nMarlowe, Beaumont and Fletcher, Peele, and other noted dramatists of\nthe Elizabethan era.\n\nThe friendly assistance, delicately and liberally administered in the\nhour of need, by Samuel Rogers to the illustrious Richard Brinsley\nSheridan is fully recorded in the life of the latter by Thomas Moore;\nthat which was administered, though under less pressing circumstances,\nto Thomas Campbell, has found a sympathetic historian in Dr. William\nBeattie. Rogers, in spite of the baseless libel concerning Shakespeare,\nhad not a particle of literary envy in his composition. His dislike\nto Lord Byron was not literary but personal, and is adequately\nexplained\u2014and almost justified\u2014by the gross and unprovoked attacks\nwhich Byron directed against him.\u2014_Gentleman\u2019s Magazine._\n\n\n\n\nAN ACTOR IN THE REBELLION OF 1798.\n\n\nBY LETITIA McCLINTOCK.\n\nIn a tiny hovel on the mountain-side just above the romantic glens\nof Banagher, in the wildest part of the country Londonderry, lives\nPaddy O\u2019Heany, aged a hundred and three years. Paddy is an intelligent\nold man who must have enjoyed his existence thoroughly, and taken a\nvivid interest in the stirring scenes of his early life. No clod of\nthe valley is he even now, not like many old people who cannot be\naroused to any enthusiasm about either past or present events. Being\nin quest of an actor in the terrible scenes of \u201998, and having tried\nseveral very old people without result, we hoped to find in Paddy a\nstory-teller.\n\n\u201cPaddy,\u201d said our friend Mrs. S----, \u201cis the oldest inhabitant in the\nparish; he was a youth of nineteen at the time of the Rebellion, and\ncan relate graphic tales of adventures in which he took part. One of\nthem, the history of Jack McSparron, will make your blood run cold;\nbut there, I\u2019ll say no more; you shall judge for yourself. Paddy was\none of the United Irishmen; has been, it is said, a Ribbonman and a\nFenian since then, and is now, in all probability, a Land Leaguer. At\nany rate, his sympathies are with the Land League, so that you must be\ncareful what you say if you want him to talk; but I need not give you\nany hints, you will know how to draw him out.\u201d\n\nLooking down from Paddy\u2019s cottage door upon the richly wooded glens of\nBanagher, the traveller is struck by the extent and beauty of the view.\nBelow lies a ruined church, a little to its right the glens\u2014four dark\nlines of wood branching off from a common meetingpoint, and running\nup the mountain in different directions, and to the left the quaint\ncountry town of Dungiven. Above the town rises the majestic mountain\nrange of Benbraddagh; while yet farther to the left, and like pale,\nsmoke-tinted phantoms, are the hills of Magilligan, and the shadowy\ncoast-line. This was the view we saw from Paddy\u2019s low doorway, and with\na little reluctance we turned away from contemplating it, to enter the\nsmoky cabin.\n\nPaddy was a fine old man with thick, grizzled hair, a better-formed\nprofile than many of his class, and a hale, hearty voice. He was\ntotally blind, but his keen face was so full of intelligence that it\nwas easy to forget that he could not see. His daughter, herself a very\nold woman, moved his arm-chair near the door, and we sat beside him\nfacing the scene above described. The turf smoke, of which the kitchen\nwas full, blew past us to find its outlet at the door. A turf stack was\nbuilt against the end of the dresser just behind Paddy\u2019s chair. A calf\nwas walled off by a little rampart of boards from the rest of the room,\nand the cock and hens had already flown to their roost directly above\nour heads. The atmosphere and neighborhood might have been objected to\nby squeamish people, but in the pursuit of knowledge what will not one\ndare?\n\nThe old woman stood behind her fathers chair ready to jog his memory if\nnecessary. A present of tobacco, tea, and sugar touched the patriarch\u2019s\nheart; he was quite willing to take the desired journey into the\nregions of the past.\n\n\u201cDo I mind the time o\u2019 the Uniting? Is that what the lady wants to\nknow? Ay, bravely I mind it. I mind it far better nor things that\nhappened yesterday. I was ane o\u2019 the United Men mysel\u2019, an\u2019 I was sent\nwi\u2019 a big wheen o\u2019 the boys to keep the pass on the White Mountain when\nthe army was expected from Derry to destroy us. I had my pike, an\u2019 the\nmaist part o\u2019 the boys had guns.\u201d\n\n\u201cWere you not afraid to meet the soldiers?\u201d\n\n\u201cFeared? Was I feared? Troth an\u2019 faix I was, sorely feared; but it wad\nha\u2019 been as much as your life was worth to let on that you were feared.\nI mind us leaning against the heather, an\u2019 the big rocks an\u2019 mountains\nrising up all roun\u2019 us, an\u2019 the cold night an\u2019 the darkness comin\u2019 on,\nan\u2019 feen a word was spoke amang us, for we be to keep the pass.\u201d\n\n\u201cWell?\u201d\n\n\u201cWeel, at long an\u2019 at last, Jack McSparron came running back (he was\nput to watch); \u2018an\u2019,\u2019 says he, \u2018the army\u2019s comin\u2019 now; there\u2019s the\ntramp o\u2019 the horses,\u2019 says he. Wi\u2019 that we to the listening, an\u2019 we all\nheered the tramp o\u2019 the cavalry; an\u2019 the company o\u2019 the United Men just\nmelted away like snow off a ditch. Jack an\u2019 one or two others tried to\nkeep us thegether, but it couldna be done; the boys was too feared. I\nran wi\u2019 the rest, an\u2019 I never stopped till I was in my father\u2019s house\nsittin\u2019 into the chimney-corner aback o\u2019 my mother. After that there\nwas soldiers passing we\u2019er door nearly every day, an\u2019 they said they\nwere marching to burn Maghera to the ground.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy was Maghera to be burned to the ground?\u201d\n\n\u201cI dinna rightly know, but I think the United Men was strong in it. But\ncounter-orders came that it was na to be destroyed, an\u2019 then the army\ncame back to Dungiven.\u201d\n\n\u201cWere you acquainted with Jack McSparron?\u201d\n\n\u201cIs it Jack McSparron that was flogged in Dungiven Street? Ay, I mind\nthat weel.\u201d\n\nHis withered hands clutched the arms of his chair as he bent forward,\nwith his sightless eyes fixed, and the fire of eagerness in his keen\nface. He was gone upon a journey into the distant past, and a scene of\nhorror passed before his mental vision.\n\n\u201cThose times were worse nor these,\u201d he said; \u201cthere were murders, too,\nin parts o\u2019 the country, but there was another way o\u2019 working then. I\ntold you that the army came over frae England, an\u2019 they took up the men\nthat was for the Uniting, an\u2019 there was short work wi\u2019 _them_. Ay, ay,\nI mind the day Jack was flogged in Dungiven Street because he wouldna\ntell the names o\u2019 the men that was banded wi\u2019 him. One o\u2019 them was a\nmeeting minister, it was said; an\u2019 there was farmers an\u2019 laboring men,\ntoo. For the whole country about Dungiven was strong for the United\nIrishmen as they called them. I was wi\u2019 them mysel\u2019, but I was never\ntook.\u201d\n\n\u201cThere were some Presbyterians among them?\u201d\n\n\u201cEh?\u201d and his hand went up to his ear.\n\n\u201cThe lady\u2019s axin\u2019 if there wasn\u2019t Presbyterians wi\u2019 the United Men,\nfather,\u201d said his daughter.\n\n\u201cTroth, was there, ma\u2019am! it was allowed that there was ministers an\u2019\nfarmers an\u2019 shopkeepers o\u2019 them. Jack was a Presbyterian himsel\u2019.\u201d\n\n\u201cHow was he taken prisoner?\u201d\n\n\u201cI dinna just mind, but I think it was at a meeting they had at a house\nin Feeny. The alarm was given that the soldiers was coming, and all\nfled an\u2019 got away but Jack. He was a fine boy of nineteen years of age,\nthe support o\u2019 his mother. He was stiff in his turn, too, far stiffer\nnor I could ha\u2019 been, for he swore he\u2019d die afore he\u2019d tell upon his\ncomrades. Ay, he was stiffer nor me.\u201d\n\n\u201cTrue for you, father,\u201d laughed the old woman, leaning over Paddy\u2019s\nchair; \u201cyou\u2019d ha\u2019 told sooner nor be scourged.\u201d\n\nWe recalled Paddy\u2019s na\u00efve history of his flight from the pass on the\nWhite Mountain and mentally agreed with her. Paddy, however, was an\nIrishman pure, while Jack McSparron was descended from the Scottish\nCovenanters, and had inherited from them the fortitude of an Ephraim\nMacBriar.\n\n\u201cGo on, Paddy; your story is most interesting.\u201d\n\nThe old man smiled, but he was hardly thinking of his visitors, the\npicture brought back by memory so engrossed him.\n\n\u201cJack wouldna\u2019 gie the names o\u2019 his comrades, an\u2019 he was sentenced to\nbe flogged till he would tell. I mind Niel Sweenie, that was a comrade\nboy o\u2019 mine, an\u2019 me went to Dungiven to see the flogging. We seen\nJack in a cart an\u2019 his mother wi\u2019 him, an\u2019 all the way along the road\nshe was laying her commands upon him to die before he\u2019d betray his\ncomrades. The army was marching all round the cart, an\u2019 people frae\nall the farmhouses an\u2019 cottierhouses was following. Then we got into\nDungiven. I mind the crowds that was looking on, an\u2019 me an\u2019 Niel among\nthem.\n\n\u201cJack got so many lashes, an\u2019 then they\u2019d stop an\u2019 the officer would ax\nhim if he would tell now, an\u2019 the old woman would call out, \u2018Dinna give\nin, Jack. Die like a man, my son. Think o\u2019 the curses o\u2019 the widows an\u2019\norphans that wad follow you;\u2019 an\u2019 the poor boy would make answer, \u2018Ay,\nmother, I\u2019ll die before I tell.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cDear, dear, but that mother was the hard-hearted woman!\u201d interrupted\nPaddy\u2019s daughter, glancing at her grandson, who happened to pass the\ndoor at that moment with a creel of turf on his back.\n\nPaddy did not heed her interruption; he was embarked on the full tide\nof recollection\u2014the horrible scene lived again before him. \u201cThey gave\nhim a great many lashes,\u201d he continued; \u201cI dinna mind how many hundred\nit was, an\u2019 each time they stopped he was asked if he would tell, an\u2019\nhis mother still bid him die like a man, an\u2019 his answer was still the\nsame. At long an\u2019 at last the officer called out \u2018Stop! would you kill\na game bird?\u2019 an\u2019 he was took down an\u2019 put in the guard-room for the\nnight.\n\n\u201cNiel an\u2019 me was invited in to tak\u2019 a look at him, an\u2019 we seen him\nlying on his face on a table wi\u2019 an ointment shirt on that the soldiers\nhad thrown over him. The officers gave orders that the whole country\nwas to see him if they liked. I think they wanted to scare the United\nMen.\n\n\u201cHe was to be took to Limavady the next day for the sentence to be\ncarried out there, so the whole country took a holiday again to see the\nrear o\u2019 the flogging. Jack an\u2019 his mother was in the cart, an\u2019 the army\nmarchin\u2019 wi\u2019 them, an\u2019 me an\u2019 Niel an\u2019 a crowd o\u2019 neighbors following\nalong the road to Limavady.\n\n\u201cThe mother called out to us, \u2018I\u2019m going wi\u2019 his living funeral,\u2019 says\nshe; \u2018but I\u2019ll gie him the same advice I did yesterday,\u2019 says she.\n\n\u201cWhen we reached Limavady he was tied up, an\u2019 we were watching for the\nlash to fall, when there was a great shout an\u2019 we seen a man galloping\nup the street as hard as his horse could go, waving something white\nover his head. It was a pardon come from Dublin for Jack McSparron.\u201d\n\n\u201cI am glad the pardon came, for he was an heroic youth, rebel though he\nwas.\u201d\n\n\u201cAy,\u201d cried the old man, \u201c_he_ wouldna\u2019 be an informer. There\u2019s few o\u2019\nhis sort left in Ireland now, more\u2019s the pity\u2014more\u2019s the pity!\u201d\n\nThe fire in his voice told us plainly where his sympathies really were.\nNot, certainly, with murdered landlords, bailiffs, or non-land-league\nfarmers!\n\n\u201cDid Jack live to be an old man?\u201d\n\n\u201cAy, did he. He died it\u2019ll be sixteen year past next Candlemas. There\u2019s\na daughter o\u2019 his married on a farmer not very far from this. The\nMcSparrons in this parish is all proud o\u2019 being his friends. When ane\no\u2019 them shows himsel\u2019 a gude comrade or neighbor, the people says, \u2018Ay,\nhe\u2019s o\u2019 the blood of Jack McSparron.\u2019\u201d\n\n\nTRAGEDIES AT MAGHERA.\n\nMrs. Majilton was in a state of much excitement one day in the summer\nof \u201998 because parties of soldiers were passing her house one after\nanother. Her house was close to the high-road, half-way between Feeny\nand Dungiven, and stood in a comfortable little farmyard. She was a\nChurch Protestant, dreadfully afraid of the rebels, and consequently\nvery glad to see the red-coats in the country. They had been\nmarching past her house all morning, and she had stood at the door\nwith the baby in her arms, wishing them \u201cGod speed.\u201d\n\nThe men had exchanged a cheerful greeting with her now and then, and as\nthey went by she caught some of their conversation; the word Maghera\nwas repeated over and over again. They were marching to Maghera; no\ntime must be lost; they could not delay for refreshment or rest. The\nday wore on, and a party of stragglers stopped at her door, young lads,\nmere recruits, who had lagged behind the main body, not being able to\nendure the hardships of their forced march from Londonderry as well as\nthe older men. Their sergeant, a bronzed veteran, asked the good woman\nto give them a drink of water, for the love of God.\n\n\u201cI have sworn at the poor fellows till I\u2019m hoarse, ma\u2019am; but they\u2019re\ngiving up, and I must let them rest a minute.\u201d\n\nMrs. Majilton ran to lay the baby in its cradle; then she opened the\nbarrel, filled a large bowl half full of oatmeal, poured water upon it,\nand handed it to the men, who sat down in the yard, and passed the bowl\nfrom one to another.\n\n\u201cThat\u2019s both meat and drink,\u201d said they, gratefully.\n\n\u201cOur orders are to hurry on to Maghera without stopping, for we\u2019ve got\nto burn it to the ground,\u201d said the sergeant.\n\n\u201cGod bless me, sir, what\u2019s occurring at Maghera?\u201d\n\nShe knew that Maghera was a country town farther off than Dungiven.\nSome of her neighbors had been there, but she had never travelled so\nfar herself. The sergeant told her that news had reached Derry that the\nrebels were in force at Maghera, and were murdering all who refused to\njoin them. There were few newspapers in those days, and no penny post;\nrumor spread and perhaps exaggerated the evil tidings. It was said that\na young girl combing her hair beside her hearth had been shot dead by\na party of men who came to look for her father. They looked in at the\nwindow, saw her, and murdered her out of revenge because her father had\nescaped them. \u201cAnd now,\u201d concluded the sergeant, \u201cour orders are that\nMaghera is to be destroyed.\u201d\n\nMrs. Majilton, who knew her Bible well, remembered the fate of Sodom\nand Gomorrah, and of Nineveh\u2014that wicked city; and she thought the\nsoldiers were the Lord\u2019s instruments to execute His judgment upon\nMaghera.\n\nWhen the party of recruits got as far as Dungiven they found that\ncounter-orders had come\u2014Maghera was _not_ to be burnt after all; but\nsufficient troops to quiet the country were to be sent on, while the\nremainder halted at Dungiven. We shall accompany two of the soldiers\nwho pressed forward. As they neared the town, scenes of desolation\nmet them on every hand\u2014deserted houses, smouldering thatch, burnt\nstackyards. They were told that the rebels had taken to the mountains\nwhen they heard the troops were coming. The men separated; some\nexplored one road, some another, hoping to inclose the enemy in a net.\n\nAs Privates John Buckley and Tom Green advanced up one of these\nmountain roads they were appalled by the terrible loneliness of the\nplace. Here a farmhouse stood empty, its door hanging off the hinges;\nthere were blackened circles where stacks of corn had been; again they\nsaw a cottage with a smouldering thatch, and no sign of life near,\nexcepting a starved cat that prowled about the door.\n\nThe rebels had clearly passed that way; those were the marks they\nhad left behind them. At length, where the lane seemed about to lose\nitself in a mountain pass, they came to a cottage whose door stood\nopen. It looked like a comfortable small farmer\u2019s homestead: a pretty\ngarden, gay with common flowers, was at one side of the house; there\nwere laburnums and lilacs just out of blossom; red and white roses in\nfull blossom; tall orange lilies with bursting buds; rows of peas and\nbeans and plots of cabbages. The whole place had a civilized air, and\nreminded the Englishmen of their own homes. The pretty green railing\nand rustic gate; the orderly stackyard and offices, gave an impression\nof neatness, taste, and comfort unusual in that country.\n\nThe men went into the kitchen of the farmhouse. There was no fire upon\nthe hearth. The turf had burnt to ashes under a great black pot of\npotatoes that hung upon the crook, and two children sat disconsolately\nleaning against each other beside the cold hearth.\n\nBuckley explored the \u201croom,\u201d and Green the loft; there was no trace\nof human being to be found; the children were the only inmates of the\nplace.\n\nThe eldest child, a little girl of about four years old, with pretty\nblue eyes and curly hair, looked up curiously, but did not move. Her\ntiny brother was too languid to raise his head from her shoulder.\n\n\u201cAre you alone in the house?\u201d asked Green.\n\n\u201cAy,\u201d replied the child.\n\n\u201cWhere are your father and mother?\u201d\n\n\u201cThey are sleeping in the garden; they ha\u2019 been there this good wee\nwhile,\u201d answered the little one, fixing her serious eyes upon them.\n\u201cCome, an\u2019 I\u2019ll show you where they are.\u201d\n\nShe got up, gave her hand confidingly to the man, and led him to the\ngarden, the other soldier following; and behind the cabbages they found\na man and woman lying in a heap, stiff and cold, having evidently been\npiked to death.\n\n\u201cCome back to the house, my little dear,\u201d cried Green, drawing the poor\ninnocent away from the cruel sight. Her little brother still sat where\nthey had left him, leaning his sick head against the wall. He was very\nfaint and weak.\n\n\u201cHave you nothing to eat?\u201d asked the men.\n\n\u201cMy mammy has bread an\u2019 butter in the kist, but she has the key in her\npocket,\u201d replied the little girl. They broke open the chest and found\nthe food; but they had arrived too late to save the boy: he died in\nBuckley\u2019s arms before they reached Maghera. Green carried the girl\nand presented her to his company. Each soldier subscribed toward her\nmaintenance, and she grew up among them, the pet and plaything of all.\nShe accompanied the regiment to England at the close of the rebellion,\nand nothing further was known of her by her old neighbors.\n\n\nMICKY O\u2019DONNEL\u2019S WAKE.\n\nWildest of all the wild Donegal coast is the region lying between\nFannet Lighthouse and Knockalla Fort. There are impassable bogs and\nmountain fastnesses which strangers cannot explore, but that are safe\nresorts for illicit distillers, the blue wreaths of smoke from whose\nstills may be seen curling against a dark background. In the years \u201997\nand \u201998 these fastnesses were favorite haunts of the United Irishmen.\n\nFannet had a particularly bad name in those unsettled times. The Church\nProtestants were, of course, loyal, but they formed only a handful of\nthe population; and the Presbyterians were, many of them, banded with\nthe rebels. The Fannet landlords raised a company of yeomen, consisting\nof the Protestants aforesaid, and placed themselves at their head.\n\nHelp was at hand. Lord Cavan was sent over from England in command of\nsoldiers; Knockalla Fort was garrisoned; and the yeomanry were called\nup to receive their arms and ammunition.\n\n\u201cYou needna be giving the like of us arms, my lord,\u201d said old Anthony\nGallagher, \u201cfor the Catholics will take them from us.\u201d\n\nLord Cavan was amused at the fellow\u2019s outspokenness, and replied that\nhe had come over to make Fannet so quiet that not one of the rebels\nwould venture so much as to speak. The yeomen got their guns and\nbayonets, and the soldiers were ready to support them. Lord Cavan, a\nstern and fierce soldier, kept his word; he quieted Fannet so that the\nCatholics did not dare to speak. The Protestants had been reduced to an\nabject state of terror before his arrival by the horrible murder of Dr.\nHamilton their rector, a zealous magistrate, who was followed to the\nhouse of a neighboring clergyman and shot. He went to spend the night\nwith a brother-rector at some distance from Fannet, and the rectory was\nsurrounded by United Irishmen, who clamored that the Doctor should be\ngiven up to them.\n\n\u201cThose are Fannet men; I know their voices,\u201d said he. The door was soon\nburst open; the attacking party rushed in, found the family in the\ngarrets, and dragged their captive downstairs. He clung with both hands\nto the banisters, and one of the women servants took a candle and held\nthe flame to his fingers till he was forced to let go his hold. He was\ntaken to the lawn and his brains were blown out.\n\nThis atrocity had determined the Government to send troops to Fannet.\n\nIt was soon after this that Anthony Gallagher and the troop he served\nin were at Kerrykeel fair and were attacked by a party of the rebels.\nThe yeomen were commanded to draw their bayonets and beat them off, and\nall the United Men retreated and got away except a man called Micky\nO\u2019Donnel from Ballywhoriskey, at the Bottom of Fannet. He was found\ndead on the street, pierced through the heart. Lord Cavan rode up at\nthat moment, followed by men from the Fort. \u201cTake that corpse with you,\nboys,\u201d said he, \u201can\u2019 hang it in chains from the walls of Knockalla\nFort. It will be a warning to the rest of the villains.\u201d Anthony and\ntwo soldiers were left in charge of the corpse, but the villagers\nassembling in force, there was a rescue, and Micky O\u2019Donnel was carried\noff before the yeomen got back, attracted by the noise of shouting, to\nprotect their comrades. Lord Cavan was in a rage when he heard what had\nhappened, and swore a round oath that that corpse should yet hang in\nchains from Knockalla Fort as a warning to the rest of Fannet; and he\ndespatched a party to recover it.\n\nIt was known that Micky O\u2019Donnel belonged to the Bottom of Fannet, so\nthe party set out along the banks of Mulroy, where they fell in with\nthe yeomen, and all went on together. But every house along the road\nwas empty, and there were no men at work in the fields; it was like a\ncountry of the dead.\n\nAlong the wild Atlantic shore; among the bent-covered sand hills;\nup to the miserable row of hovels called the town of Shanna, went\nthe soldiers; but still not a human being was to be seen. The whole\npopulation had taken to the mountains.\n\nAt length they reached the last cabin in the village of Ballywhoriskey,\nand there they discovered the dead man laid out on the wretched bed,\nwith two tallow candles burning at his head.\n\n\u201cFeen a crathur\u201d (we quote the words of Anton Gallagher, our informant,\nson of the Anthony who was present at the scene)\u2014\u201cfeen a crathur was\nin the house but the corpse on the bed an\u2019 two ould women waking it.\nThe women cried an\u2019 lamented, an\u2019 went on their knees to the officer\nto lave the poor corpse where it was to get Christian burial; an\u2019 the\ngentleman thought it a pity o\u2019 them, an\u2019 left the wake wantin\u2019 Micky\nafter all. It was my father tould me the story.\u201d\n\n\u201cHave you got your father\u2019s gun and bayonet?\u201d\n\n\u201cAy, ma\u2019am, in troth I have! If you ladyship honors me wi\u2019 a visit\nyou\u2019ll see them hanging up over the chimney. I wouldna part wi\u2019 them\nfor goold. There\u2019s many a winter\u2019s night the Catholics coming home\nfrae the market will stop at we\u2019er door an\u2019 cry, \u201cKing William\u2019s men,\ncome out!\u201d an\u2019 then it\u2019s all the mother an\u2019 me can do to keep the\nboys from taking down their grandfather\u2019s gun, an\u2019 going out to meet\nthem.\u201d\u2014_Belgravia._\n\n\n\n\nSAMUEL JOHNSON\n\n\nBY EDMUND GOSSE.\n\nIt is exactly one hundred years ago since Dr. Johnson wrote his last\nletter to Lucy Porter, in which he announced to her that he was very\nill, and that he desired her prayers. Less than a fortnight later,\non the 13th of December, 1784, he was dead. All through the year his\ncondition had given his friends more than anxiety. The winter of 1783\nhad been marked by collapse of the constitution; to the ceaseless\nmisery of his skin was now added an asthma that would not suffer him to\nrecline in bed, a dropsy that made his legs and feet useless through\nhalf of the weary day. It is somewhat marvellous that he got through\nthis terrible winter, the sufferings of which are painfully recorded in\nhis sad correspondence. It is difficult to understand why, just when\nhe wanted companionship most, his friends seem all to have happened to\ndesert him. Of the quaint group of invalids in mind and body to whom\nhis house had been a hospital, all were gone except Mrs. Desmoulins,\nwho was bedridden; and we may believe that their wrangling company had\nnever been so distasteful to himself as to his friends. Boswell and\nMrs. Thrale, as we know, had more or less valid reasons for absence,\nand Boswell, at least, was solicitous in inquiry. We must, however,\nfrom whatever cause, think of Johnson, who dreaded solitude, as now\nalmost always alone, mortified by spiritual pains no less acute than\nhis physical ones, torturing his wretched nights with Baxter\u2019s _Call\nto the Unconverted_, and with laborious and repeated diagnosis of his\nown bodily symptoms. It is strange to think that, although he was the\nleading man of letters in England, and the centre of a whole society,\nhis absence from the meetings of his associates seems scarcely to have\nbeen noticed. It was not until in February he was relieved that he\nallowed himself to speak of the danger he had passed through. Then he\nconfessed his terror to Lucy Porter, in the famous words, \u201cPray for me;\ndeath, my dear, is very dreadful; let us think nothing worth our care\nbut how to prepare for it;\u201d and asked Boswell to consult the venerable\nphysician, Sir Alexander Dick, as to the best way of avoiding a relapse.\n\nBoswell felt it a duty to apply not to Dick only, but to various\nleading doctors. In doing so he reminded them, with his extraordinary\nfoppishness, of \u201cthe elegant compliment\u201d which Johnson had paid to\ntheir profession in his _Life of Garth_, the poet-physician. The\ndoctors, with one accord, and thinking without doubt far more of\nJohnson himself than of Garth, clustered around him with their advice\nand their prescriptions, and the great man certainly received for the\nbrief remainder of his days such alleviation as syrup of poppies and\nvinegar of squills could give him. Mrs. Boswell, encouraged by a more\nfavorable account of his health, invited him down to Auchinlech in\nMarch. He could not venture to accept, but he was pleased to be asked,\nand recovered so much of his wonted fire as to fancy, in a freak of\nstrange inconsistency, that he would amuse himself by decorating his\nLondon study with the heads of \u201cthe fathers of _Scottish_ literature.\u201d\nTo Langton, who\u2014as Johnson justly thought, with unaccountable\n\u201ccircumduction\u201d\u2014had made inquiries about his old friend through\nLord Portmore, he expressed a hope of panting on to ninety, and said\nthat \u201cGod, who has so wonderfully restored me, can preserve me in\nall seasons.\u201d It is very pathetic to follow the old man through the\ndesolate and wearisome months: nor can we easily understand, from any\nof the records we possess, why he was allowed to be so much alone.\nOn Easter Monday, after recording without petulance that his great\nhope of being able to go out on the preceding day had been doomed to\ndisappointment, he goes on to say, \u201cI want every comfort. My life is\nvery solitary and very cheerless.... I am very weak, and have not\npassed the door since the 13th of December.\u201d\n\nBright weather came in May, and Johnson went to Islington for a\nchange of air. Boswell came back to town, and the sage was able to go\nto dinner-parties day after day, without at first exasperating his\nsymptoms. In June he went to Oxford, on the famous occasion when he\ntold the people in the coach that \u201cDemptster\u2019s sister had endeavored\nto teach him knotting, but that he had made no progress;\u201d and at\nOxford, as we know, he talked copiously, and with all his old vivacity.\nNo doubt, though Boswell does not like to confess it, the constant\ndissipation, intellectual and mildly social, of those two summer months\nwas mischievous to the frail revival of his health. At the dinner\nof the Literary Club, June 22, every one noticed how ill he looked.\nPerhaps the true cause of this was a secret chagrin which we can now\nappreciate, the final apostasy of Mrs. Thrale from his friendship. At\nall events, Reynolds and Boswell were sufficiently frightened to set\ntheir heads together for the purpose of getting their old friend off\nto Italy. We are divided between satisfaction that the inevitable end\ndid not reach the old man sociable in the midst of strange faces and\nforeign voices, and bewildered indignation at the still mysterious\ncabal which wrecked so amiable an enterprise. If Lord Thurlow was\nshifty, however, other friends were generous. Dr. Brocklesbury, the\nphysician, pressed Johnson to become his guest that he might the\nmore carefully attend upon him. From Ashbourne, whither he had been\nprevailed upon to go, he kept this last-mentioned friend well posted in\nthe sad fluctuations of his health, and we see him gradually settling\ndown again into wretchedness. His mind recurred constantly to the\napproaching terror. To Dr. Burney he writes in August, \u201cI struggle\nhard for life. I take physic and take air; my friend\u2019s chariot is\nalways ready. We have run this morning twenty-four miles, and could run\nforty-eight more. _But who can run the race with death?_\u201d Reflections\nof this class fill all his letters of that autumn; and in October he\nsums up his condition in saying to Heberden that \u201cthe summer has passed\nwithout giving him any strength.\u201d It is strange that still no one\nseemed to notice what is plain to us in every line of his\ncorrespondence, that Johnson was dying. With himself, however, the\nthought of death was always present; and even in discussing with Miss\nSeward so frivolous a theme as the antics of a learned pig, Johnson\nwas suddenly solemnized by recollecting that the pig had owed its\nlife to its education. One hardly knows whether to smile or to sigh\nat the quaint and suggestive peroration: \u201cThe pig, then, has no cause\nto complain; protracted existence is a good recompense for very\nconsiderable degrees of torture.\u201d To protract existence was now all\nJohnson\u2019s thought, and he set his powerful will to aid him in the\nstruggle. His only hopes were those which his strength of will supplied\nhim with. \u201cI will be conquered,\u201d he said, \u201cI will not capitulate.\u201d\n\nIt was not till he reached London in November that he consented to\ncapitulate. The terror of death was now upon him, indeed. \u201cLove me as\nwell as you can,\u201d he wrote to Boswell; \u201cteach the young ones to love\nme.\u201d On the 8th of November he closed the diary of his symptoms\u2014his\n_\u00e6gri ephemeris_\u2014now become worse than useless. His suffering,\ndejection, and restless weakness left his brain, however, unclouded,\nand less than a week before the end he corrected an error in a line\nfrom Juvenal which Dr. Brocklesbury had carelessly recited. The\nchronicle of the rapid final decline is given with great simplicity and\nforce by Hoole in that narrative of the last three weeks of the life of\nDr. Johnson which he contributed to the _European Magazine_ in 1799,\nand which Mr. Napier has reprinted in one of the many appendices to his\ninvaluable edition. At last, exactly a year after his original attack\nof asthma, the end came at seven o\u2019clock in the evening of Monday, the\n13th of December.\n\nDevoid, as it is, of all the elements of external romance, there is\nperhaps no record of the extinction of genius which attracts more\nuniversal interest than this death of Samuel Johnson. So much of\nfrivolity or so much of cant attends most of us even to the tomb, that\nthe frank terror, expressed through a long life by this otherwise most\nmanly and courageous person, has possessed a great fascination for\nposterity. The haunting insincerity of verse, particularly of\neighteenth-century verse, had extracted even from Johnson, in the pages\nof _The Vanity of Human Wishes_, the usual rose-colored commonplace\nabout death being \u201cKind Nature\u2019s signal for retreat;\u201d but he completely\ncleared his own mind of cant, even though a little clung about his\nsinging robes. Boswell has given us an extraordinary instance of his\nhabitual and dismal apprehensions in the celebrated conversation\nin 1769, which started with a discussion of David Hume\u2019s supposed\nindifference to the idea of death. Not less familiar are the passionate\nasseverations with which Johnson startled Mrs. Knowles and Miss\nSeward in 1778 by repeating again and again that to exist in pain is\nbetter, far better, than to cease to exist altogether. These and other\nrevelations of Johnson\u2019s conversation have perhaps led us to exaggerate\nhis habitual terror. There are, at least, instances to be drawn from\nless hackneyed sources which display his attitude towards eternity less\npainfully. Of these perhaps the most remarkable is that recorded in the\n_Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides_, when, on a calm Sunday afternoon,\nsailing from Ramsay to Skye, Johnson delivered himself of a little\nhomily. The text was a passage from _The Cypress Grove_ of Drummond\nof Hawthornden, which Boswell had happened to quote. Drummond had\nsaid that a man should leave life as cheerfully as a visitor who has\nexamined an antiquary\u2019s cabinet sees the curtain drawn again, and makes\nway to admit fresh pilgrims to the show. Johnson stripped the conceit\nto the skin, as he was in the habit of doing:\u2014\n\n        \u201cYes, sir, if he is sure he is to be well after\n      he goes out of it. But if he is to grow blind after\n      he goes out of the show-room, and never to see\n      anything again, or if he does not know whither he is\n      to go next, a man will not go cheerfully out of a\n      show-room. No wise man will be contented to die if he\n      thinks he is to go into a state of punishment. Nay,\n      no wise man will be contented to die, if he thinks he\n      is to fall into annihilation, for however unhappy any\n      man\u2019s existence may be, he would rather have it than\n      not exist at all. No; there is no rational principle\n      by which a man can die contented, but a trust in the\n      mercy of God, through the merits of Jesus Christ.\u201d\n\nThe baldness of this statement, the resolute contempt of the author\nof it for the mere dress and ornament of language, throw not a little\nlight upon the reason why, after the lapse of a hundred years, we still\nlisten with so quick an interest and so personal an affection to all\nthat is recorded of Johnson\u2019s speech. The age in which we live cannot\nbe entirely given up to priggishness and the dry rot of sentiment, so\nlong as any considerable company in it are wont to hang upon Johnson\u2019s\nlips, without being offended by his jocular brutality, his strenuous\npiety, or his unflinching enmity to affectation. Of course a class\nstill exists, perhaps it never was more numerous than it now is, whose\nnerves and lungs can endure the strong light and tonic air of Johnson\u2019s\nvigorous genius, and who rejoice to think that no one ever tamed their\ntiger-cat. To these such an anniversary as the present, not needed to\nremind them of one who is almost as real to them as any of their own\nrelations, is yet valuable as giving them a landmark from which they\nmay look back and judge the effect that distance has upon the apparent\nand relative size of such a figure. This can be the only excuse, in a\nbrief note such as this must be, for dealing with facts and personages\nwhich are the absolute commonplaces of literary history. We may know\nour Boswell by heart, and be prepared to pass a searching examination\nin _Rasselas_ and in the _Rambler_, and yet be ready to listen for\na moment with surprise to the voice which reminds us that a century has\npassed away since the great pontiff of literature died.\n\nHow then does the noble and familiar figure strike us in looking\nbackward from the year 1884? In \u201cconstant repercussion from one coxcomb\nto another,\u201d have the sounds which he continued to make through a\ncareer of stormy talk ceased to preserve all their value and importance\nfor us? How does he affect our critical vision now that we observe in\nrelief against him such later talker-seers as Coleridge, De Quincey,\nand Carlyle? To these questions it is temperament more than literary\nacumen which will suggest the replies; and the present writer has no\nintention at this particular moment of attempting to forestall the\ngeneral opinion of the age. His only object in putting forth this brief\nnote is to lay stress on the curious importance of temperament in\ndealing with what seems like a purely literary difficulty. The\npersonality of all other English writers, in prose and verse, even of\nPope, even of De Quincey, must eventually yield in interest to the\nqualities of their writing. In Dr. Johnson alone the writings yield to\nthe personality, and in spite of the wonder of foreign critics such as\nM. Taine, he remains, and will remain, although practically unread, one\nof the most potent of English men of letters.\n\nMust we not admit now, at the close of a century, that it is\npractically impossible to read him? Among the lesser men that\nsurrounded him, there are many who have outstripped him in literary\nvitality. In verse he lags far behind Gray and Collins, Churchill\nand Chatterton; nay, if the _Wanderer_ were by Johnson and _London_\nby Savage, the former would possess more readers than the latter\nnow attracts. In prose, who shall venture to say that Johnson is\nthe equal of Fielding, Smollett, Hume, Goldsmith, Gibbon, or Burke?\nWe know that he is far less entertaining, far less versatile and\nbrilliant, than any one of these. The _Discourses_ of his direct\ndisciple Reynolds are more often read, and with more pleasure, than\nthose essays of _The Rambler_ from which their style was taken. As a\ndramatist, as a novelist, Johnson ranks below _Douglas_ Home, below\nthe inventor of _Peter Wilkins_. For years he labored upon what was\nnot literature at all, for other years on literature which the world\nhas been obliged, against its will, to allow to disappear. When all\nis winnowed away which has become, in itself, interesting only to\nscholars, there remains _The Vanity of Human Wishes_, a gnomic poem\nof tedious morality, singularly feeble in the second joint of almost\nevery recurring distich; _Rasselas_, a _conte_ in the French taste,\ninsufferable in its lumbering machinery and pedantic ethics; the _Lives\nof the Poets_, in which prejudice, ignorance, and taste combine to\nirritate the connoisseur and bewilder the student. Such, with obvious\nexaggeration, and with wilful suppression of exceptional facts, the\nsurviving literary labors of Johnson may be broadly described to be.\nThe paradox is that a Johnsonian may admit all that, and yet hold to it\nthat his hero is the principal Englishman of letters throughout the\nrich second half of the eighteenth century. In this Johnson is unique.\nColeridge, for instance, was much more than a writer of readable\nworks in prose and verse; but let an age arrive in which the _Ancient\nMariner_, _Christabel_, and the _Biographia Literaria_ are no longer\nread or admired, and Coleridge will scarcely be able, on the score\nof his personality alone, to retain his lofty position among men of\nletters. Yet this is what Johnson promises to succeed in continuing\nto do. No one will ever say again, with Byron, that the _Lives of the\nPoets_ is \u201cthe finest critical work extant,\u201d but that does not make\nJohnson ever so little a less commanding figure to us than he was to\nByron.\n\nLet us consider for one moment the case of the unfortunate tragedy\nof _Irene_. There are very few of us who are capable of placing our\nhands upon our bosoms in the open sight of heaven and swearing that we\nhave ever read it quite through. The _Mourning Bride_ still counts its\nadmirers, and even _Cato_, but not _Irene_. Who among the staunchest\nand strongest Johnsonians can tell what hero it was that confessed, and\nupon what occasion,\n\n    \u201cI thought (forgive me, fair!) the noblest aim,\n    The strongest effort of a female soul\n    Was but to choose the graces of the day.\u201d\n\nwithout peeping furtively at the text? Nevertheless _Irene_ lives\nand always will live in the memory of men. But while other dramas\nexist on the strength of their dramatic qualities, this of Johnson\u2019s\nlives on the personal qualities of the author himself. It is not\nthe blank, blank verse, nor the heroine\u2019s reflections regarding the\nmind of the Divine Being, nor the thrilling Turkish fable, nor the\nsnip-snap dialogue about prodigies between Leontius and Demetrius,\nthat preserves the memory of this tragedy. It is the anecdote of how\nWalmsley asked, melted by the sorrows of Irene, \u201cHow can you possibly\ncontrive to plunge her into deeper calamity?\u201d and how Johnson answered,\nwith a reference to his friend\u2019s office, \u201cSir, I can put her into the\nspiritual court!\u201d It is the eagerness which George III. expressed to\npossess the original MS. of the play. It is the monstrous folly which\nmade Cave suppose that the Royal Society would be a likely body to\npurchase the copyright of it. It is the screams of the audience at\nDrury Lane when they saw Mrs. Pritchard with the bowstring round her\nneck. It is the garb in which Johnson insisted on dressing to look on\nat the performance, in a scarlet waistcoat, and with a gold-laced hat\non his head. It is the tragedian\u2019s unparalleled frankness about the\nwhite silk stockings. These are the things which we recall when _Irene_\nis mentioned, and if the play had been performed in dumb show, if it\nhad been a ballet, an opera, or a farce, its place in literary history\nwould be just where it is, no higher and no lower. Such is the curious\nfate which attends all Johnson\u2019s works, the most interesting of them is\nnot so interesting as the stories which cluster around its authorship.\n\nThis personal interest which we all feel in the sayings and doings of\nJohnson is founded so firmly on his broad humanity that we need not\nhave the slightest fear of its cessation or diminution. The habits of\nthought and expression which were in vogue in the eighteenth century\nmay repeat themselves, as some of us expect, in the twentieth, or our\nchildren may become more captious, more violent, more ungraceful in\ntheir tastes than we are ourselves. The close of the preface to the\n_Dictionary_ may cease to seem pathetic, or may win more tributes of\ntears than ever. The reputation of Johnson does not stand or fall by\nthe appetite of modern readers for the _Life of Savage_ or even for\nthe _Letter to Lord Chesterfield_. It depends on the impossibility of\nhuman beings ever ceasing to watch with curiosity \u201cthe very pulse of\nthe machine\u201d when it is displayed as Johnson displayed it through the\nfortunate indiscretions of his friends, and when it is on the whole so\nmanly, wholesome, brave, honest, and tender as it was in his. There\nwill always be readers and admirers of what Johnson wrote. Let us\nwelcome them; but let us not imagine that Johnson, as a great figure\nin letters, depends upon their suffrages. The mighty Samuel Johnson,\nthe anniversary of whose death both hemispheres of the English-speaking\nrace will solemnise on the 13th of this month, is not the author\nof this or that laborious contribution to prose or verse, but the\nconvulsive invalid who \u201csee-sawed\u201d over the Grotius, the courageous old\nLondoner who trusted his bones among the stormy Hebrides, the autocrat\nof the Literary Club, the lover of all the company of blue-stockings,\nthe unequalled talker, the sweet and formidable friend, the truculent\nboon-companion, the child-like Christian, who, for all his ghostly\nterrors, contrived at last \u201cto die contented, trusting in the mercy of\nGod, through the merits of Jesus Christ.\u201d If the completed century\nfinds us with any change at all of our feelings regarding him, it\nis surely merely this, that the passage of time is steadily making\nhis faults seem more superficial and accidental, and his merits more\nstriking, more essential, more pathetical and pleasing.\u2014_Fortnightly\nReview._\n\n\n\n\nTHE DEMOCRATIC VICTORY IN AMERICA.\n\n\nBY WILLIAM HENRY HURLBURT.\n\nThe United States being, and having been from the outset of their\nhistory, a Democratic Republic, it may well puzzle a European reader\nto understand why American \u201cRepublicans\u201d should bewail a \u201cDemocratic\u201d\ntriumph, or American \u201cDemocrats\u201d exult in the overthrow of a\n\u201cRepublican\u201d party.\n\nYet it may not be impertinent to suggest that in no country are\nthe names of political parties or factions commonly selected by a\ncommittee of philologists with an eye to making the national politics\nintelligible. What notions of English history are conveyed by the mere\nnames of \u201cWhig\u201d and \u201cTory\u201d or even of \u201cLiberal\u201d and \u201cConservative\u201d to\na person unfamiliar with the political history of England? What light\nis thrown on the history of Byzantium by talking of the \u201cBlues\u201d and the\n\u201cGreens,\u201d or on the history of Florence by casual references to the\n\u201cBianchi\u201d and the \u201cNeri\u201d?\n\nWhen one asks for the origin of such names, history is apt to give him\nno better answer than that of the small African child who was invited\nby a sympathetic lady to explain how she came to have six toes on one\nof her feet\u2014\u201cthey growed so!\u201d\n\nThis is so emphatically true of American political parties that my\nreaders must pardon me if I take them back to the \u201cbeginnings of\nthings\u201d for an accurate perspective of the recent Presidential election\nin the United States, and of its significance.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe existing Constitution of the American Union was adopted in 1789 by\nthe citizens of thirteen new-born Republics who had grown up to manhood\nin the then anomalous condition of subjects of the British Crown\nenjoying all the privileges and immunities of local self-government\nin thirteen distinct and independent colonies which differed among\nthemselves in origin, in social traditions and habits, and in religion,\nalmost as widely as Wales differs from Ireland, or Ireland from\nScotland. These colonies had co-operated from time to time with the\nmother country for the common defence against a common enemy, colonial\nFrance. And they had been united under a temporary political bond in\nthe great revolutionary war of 1776, by a common spirit of resistance\nto that Parliamentary despotism, tempered by corruption, which after\nthe English Revolution of 1688 and the establishment of the House of\nHanover assumed to itself the place originally held by the British\nCrown in the allegiance of these stalwart \u201cHome-Rulers\u201d beyond the\nAtlantic.\n\nAt the peace of Versailles in 1783 Great Britain found herself\ncompelled to recognize the independence of all and of each of these\ncolonies, which thenceforth took their places in the family of nations\nas separate and sovereign states. They were recognized in this\ncapacity not in block, but severally and individually, each by its\nown territorial designation; and from the moment of such recognition\neach of them felt that it was absolutely free, and \u201cof right ought to\nbe free,\u201d saving so far as it had bound itself to the then existing\nconfederacy of 1778, to adopt any form of government which might suit\nthe humor of its citizens, and to form any alliances advantageous to\nits own interests. The States were, indeed, at that moment bound\ntogether for certain specified purposes by a federal compact formed\nduring the war in 1778; but this compact sate so lightly upon them\nthat it was not only impossible to compel the several States into an\nexact fulfilment of confederate obligations, but very difficult even\nto induce them to get themselves properly represented under it for\nlegislative and executive purposes at the then federal capital of\nAnnapolis in Maryland. A striking illustration of this is given in a\nprivate letter, now in my possession, written by Thomas Jefferson of\nVirginia, the author of the Declaration of Independence of 1776, and\neventually the founder of that great Democratic party under the Union\nof 1789, which now once more, after a quarter of a century of extra\nconstitutional experiments in government, has been commissioned by\nthe voters of the United States, in the election to the Presidency\nof Governor Cleveland of New York, to restore in all its parts, and\nre-establish on its original and enduring foundations, the sway of the\nFederal Constitution of 1789. Writing from Annapolis to a friend in\nVirginia in regard to the negotiations at Paris which had secured the\nrecognition of American Independence, Mr. Jefferson, in December 1783,\ncomplains bitterly of the indifference of the States to this momentous\nevent. Under the ninth article of the then existing confederate compact\nof 1778, the assent of nine States represented in the Congress at\nAnnapolis assembled was necessary to the ratification of any treaty\nwith a foreign power. The time fixed for the ratification by Congress\nof the Treaty of Versailles was rapidly running out at the date of the\nletter to which I refer, and the Congress had been long in session.\n\u201cWe had yesterday, for the first time, seven States,\u201d exclaims Mr.\nJefferson; and he goes on to express his concern lest the necessary\nquorum of nine States should not be assembled before the expiration of\nthe term fixed for ratification in the treaty by which, after seven\nyears of an exhausting war, their independence was to be established!\n\nI dwell on this point in order to emphasise the truth, vital to any\nintelligent appreciation of the great change now impending in the\nadministration of public affairs in the United States, that the\ncommonwealths by which the American Union was established were,\nfrom the first, in the opinion of their inhabitants, sufficient\neach unto itself; and this because each of these commonwealths was\nindeed a well-organised body politic, the members of which had long\nmanaged their domestic affairs under one or another form of chartered\nauthority, after their own fashion; and, for the protection within\ntheir own borders of life and of property, had adjusted to their\nseveral situations and necessities the maxims and principles of English\nliberty defined and guarded by law. These States were the creators,\nnot the creatures of that \u201cmore perfect Union\u201d which (the Confederacy\nof 1778 failing) was finally formed by them after all its features had\nbeen discussed, debated, and redebated, not only in a Convention of the\nStates assembled for that purpose in 1787, but in the several States\nsubsequently, with a fulness, vigor of thought, and intelligence which,\nin the opinion of others than my own countrymen, make the volumes of\nElliott\u2019s _Debates on the Constitution_ the most valuable treasury of\nconstitutional politics in existence.\n\nThe framers of the American Constitution of 1789 were no rude\nuninstructed settlers, summoned from the axe and the plough to\nimprovise an orderly government. The traditions of the older States\nwent back to the struggle between the prerogative and the taxpayers\nof England under the Stuart kings. Virginia, the \u201cOld Dominion\u201d of\nElizabeth and the Restoration, with her Established Church, her College\nof William and Mary, and her legends of the Cavaliers, was in no\nhurry to believe that her consequence could be much enhanced by any\nmerger of her sovereignty in that of a federal union with Charles the\nSecond\u2019s Crown colony of Rhode Island, and with the gallant little\ncommunity which keeps green on the banks of the Delaware the memory\nof the self-sacrificing and heroic Thomas West. The colonial story\nof the great central State of New York had made its sturdy people\nfamiliar with those ideas of federated liberty on which the fabric\nof Netherlandish independence had been founded. The curious in such\nmatters have found an indication of the extent to which the spirit of\nthe Netherlands influenced the framers of the new American republic\nin the fact that when the style and title to be taken by the American\nPresident were under consideration, Washington inclined to the notion\nthat the Chief Magistrate should be addressed and known as \u201cHis High\nMightiness.\u201d\n\nNor were the citizens of the youngest of the colonies disposed to put\nthe control of their persons and their purses unreservedly into the\nhands of any imperial central authority.\n\nAfter the Constitution of 1789 (to take the date from the day, April\n30, 1789, on which Washington was inaugurated at New York as the\nfirst President of the United States) had been definitely adopted by\neleven States, the two States of North Carolina and Rhode Island still\nwithholding their ratification of the instrument, remained as foreign\npowers outside of the Union, the former until the 21st of November\n1789, and the latter until the 29th of May 1790.\n\nA notable date this last!\n\nNever was a great compact more opportunely framed and ratified!\n\nAlmost upon the morrow of these final adhesions to the \u201cmore perfect\nUnion,\u201d the storm of the French Revolution broke upon the world,\nbringing with it great international convulsions which affected every\nnerve and fibre of the social, political, and industrial life of\nAmerica, and tested to the utmost every seam and joint in the fabric\nof the new American Republic. The excesses of Jacobinism in France\nstrengthened the doubts and fears of many excellent persons in America\nwho had small faith in the capacity of the people for self-government\non a grand scale, and who accepted the Constitution of 1789 not as a\nfinal and trustworthy frame of polity, but because, while they thought\nit, to use the language of one of the ablest of their number, \u201cfrail\nand worthless in itself,\u201d they hoped to see it lead up to the eventual\nestablishment of some such \u201csplendid central government\u201d as in our own\ntimes Mr. Seward, the true founder of the \u201cRepublican\u201d party which has\njust been defeated in the United States, used to dream of and did his\nbest to build up.\n\nThe influence of these doubts and fears upon the politics of the new\nAmerican Republic was fortunately met and countered by the genius and\nthe faith of a group of great American statesmen, the friends and\nassociates of Thomas Jefferson; and the fundamental divergence between\nthe controlling ideas of the two great parties which now occupy the\nfield of American politics goes back to this closing decade of the\neighteenth century. When the existing Constitution was first submitted\nby the Convention of 1787 to the people and to the States, those who,\nwith Alexander Hamilton of New York, and James Madison of Virginia,\nadvocated its adoption were called \u201cFederalists\u201d, and those who, with\nSamuel Adams of Massachusetts, and Patrick Henry of Virginia, opposed\nit as threatening the rights and sovereignty of the States, were\ncalled Anti-Federalists. After its adoption the latter party took the\nname of \u201cStrict Constructionists,\u201d their object being to bind down\nthe administration of the new system to the closest and most rigid\ninterpretation of the powers conferred by the States upon the Federal\nGovernment; while their opponents were styled \u201cBroad Constructionists.\u201d\nBoth parties happily had such confidence in the patriotism and wisdom\nof Washington that he came into power as first President by a unanimous\nvote, and selected his first cabinet from the leaders of both the great\nparties which had contended over the adoption and the construction of\nthe new Constitution. At the first session of the first Congress, in\n1789, ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted, embodying a\nBill of Rights to secure the liberties of the citizens of the several\nStates, and explicitly reserving to the several States \u201crespectively\u201d\nor to the people, \u201call the powers not delegated to the United States by\nthe Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States.\u201d These amendments\nThomas Jefferson counselled the friends of Home Rule and State Rights\nto accept as an adequate guarantee of both. His wise advice was taken,\nand the great political party which was formed under the Constitution\ntook, at his suggestion, the name of the \u201cRepublican Party.\u201d The name\nwas appropriate enough to that party which held each State of the new\nUnion to be indeed an independent \u201cRepublic,\u201d and regarded the\n\u201cFederal\u201d Government as the agent and protector of the \u201cRepublican\u201d\nindependence of each State.\n\nIt gathered to itself a kind of passion, too, in the popular heart from\nthe then very general conviction that the leaders, at least, of the\n\u201cFederalist\u201d party secretly desired to see these \u201cRepublics\u201d disappear\ninto some form of centralised monarchy.\n\nAs the French Revolution grew more portentous and interesting, and its\nagents busied themselves with efforts to draw America into the European\ncontest as an ally, or rather as a dependency, of Republican France,\nthe political antagonism of the \u201cFederalists\u201d and the \u201cRepublicans\u201d\ngrew dangerously high and hot. Men wore French or English Cockades in\nthe streets of New York and Philadelphia. A distinguished public man\nof Massachusetts once told me that his earliest recollection of any\npolitical event took him back to a day on which a friend of his father,\nwho was a leading Federalist of Massachusetts, met him in the streets\ncoming home from school, and, giving him a bright Spanish dollar, said,\n\u201cNow, Jack, run as fast as you can to your father\u2019s court, and tell him\nfrom me that Robert Spear\u2019s head has been cut off, and he must give you\njust such another dollar!\u201d News came at long intervals then from Europe\nto America, and the tidings of the fall of Robespierre had that morning\nreached Boston.\n\nUnder the stress of these emotions the \u201cRepublicans\u201d took to denouncing\nthe \u201cFederalists\u201d as \u201cMonocrats\u201d and \u201cAnglomen,\u201d and the \u201cFederalists\u201d\nretorted by reviling their opponents as \u201cJacobins\u201d and \u201cDemocrats.\u201d\n\nThe \u201cFederalist\u201d party held its own during the two Presidencies of\nWashington, and elected John Adams to succeed the \u201cFather of his\ncountry\u201d in 1796. Under the Presidency of Mr. Adams the \u201cFederalists\u201d\nlost their heads, and the \u201cRepublicans\u201d in the year 1800 took\npossession of power under the first Presidency of Thomas Jefferson.\nThey had for some time been known commonly as \u201cDemocratic Republicans,\u201d\nand in the ninth Congress which met under the second Presidency of\nJefferson in 1805 they boldly took the name of \u201cDemocrats,\u201d in the\nspirit of good Bishop Willegis, who put the wagoner\u2019s wheel into\nhis coat-of-arms, and like the \u201cGueux,\u201d the \u201cHuguenots,\u201d and the\n\u201cRoundheads,\u201d extracting \u201cglory out of bitterness.\u201d\n\nFrom that time to this the \u201cDemocratic\u201d party has continued to be\nwhat Jefferson made it, the party of \u201cHome Rule\u201d as opposed to\ncentralisation, and of a strict construction of the organic law\nby which the provisions and the limitations of Federal power are\nsanctioned and defined, as against that plausible paternalism under\ncover of which, in the language of a great living leader of the\nDemocratic party, Senator Bayard of Delaware, \u201cthe general government\nassumes guardianship and protection over the business of the private\ncitizen, and functions of control over matters of domestic and local\ninterest.\u201d\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf I have enabled my readers to estimate aright the vital importance\nattached by the people of the several States in the formation of\nthe Constitution to the recognition of the rights and the reserved\nsovereignty of the States, they will not be surprised to learn that\nwhen Thomas Jefferson established the Democratic party upon this\nrecognition as its fundamental principle he secured for the Democratic\nparty such a profound and permanent hold upon the confidence and the\naffections of the American people as can never be shaken while the\nUnion remains what it was meant to be. For forty years after his first\nPresidency, no combinations succeeded in wresting from the Democrats\nthe control of the executive authority. The only apparent exception to\nthis statement confirms it. In the Presidential election of 1824, the\nelectoral ticket of General Jackson, the leading Democratic candidate,\nreceived a considerable majority of the votes of the people; but as\nthere were four candidates in the field, and General Jackson did\nnot secure a majority of the votes of all the electoral colleges,\nthe choice of a President went, under the Constitution, into the\nlower House of Congress, in which the members vote for a President\nnot individually as representing the people, but by delegations as\nrepresenting the sovereign States. John Quincy Adams secured a majority\nof the delegations; but such was the popular indignation that in the\nnext House of Representatives President Adams found himself confronted\nby an overwhelming opposition; and at the end of his term of office\nGeneral Jackson was made President by a majority of more than two\nto one against him. Jackson was twice elected, and transmitted his\npower to his Secretary of State, Martin Van Buren of New York, in the\nelection of 1836. Between the years 1840 and 1860 the predominance of\nthe Democratic party was but twice disturbed. In 1840 the Democratic\nPresident Van Buren, being a candidate for re-election, was defeated\nafter a very severe struggle by General Harrison, the candidate of a\nconglomerate party which, for lack of a better, had taken the name\nof the \u201cWhig\u201d party, and which represented in a general way the\nAnti-Democratic classes of the country, and more particularly the\nbanking interests and the Protectionists, of whom more hereafter. The\nreal and brilliant leader of this party, Henry Clay of Kentucky, had\nbeen deprived of the presidential nomination through the machinations\nof a nominating device unknown to the Constitution, called a\n\u201cPresidential Convention;\u201d and though the Whig candidate secured a\ngreat majority in the electoral colleges, thanks to the skill with\nwhich his managers played upon the financial distress of the country\ncaused by a great business panic in 1837, yet when he unexpectedly\ndied at the end of a single short month after his inauguration, the\nVice-President elected with him and who succeeded him, Mr. Tyler\nof Virginia, originally a Democrat, was found to be opposed to the\nrechartering of a United States Bank; and a bill passed by both Houses\nfor that purpose, which had been indeed the main purpose of the leading\nWhigs in promoting the election of Harrison and Tyler, was twice vetoed\nby him. This was the first lesson given to the American people of the\npotential importance of the Vice-Presidency in case of the death or\ndisability of the President. Curiously enough, the same lesson, which\nhas been repeated several times since, has, in every instance, with one\nexception, followed upon the election of a President by Anti-Democratic\nvotes.\n\nHenry Clay, who was enthusiastically nominated and supported by the\n\u201cWhig\u201d party for the Presidency at the close of President Tyler\u2019s\nadministration in 1844, was defeated by the Democratic nominee, Mr.\nPolk of Tennessee, under whom the annexation of the magnificent\nRepublic of Texas to the United States was consummated, with its\ninevitable corollary of a war with Mexico, that republic refusing to\nacknowledge the right of the people of Texas to sever their connection\nwith the Mexican States. This war led immediately to the cession\nby Mexico to the United States of New Mexico, California, and the\nNorthern Pacific coast of the old Spanish dominions in North America,\nand ultimately to the settlement of the boundary lines on the Pacific\nbetween the dominions of Great Britain and the United States. At the\nclose of President Polk\u2019s administration, the \u201cWhigs,\u201d who had been\ndisheartened and \u201cdemoralised\u201d by the defeat of their \u201cmagnetic\u201d\nleader, Henry Clay, in 1844, made a second effort to capture executive\npower. The occasion was offered to them by a schism in the Democratic\nparty, which had begun on personal grounds when Ex-President Van Buren,\nwho desired a renomination, was set aside in 1844 for Mr. Polk, and\nwhich was intensified on broader issues by the determination of many\nNorthern Democrats not to permit the extension of slavery into the vast\nand splendid territories acquired under President Polk.\n\nIt is far from being true, as I shall presently show, that the\n\u201cRepublican\u201d party, so called, of our own times, which has just been\ndefeated under Mr. Blaine, originated the political action in the\nUnited States which finally led to the extinction of slavery as an act\nof war by President Lincoln. The \u201cRepublican\u201d party of our own times,\nderiving its origin from the \u201cFederalists\u201d of the last century, through\nthe \u201cWhigs\u201d of 1840, has been recently and not unfairly described by\nMr. John Bright as the \u201cparty of Protection and Monopoly.\u201d This is so\nfar true that it represents those tendencies to a plausible paternalism\nin government, and to a consolidation of the Federal power at the\nexpense of Home Rule and State sovereignty, which found expression\nin Federalism at the beginning of our history; which threatened the\nsecession of New England and the establishment of an \u201cEastern Empire\u201d\nwhen Louisiana was purchased from France under President Jefferson;\nwhich waged the \u201cwar of the banks\u201d against President Jackson; and which\nfounded the \u201cWhig\u201d party of Henry Clay upon the doctrine that the\nFederal Government might lawfully and constitutionally levy taxes upon\nthe consumers of imported goods for the express purpose of enhancing\nthe profits of domestic manufacturers.\n\nGovernor Wright, a Democratic predecessor of Governor Cleveland in\nthe executive chair of the \u201cEmpire State,\u201d who had supported the\nrenomination of Ex-President Van Buren in 1844, led, until his sudden\nand lamented death in 1847, the opposition of Northern sentiment, after\nthe annexation of Texas, to any extension of slavery beyond the limits\nassigned to it by the famous \u201cMissouri Compromise\u201d of 1820. The Whig\nforerunners of Mr. Blaine were discreetly silent on the subject, and\nthe question was thrown into the arena of political discussion and\nagitation by a Democratic Member of Congress from Pennsylvania, Mr.\nWilmot, who, during the boundary negotiations with Mexico, introduced\nand moved the adoption of a \u201cproviso,\u201d that \u201cno part of the territory\nto be acquired should be open to the introduction of slavery.\u201d\n\nThis \u201cproviso\u201d was obviously unnecessary to the exclusion of slavery\nfrom any \u201cpart of the territory to be acquired,\u201d for negro slavery\nhad been long before abolished in New Mexico and in California under\nMexican law; and the Democratic party of the United States had laid it\ndown as a cardinal principle of Democratic policy, involved indeed, as\nmany Democrats thought, in the principle of Home Rule, that there was\n\u201cno power in Congress to legislate upon slavery in the Territories.\u201d\nThe introduction of the \u201cproviso\u201d therefore led, and could lead, solely\nto an immediately sterile, but eventually most dangerous, inflammation\nof the public mind on the question of the relations of slavery, as an\ninstitution already existing within the Union, to the politics of the\ncountry. The \u201cproviso\u201d was defeated in Congress; but the discussion had\naroused the abolitionists of the North on the one hand, and the extreme\npro-slavery men at the South on the other side, into loud and angry\ndebate; and the opportunity of \u201cforcing an issue\u201d was seized by Mr.\nCalhoun of South Carolina, a man of the highest character and of keen\nintellect, who honestly believed that the South must be sooner or later\ndriven in self-defence to withdraw from the Union, and who had brought\nhis State and himself in 1832, on the question of the right of a State\nto \u201cnullify\u201d a Federal law, within striking distance of the executive\nauthority wielded by the iron hand of President Jackson.\n\nMr. Calhoun introduced into the Senate, on the 19th of February, 1847,\na series of resolutions denying the right of Congress to pass any law\nwhich would have the effect of preventing any citizen of a slave State\nfrom carrying slaves as his property into any territory. No vote was\ntaken on these resolutions, but they served Mr. Calhoun\u2019s purpose of\nawakening public sentiment at the South to the threatening attitude of\nthe anti-slavery sentiment at the North.\n\nThe \u201cWhigs,\u201d with whom Mr. Lincoln then acted, profited adroitly by\nthis excitement in both sections. They avoided the subject of slavery\naltogether, and nominated for the Presidency in 1848 General Taylor,\na slaveholder of Louisiana, who had won a wide and well-deserved\npopularity as a military commander in the Mexican war, and a man\nof \u201cmoderate\u201d views on all subjects. With him they associated\nMr. Fillmore, a respectable citizen of New York. The friends of\nEx-President Van Buren united in that State with the anti-slavery men\nin an independent nomination of Ex-President Van Buren and Mr. Charles\nFrancis Adams, as the candidates of a new third party which took the\nname of the \u201cFree Soil\u201d party. This party declared that Congress had\nno right to interfere with slavery in the States in which it already\nexisted; that it was the duty of Congress to prohibit slavery in the\nTerritories; and that Congress had a constitutional right to abolish\nslavery in the Federal district of Columbia, which is the seat of the\nFederal Government. The result of all this was the election of Taylor\nand Fillmore, who received 163 votes in the electoral colleges against\n127 cast for Cass and Butler, the Democratic candidates, and a popular\nplurality over those candidates of less than 150,000 in a total of\nsomewhat less than 3,000,000 votes.\n\nBut the \u201cWhig\u201d triumph was short-lived. The gold discoveries in\nCalifornia gave such a sudden and tremendous impetus to the settlement\nof the new Pacific empire of the Union as \u201cforced the hand\u201d of the new\nAdministration; and General Taylor dying in July 1849, while Congress\nand the country were hotly contending over the social and political\norganization of that new empire, his successor, Mr. Fillmore, with\nDaniel Webster as his Secretary of State, threw the weight of the\nAdministration against the anti-slavery agitation and in favor of what\nwere called the \u201cCompromise Measures\u201d of 1850. These measures admitted\nCalifornia without extending to the Pacific the boundary line between\nfree and slave territory fixed by the \u201cMissouri Compromise\u201d of 1820,\nand left slavery untouched in the Federal district. Of course such a\ncompromise neither quieted the alarms of the slaveholding South nor\nsatisfied the aggressive abolitionists of the North. But the country\naccepted it, and at the next Presidential election, in 1852, the\nDemocratic candidate, General Pierce of New Hampshire, was elected by\nan overwhelming majority, carrying four of the New England States,\nthe great Middle States of New York and Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan,\nIndiana, and Illinois at the West, all the Southern States, excepting\nKentucky and Tennessee, and the new State on the Pacific, California.\nHe received 254 electoral votes against 42 thrown for his Whig\nantagonist, General Scott, who had led the armies of the Union to their\ncrowning victories in Mexico, and who had been a conspicuous military\npersonage in the United States ever since the second war of 1812 with\nGreat Britain.\n\nThere could scarcely have been a more decisive proof than this election\ngave that the Democratic party of the United States is really the\npermanent and enduring \u201cparty of the people,\u201d without distinction of\nsections; for the tremendous victory won by General Pierce was\ndistinctly due to the general, though, as it proved, the mistaken,\nimpression of the masses of the people, that the irritating question\nof slavery in its Federal relations had been taken out of the arena\nof politics by the \u201cCompromise Measures\u201d of 1850. This was so clear\nthat the opponents of the Democratic party, representing the shattered\nelements of the Whig party and the friends, as Mr. Bright would say,\nof \u201cProtection and Monopoly,\u201d changed front suddenly and concentrated\nall their efforts on a revival and extension of the anti-slavery\nagitation, as being the only program which offered them a hope of\nbreaking down again, even for a time, the ascendency of Democratic\nprinciples. In this effort they were naturally seconded not only by the\nNorthern abolitionists, but by the extreme partisans of slavery at the\nSouth. The value of slave property had been enormously increased by\nthe sudden development of trade and manufactures all over the world,\nand especially in Great Britain and the United States, which resulted\nfrom the gold discoveries in California and Australia, and from the\nadoption, first in the United States under a great Democratic Secretary\nof the Treasury, Robert J. Walker, in 1846, of a liberal tariff, and\nthen, in Great Britain, of what is not perhaps with perfect accuracy\ncalled the \u201cFree Trade\u201d policy of Mr. Bright and Mr. Cobden. One\nmight almost say that the cotton manufacturers of Lancashire and New\nEngland fell into a conspiracy to delude the slaveholders of the South\ninto those dreams of a vast slaveholding empire surrounding the Gulf\nof Mexico, which began, at the period of which I now write, to shake\nthe foundations of the Union by fascinating the minds of grasping and\nambitious men in that part of the United States.\n\nIn February, 1853, before the inauguration of President Pierce,\na Democratic Senator, Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, who had been an\nunsuccessful candidate for the Presidential nomination in the preceding\nyear, took the occasion presented by a bill for organizing a new\nWestern Territory, Nebraska (which included the two now existing States\nof Nebraska and of Kansas), to propose a repeal of the old \u201cMissouri\nCompromise,\u201d to which I have more than once alluded. By this measure\u2014a\n\u201cFederalist,\u201d not a Democratic measure\u2014adopted in 1820, it was\nprovided that slavery should never be carried into any Territory north\nof the fixed line of 36\u00b0 30\u00b4 north latitude. I have already mentioned\nthat Congress refused to extend this line to the Pacific during the\ndiscussions which attended the admission of California in 1850; and\nI am sure that no one who knew Senator Douglas will differ from me\nnow, when I say that he undoubtedly hoped by urging the repeal of the\nMissouri Compromise, which was voted by Congress the 25th of May,\n1854, to get the whole question whether slavery should or should not\nbe introduced into new Territories, and so into the new States of the\nUnion, relegated from the domain of Congressional action into that\nof \u201cpopular sovereignty.\u201d It was not the purpose either of the small\nminority at the South who desired disunion as the first step towards\nthe founding of a \u201csemi-tropical empire,\u201d or of the more considerable\nminority at the North who preferred the risk of disunion to the\ntoleration of slavery under the American flag, that this question\nshould be taken out of the domain of Congressional action, and the\nexpectations of Senator Douglas were disappointed. The repeal of the\n\u201cMissouri Compromise\u201d simply turned Kansas into a battle-ground. It led\nrapidly up to a succession of armed conflicts within that Territory\nbetween organised bands of Northern and of Southern \u201cemigrants,\u201d which\nset fire to the popular passions in both sections of the country,\n\u201cswamped\u201d the attempt of a section of the now disbanding \u201cWhig\u201d party\nto capture power by organising the prejudices of race and of religion\ninto a secret political order of \u201cNative Americans\u201d or \u201cKnow-nothings,\u201d\nand gave vitality and success to the more serious and sustained efforts\nof a much larger section of the \u201cWhigs,\u201d who devoted themselves to\nfounding a new party which should combine the permanent objects \u201cof\nProtection and Monopoly\u201d with the temporary and immediate object of\nrestricting slavery within the limits of the then existing slave\nStates. Thanks to this section of the \u201cWhigs,\u201d the modern \u201cRepublican\nParty\u201d was formed in 1854, which, after precipitating the country\ninto civil war by the election of President Lincoln (against whom it\nrevolted, as I shall show, when he had carried through to victory the\nterrible task it imposed upon him), after retarding the pacification\nof the Union for years by its policy of military \u201creconstruction\u201d at\nthe South, and after inflicting upon the taxpayers of the United States\nburdens undreamed of by the original \u201cWhigs\u201d in their most extravagant\ndays of \u201cpaternalism,\u201d has now finally come to the ground under the\ncandidacy of two of its most thoroughly representative leaders, Mr.\nBlaine and General Logan.\n\nThe chief spirit of the new \u201cRepublican\u201d party was Ex-Governor\nSeward, the leader of the Whigs of New York, a consummate politician,\n\u201chonest himself,\u201d as one of his special friends said of him, \u201cbut\nindifferent to honesty in others,\u201d who labored with uncommon skill\nand adroitness for six years to build the new organisation up into\nPresidential proportions, only to experience the common fate of such\nparty leaders in the United States, and to find himself set aside by\nhis own Republican Convention of 1860, at Chicago, in favor of the then\nrelatively obscure Western candidate Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois.\n\nThe old name \u201cRepublican\u201d used by the party of Jefferson was taken by\nthe new party for the express purpose of dissimulating, as far as might\nbe, its \u201cWhig\u201d parentage, and of thus recommending it to the widespread\nand growing anti-slavery element among the Democrats of the North\nand West. The Whig origin and tendencies of the new party, however,\nclearly appeared in the demand made in its first platform of 1856 for\n\u201cappropriations by Congress for the improvement of rivers and harbors.\u201d\nIt selected as its first Presidential candidate in 1856 Colonel John\nC. Fremont of California, an officer of the army who had married the\ndaughter of an eminent Democratic senator, Mr. Benton of Missouri, and\nwho had acquired a kind of romantic popular prestige as \u201cthe Pathfinder\nof the Rocky Mountains\u201d by an expedition across the continent. With him\nwas associated as Vice-Presidential candidate a man of more political\nweight and force, Mr. Dayton, a Whig leader, of New Jersey, who\nafterwards rendered the country distinguished services as Minister\nto France under President Lincoln. Mr. Buchanan of Pennsylvania was\nnominated by the Democrats to succeed President Pierce in 1856. In the\n\u201cplatform\u201d then adopted the Democratic party met the \u201cProtectionist\u201d\ntendency of the new \u201cRepublican\u201d organisation by declaring \u201cthat\njustice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to foster one\nbranch of industry to the detriment of another;\u201d denounced the attempt\nof the Whig \u201cKnow-Nothings\u201d to organise a crusade against Catholics\nand citizens of alien birth; and in the matter of slavery reaffirmed\n\u201cthe compromise of 1850,\u201d and committed itself to \u201cthe determined\nconservation of the Union and the non-interference of Congress with\nslavery in the territories or the district of Columbia.\u201d\n\nThe new \u201cRepublican party\u201d in its \u201cplatform\u201d of 1856, let me here\nobserve, raised no question touching slavery where slavery then\nexisted, but pronounced it to be \u201cboth the right and the imperative\nduty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of\nbarbarism, polygamy and slavery;\u201d this latter attack on the Mormons\nbeing a bid for votes at the West and an appeal to the religious\nprejudices of the East.\n\nA third remnant of the old \u201cWhigs,\u201d meeting in Baltimore in September\n1856, appealed to the country to beware of \u201cgeographical parties,\u201d\nadopted the nomination made by the Whig \u201cKnow-Nothings\u201d of Ex-President\nFillmore, and asserted that in Kansas \u201ccivil war\u201d was \u201craging,\u201d and\nthat the Union was \u201cin peril.\u201d The contest was conducted by the\nRepublicans at the North very much on the lines on which the first\nWhig victory of 1840 had been won\u2014by the organisation, that is, of\n\u201cPathfinder Clubs\u201d and processions, with brass bands, bonfires, and all\nthe paraphernalia of \u201cpolitics by picnic,\u201d and a large popular vote was\ncast for the Republican candidate. But Mr. Buchanan, nevertheless had a\nmajority of nearly 500,000 votes over Colonel Fremont at the polls in a\ntotal vote of about three millions, and he was elected President by\n174 votes in the Electoral College, eight votes being cast by Maryland\nfor Mr. Fillmore, and 114 votes being cast for Colonel Fremont, if the\nfive votes of Wisconsin were properly included in that number\u2014a very\ngrave question as to that point being raised by the undisputed fact\nthat the electoral votes of Wisconsin, which, under an obviously wise\nprecept of the Constitution, ought to have been cast on the same day\nwith the electoral votes of all the other States of the Union (December\n3, 1856), were not cast until the next day (December 4) because the\nelectors were prevented by a snowstorm from reaching the capital of the\nState in season to comply with the behest of the organic law.\n\nEvents moved rapidly after the election of President Buchanan. In spite\nof a great financial panic in 1857, the commerce of the United States,\nunder the salutary r\u00e9gime established by Democratic Secretaries of the\nTreasury, advanced beyond all former precedent. The net imports of the\nUnited States increased from 298,261,364 dollars in 1856, the year of\nMr. Buchanan\u2019s election, to 335,233,232 dollars in 1860, the last year\nof his administration, and the exports from 310,586,330 dollars in 1856\nto 373,189,274 dollars in 1860. The sea going tonnage of the Union\nran up to that of Great Britain;[4] and never had the country been so\nprosperous as during this period of Democratic ascendancy and relative\nfiscal freedom.\n\nBut while the managers of the new sectional Republican party worked\nnight and day to develop and consolidate their voting power at the\nNorth and West, and availed themselves skilfully of every exciting\nincident in the history of the day to fan the passions of the people\ninto flame, a sharp conflict was raging within the Democratic ranks\nbetween the Administration and the followers of Senator Douglas,\nwhich the leaders of the disunion movement at the South carefully and\nskilfully fomented, and which culminated in an open secession from the\nDemocratic National Convention at Charleston in April 1860.\n\nThe Convention was adjourned to meet at Baltimore in June. There\na second secession of Southern delegates occurred, followed by\nthe nomination for the Presidency of Senator Douglas. A few days\nlater the seceders, meeting in a Convention of their own, nominated\nVice-President Breckenridge of Kentucky. In the meantime on the 9th\nof May a convention of \u201cmoderate men\u201d of all shades of opinion had\nassembled in Baltimore, and nominated two eminent members of the\ndisbanded Whig party, Mr. Bell of Tennessee and Mr. Edward Everett\nof Massachusetts, for the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency; while\nthe now confident Republicans, gathered in Convention at Chicago on\nthe 16th of May, had selected not Ex-Governor Seward of New York, but\nAbraham Lincoln of Illinois, as their candidate.\n\nOf course, with such a prospect of success before them as the\nDemocratic disorganisation offered, the managers of this Convention\nof the Republicans adroitly threw all questions but the \u201cburning\nquestions\u201d of the hour as far as possible into the background of\ntheir operations. But while they declared themselves in favor of the\npreservation of \u201cthe Federal Constitution, the rights of the States,\nand the union of the States,\u201d they did not forget to record their\ndesire for such an \u201cadjustment\u201d of the \u201cduties on imports\u201d as \u201cshould\nencourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole\ncountry,\u201d under which rather vague phraseology lay concealed the\npurpose of organising a new tariff for protection\u2014a purpose which was\ncarried into effect by the Republicans at Washington as soon as the\nsubsequent secession from Congress of the Southern members made it\npracticable.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWith the first election of Abraham Lincoln in November 1860, and\nhis inauguration in March, 1861, we come upon a sudden and complete\n\u201csolution of continuity\u201d in the political history of the United States.\nOf the total popular vote of the country, amounting to 4,680,193,\nthrown on the 4th of November, 1860, Mr. Lincoln received but 1,866,452,\nbeing thus left in a popular minority of no fewer than _two million,\ntwo hundred and thirteen thousand, seven hundred and fifty-one votes_!\nIt is impossible in the face of these figures to doubt that if the\ntremendous issue of peace and war between the two great sections of\nthe Union, which really lay hidden in the ballot-boxes of the Union on\nthat November day, had been never so dimly perceived by the American\npeople, the verdict of the nation would have made an end that day of\nthe new \u201cRepublican,\u201d party. But neither Mr. Lincoln himself, nor\nMr. Seward, nor any considerable number of the Republican voters of\nthe North and the West believed, or could be made to believe, in the\nreality of this issue. It came upon them all and upon the country at\nlast, after all the agitation and all the warnings of years, like \u201ca\nthief in the night,\u201d and coming upon the country it suspended for four\nlong and dismal years the normal action of the constitution, and the\nnormal development therefore of public opinion through the channels of\nconstitutional politics.\n\nIt is juggling with phrases to say that from the 5th of March, 1861,\nto the 15th of April, 1865, Mr. Lincoln was, in any true sense of\nthe words, a President of the United States with a political party\nat his back. He was to all intents and purposes a war dictator of\nthe Northern and Western States, maintaining with all the resources\nof those sections of the country the fabric of the American Union\nagainst the armed and persistent efforts of thirteen sovereign States\nbanded together in a confederacy to make an end of its authority and\nits existence so far as concerned its relations with them and with\ntheir inhabitants. To this colossal task Mr. Lincoln brought, as I\nthink the most impartial critics of his administration in my own\nparty now admit, most rare and remarkable gifts of character and of\nmind. It has been not uncommon among those who, since his death, have\nconstituted themselves the special eulogists of this extraordinary man,\nto represent him as struggling from the first, not merely against the\nenormous difficulties arrayed in his path by the energy, and wealth,\nand determination of the seceding Confederacy, but against the ill-will\nand infidelity to his trust of the Democratic President whom Mr.\nLincoln was elected by the North and the West to succeed. This is not\nthe place for any vindication in this point of President Buchanan.\nHe has had no lack of critics within the ranks of my own party. But\nno man who was present during that fateful winter of 1860-61 in\nWashington, and who was really conversant with men and things there,\nwill need to be told that but for President Buchanan\u2019s fidelity to his\nconstitutional oath, and to the behest of the party which elected him\nin 1856 to \u201cuphold the Union,\u201d the Civil War would probably have begun\nin Washington itself before Mr. Lincoln set foot within the capital.\n\nOn the day of Mr. Lincoln\u2019s inauguration, a day never to be forgotten\nby any American who witnessed the scene, it was the presence by the\nside of Mr. Lincoln of his great Northern Democratic rival, Senator\nDouglas, which more than all the bayonets of the troops assembled\nfor the protection of Washington by General Scott, under orders from\nPresident Buchanan, convinced the most intelligent of the Southern men\nthat the Union was not to be dissolved like snow in the sunbeams, and\ngave all the weight of the Democratic masses of the North and West to\nthe new President\u2019s deliberate declaration that the forts and property\nof the United States would be \u201cheld and occupied\u201d by all the power of\nthe unseceded States.\n\nThe one member of Mr. Lincoln\u2019s Cabinet who from the beginning foresaw\nthe gravity of the impending contest, and who put the whole pressure\nof his personal influence upon the new President almost to the extent\nof compelling him into asserting his authority by force of arms, was\nnot the Whig who had organised the \u201cRepublican\u201d party, Mr. Seward,\nIt was Mr. Montgomery Blair, a \u201cDemocrat\u201d by training, the son of\nthe confidential adviser of President Jackson and the brother of a\nDemocratic general in the Union armies who was afterwards nominated\nfor the Vice-Presidency on the same ticket with Governor Seymour of\nNew York in 1868 by the Democratic party. Mr. Montgomery Blair himself\nleft Mr. Lincoln\u2019s Cabinet in July 1864, escaped the war made by the\n\u201cRepublican\u201d party under Sumner and Stevens upon the friends of\nPresident Lincoln, after the assassination of the President by a\nmelodramatic madman, and became a trusty ally of Governor Tilden of New\nYork, the Democratic candidate who was elected to the Presidency of the\nUnited States in 1876 by a popular majority of nearly 300,000 votes in\na total poll of a little over 8,000,000, and by a majority of one vote\nin the electoral colleges, only to be defrauded of his office by the\naudacious tampering of a cabal of Republican office-holders with the\nvotes of three Southern States.\n\nIt is not my purpose, and it would swell this paper beyond all\nreasonable limits, to sketch here, even in outline, the political\nannals of the quarter of a century which stretches now between the\nelection of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and the election of Governor\nCleveland in 1884. I may assume my readers to have a general knowledge\nof the main features of this period of American history. No intelligent\nman can be familiar even with the distorted and partial presentation\nof those features which has hitherto passed current on both sides of\nthe Atlantic, without asking himself what the magic virtue can be which\nhas carried the great Democratic party of the United States steadily\nonward through so many years of exclusion from executive power and such\nstorms of systematic obloquy, enabling it amid the passions of a fierce\nsectional conflict to retain such a popular support throughout the\nNorth and West as has persistently threatened the tenure of the Federal\nauthority by its all-powerful and never over-scrupulous opponents,\ngiving it again and again control of the popular branch of the Federal\nCongress, and commanding for it, as soon as the restoration of the\nUnion became in truth an accomplished fact, an unquestioned majority of\nthe suffrages of the American people.\n\nMy object has been to indicate the true answer to this question by\nsetting forth the foundations on which the Democratic party of the\nUnited States was planted by its great leaders in the very dawn of our\nnational history.\n\nNo man ever learned by practical experience of the responsibilities of\npower to appreciate the solidity of these foundations more thoroughly\nthan President Lincoln. A \u201cWhig\u201d by his early political affiliations\nand an active and successful politician in times of high party\nexcitement, President Lincoln was not a partisan by temperament,\nand nothing is more certain than that he came during his practical\nwar-dictatorship to very sound conclusions as to the essentially\nephemeral character of the political organisation which had lifted\nhim into that trying and dangerous post. He had no respect at all for\nprofessional \u201cphilanthropists,\u201d and not much for loudly \u201cphilanthropic\u201d\npoliticians. The abolitionist agitators of the North instinctively\ndisliked and distrusted him. The ablest of their number, Mr. Wendell\nPhillips, sneered at him as being not \u201chonest exactly, but Kentucky\nhonest.\u201d It was no confidence in President Lincoln, but the political\nnecessity of the moment, which compelled the extreme Anti-Democratic\nleaders of the Republican party to acquiesce in his renomination in\nNovember 1864, with a Democratic ex-Senator from the South, Andrew\nJohnson of Tennessee, as his associate on the Presidential ticket.\nOf this fact President Lincoln himself was well aware. Nor was he\nblind to the popular and political significance of that Presidential\nelection of 1864. In spite of all that could be done by an army of\nFederal office-holders larger than the armed force which Mr. Seward\nat the outset of the civil war had imagined would be adequate to\n\u201csuppress the rebellion;\u201d in spite of the combined influence of the\n\u201cRepublican\u201d local governments in the Northern and Western States;\nin spite of military force brought to bear openly upon the polls in\nregions undisturbed by war; in spite of the overshadowing fact that\nthe issues of the great civil war were still being fought out in the\nfield, the Democratic party of the North and West confronted the\nRepublican President at the polls in November 1864 with a popular vote\nof nearly two millions out of four millions cast in those sections of\nthe Republic! The exact figures show that General M\u2019Clellan, whose\npopularity with the Democratic party was based upon his fame as the\ncreator of the Union army of the Potomac and upon his expressed loyalty\nto the principles of the Constitution as the Democratic party holds\nthem, received, in November 1864, 1,802,237 votes in the North and\nWest, or within a few thousands of the 1,866,452 votes which were cast\nfor Mr. Lincoln himself in November 1860!\n\nPresident Lincoln had shrewd sense enough to see that as the\nmaintenance of the authority of the Union had only been made possible\nto him by the unswerving determination of the Northern and Western\nDemocratic party that the authority of the Union should be maintained\nunder the Constitution, so the restoration of peace within the Union\ncould only be achieved by accepting the Democratic construction of\nthe position and the rights of all the States in the Union under the\nConstitution, of the seceded as well as of the unseceded States; and he\nhad patriotism enough to resolve that peace should be restored within\nthe Union, no matter what became of the ephemeral \u201cRepublican\u201d party\nwhich had been called into existence and carried into power chiefly by\nthe force of the sectional passions which had found final expression in\nthe civil war. He had gone beyond the Constitution under the war power\nin abolishing slavery, and he knew that in abolishing slavery he had\nabolished the vital impulse to which the \u201cRepublican\u201d party owed its\nexistence. He knew too that the extreme \u201cRepublican\u201d partisans by whom\nhe was surrounded knew this as well as he, and he was thoroughly aware\nthat there were among them men like Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania,\nwho were prepared and determined if possible to keep the sectional\npassions which slavery had evoked alive and burning after slavery\nitself should have disappeared, and to organise for themselves a new\nlease of power at the expense of the peace of the country and of the\nhappiness and prosperity of millions of their fellow-countrymen.\n\nAt the beginning of the war President Lincoln had met the challenge\nthrown down to him by the Confederate War Department on the lines\nindicated by a great Democratic jurist, the late Judge Black of\nPennsylvania, in his \u201cOpinion upon the Powers of the President,\u201d\nprepared at the request of President Buchanan, in whose Cabinet Judge\nBlack had successively held the posts of Attorney-General and of\nSecretary of State.\n\n        If one of the States (wrote Judge Black) should\n      declare her independence, your action cannot depend\n      upon the rightfulness of the cause upon which such\n      declaration is based. Whether the retirement of a\n      State from the Union be the exercise of a right\n      reserved in the Constitution, or a revolutionary\n      movement, it is certain that you have not in either\n      case the authority to recognise her independence or\n      to absolve her from her Federal obligations. Congress\n      or the other States in Convention assembled must take\n      such measures as may be necessary and proper. In\n      such an event I can see no course for you but to go\n      straight onward in the path which you have hitherto\n      trodden\u2014that is, execute the laws to the extent\n      of the defensive means placed in your hands, and\n      act generally upon the assumption that the present\n      constitutional relations between the States and the\n      Federal Government continue to exist until a new\n      order of things shall be established either by law or\n      by force.\n\nThe seceding States attempted to establish \u201ca new order of things\nby force,\u201d and maintained that attempt for four years with such\nresolution, pertinacity, and courage as more than once brought them\nwithin what an eminent English statesman would perhaps call such a\n\u201cmeasurable distance\u201d of success as may well explain the conviction\nexpressed in England at one period of the struggle, that Jefferson\nDavis had \u201cestablished a nation.\u201d\n\nUpon the failure of the Confederate experiment, President Lincoln, in\nspite of the bitter and threatening hostility to him of a number of\nthe most conspicuous leaders of the Republican party in and out of\nCongress, wisely and consistently determined to adhere to the position\ninvolved in Judge Black\u2019s opinion that the constitutional relations\nbetween the States and the Federal Government could not be and had\nnot been shaken by the contest. After the Confederate Government had\nabandoned Richmond, he visited that capital as President of the United\nStates, and in words made pathetic and historical by the deplorable\nand senseless crime which was so soon to shock the country and the\ncivilised world, proclaimed his intention to administer the Government\n\u201cwith malice towards none, with charity for all.\u201d In his last public\nspeech, delivered on the 11th of April, 1865, two days only before his\nassassination, he spoke of the seceded States as already restored to\ntheir places in the Union, and said of them in his quaint and homely\nfashion that, \u201cfinding themselves safely at home, it would be\nutterly immaterial whether they had been abroad.\u201d Mr. Gideon Welles\nof Connecticut, to whom the portfolio of the Navy had been given\nby President Lincoln in his first Cabinet, as a representative of\nthe Democratic wing of the then newly-organized \u201cRepublican\u201d party,\ntells us that at a Cabinet meeting held on the last day of President\nLincoln\u2019s life, April 13, 1865, the President urged all the members of\nthe Cabinet to exert their influence to get all the State Governments\nof the lately seceded States of the South \u201cgoing again before the\nannual meeting of Congress in December.\u201d This meant, of course, that\nPresident Lincoln intended and expected the lately seceded States to\nsend to Washington their proper and constitutional quota of senators\nand representatives freely elected under the local franchise in each of\nthose States. His purpose was to secure the ratification by the seceded\nStates of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolishing\nslavery formally, and then to accept them as in all respects States\nwithin the Union. In the Emancipation Proclamation of the 22nd of\nSeptember, 1862, which President Lincoln had issued avowedly as a war\nmeasure, he had taken pains to declare that his object in prosecuting\nthe war as \u201cCommander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy\u201d of the United\nStates, was, had been, and would be, \u201cpractically to restore the\nconstitutional relation between the United States and each of the\nStates and the people thereof in which that relation was or might be\nsuspended.\u201d\n\nThis was not at all the object of the unscrupulous and reckless leaders\nwho took command of the \u201cRepublican\u201d party upon the death of President\nLincoln, and under whom Mr. Blaine first made a figure upon the field\nof Federal politics.\n\nA clear line will be drawn by the historian between the war\nadministration of the President who upheld the Union and the dismal\nepoch of Southern reconstruction which followed\u2014an epoch of\nunconstitutional Congressional despotism, mitigated only from time\nto time by the personal authority of General Grant. The story of the\nrelations of General Grant as President of the United States with the\nparty which found itself compelled to take advantage of his unbounded\npopularity as the surest means of retaining its grasp upon authority at\nWashington will one day constitute a most interesting and instructive\nchapter in the history of government, but it lies outside the scope\nof this paper. That General Grant would gladly have co-operated with\nPresident Lincoln in carrying out his plan of re-establishing the\nUnion on Democratic and constitutional lines may be inferred not only\nfrom the fact which he has stated, that the only vote he ever cast\nbefore the civil war was for a Democratic President, but from the more\nsignificant fact that he was so fully convinced of the readiness of\nthe Southern States to accept the results of the civil war in good\nfaith, that, immediately after the accession of President Johnson in\n1865, he urged upon the President the importance of throwing a combined\narmy of Union and of Confederate soldiers into Mexico for the purpose\nof expelling the French under Bazaine, and compelling Maximilian to\nabandon the hopeless attempt to found an empire in the land of the\nMontezumas which eventually cost that gallant but unfortunate prince\nhis life. President Johnson eagerly adopted General Grant\u2019s suggestion,\nbut the Secretary of State Mr. Seward, opposed it, and Mr. Seward\u2019s\nobjection was fatal. \u201cIt cost Maximilian his life,\u201d General Grant\ntells us, \u201cand gave Napoleon the Third five more years of power in\nFrance.\u201d He might have added that it cost the people of the Southern\nStates ten years of the most odious and corrupting mal-administration\nrecorded in modern history\u2014mal-administration which, but for the solid\npolitical capacity and the traditional common sense and patriotism of\nthe Americans of the Southern States, must have reduced the fairest\nportion of the North American continent to a social and industrial\nchaos without precedent in the annals of modern civilisation.\n\nThe evil influences of that dark epoch extended themselves in all\ndirections North and South, cropping out in organised official\npeculations, in shameless political dishonesty, in reckless\nspeculation, in monstrous lobbying, and in incredible excesses of\npublic extravagance, based upon such a system of inordinate and\nunconstitutional taxation as no American in his senses could have been\nbrought, before the outbreak of the civil war, to believe would ever\nfor a moment be tolerated by the American people.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt was to make an end of all this that the people of the United States\nin 1876 elected one Democratic Governor of New York to the Presidency.\nDefeated then of their will by the Republican agents of reconstruction,\nthe people of the United States had now at last in 1884 compelled\ntheir voice to be heard and to be respected. With the inauguration\nof Governor Cleveland in March 1885, the Federal Government of the\nUnited States will be once more organised upon the enduring Democratic\nfoundations of respect for Home Rule at the South and at the North, in\nthe East and in the West, and of a strict limitation of the functions\nof the Federal Government to the powers granted and prescribed to it by\nthe Constitution.\n\nIf I have done anything like justice in this necessarily hasty sketch\nto the origin and development of the Democratic party of the United\nStates, my readers will not need to be told that its advent to power at\nthis time opens a new and most important chapter in the annals of the\nAmerican Republic. It involves much, very much more than the transfer\nof executive power from one to another set of administrative officers.\n\nIt closes definitely an era of such political disease and corruption in\nthe United States as I have preferred rather to indicate than to dwell\nupon here. Work of that sort, in my judgment, may as well be confined\nto the domestic laundry. Quite enough of it has been done for the\nedification of mankind at large by certain of my countrymen who have\nhitherto found it more convenient to bewail the political profligacy of\nthose to whom \u201crespectable Republicans\u201d chose to surrender the control\nof the Republican party after the murder of President Lincoln \u201ccried\nhavoc and let slip the dogs of faction\u201d than to co-operate resolutely\nwith the great Democratic party in making the Union once more solid,\nand settling it upon its only possible foundations\u2014Home Rule and a\nstrict construction of the Constitution.\n\nIt is easy to draw dramatic pictures of the demoralisation of American\npolitics; but there is more significance surely for thoughtful men\nin the returns, which show that the candidacy of Mr. Blaine and Mr.\nLogan has cut down the plurality of the Republican party in \u201cmoral\u201d\nMassachusetts from more than fifty thousand to ten thousand votes; in\nIllinois, from over forty thousand to fifteen thousand; in Michigan,\nfrom more than fifty thousand to barely two thousand; in Ohio,\nfrom more than thirty thousand to eleven thousand. It has made the\nDemocratic Governor of New York President by an electoral majority of\n37 votes and a popular plurality of about 400,000 votes. Less is to be\nlearned of the deep and lasting currents of popular thought and feeling\nin the United States from an elaborate study of the absurd abominations\nof Republican \u201cReconstruction\u201d at the South than from the handwriting\nof fire on the polling-places of the Empire State which illuminated the\nBelshazzar\u2019s Feast of Mr. Blaine\u2019s \u201cmillionaires\u201d on the eve of the\nPresidential Election of 1884!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn a certain sense, President Cleveland will occupy a position\nnot unlike that of President Lincoln at the outset of his first\nPresidency. But the task of the Democratic chief magistrate who goes\nto Washington with a great historical party at his back, to restore\nthe well-understood metes and bounds of the Federal authority over\nthirty-eight free and independent States will be a less troublesome\nand in its immediate results ought to be an infinitely more benign\nand grateful task, than that of the reluctant war dictator who found\nhimself, against all his expectations, driven by angry sections, with\na mixed and undisciplined mob of placemen, of monopolists, and of\nphilanthropists behind him, into cutting with the sword the Gordian\nknot of slavery, at the risk of severing with it forever the golden\nbands of the Union, and those \u201cmystic chords of memory\u201d of which he\nspoke with such a wistful pathos in his inaugural address. Some points\nof resemblance may be found, too, between the personal histories of\nLincoln and of Cleveland. Like Mr. Lincoln, Governor Cleveland comes\nof an old American stock. His family name smacks of Yorkshire, and his\ndirect ancestors established themselves in Massachusetts nearly two\nhundred years ago. One of the family, a Cambridge man, and a clergyman\nof the Anglican Church, died at Philadelphia under the roof of his\nfriend Benjamin Franklin twenty years before the American Revolution.\nAnother, who sat in the Legislature of Connecticut, and who was a\nminister of the Independents, is remembered as an early advocate in\nthat \u201cland of steady habits\u201d of the abolition of African slavery, and\nthis at a time when the worthy citizens of Massachusetts thought it\nexpedient to keep the Bay State clear of negro blood by ordaining in\ntheir organic law that any African \u201cnot a subject of our faithful ally\nthe Emperor of Morocco\u201d who ventured twice across the Massachusetts\nborder should be on each occasion whipped, imprisoned and sent away,\nand that if this did not restrain his ardor, he should upon his third\nadvent be so dealt with as to put an effectual stop to his travels.\n\nRichard Cleveland, a grandson of the Connecticut abolitionist, married\nthe daughter of an Irish bookseller in Philadelphia, Miss Neale,\nand was the father of the new President of the United States. He\nwas settled as a Presbyterian minister in the New Jersey village of\nCaldwell, and there on the 18th of March, 1838, Grover Cleveland was\nborn. His father left New Jersey when he was but a child, and went in\nthe service of the religious body to which he belonged to live in New\nYork. The circumstances of the family were much better, I need not say,\nthan those amid which the youth of Lincoln, the son of an emigrant\nVirginian, was passed in the wilds of Kentucky and Southern Illinois.\nBut Grover Cleveland, like Lincoln, was early thrown upon his own\nresources. When he was a lad of sixteen his father died, and he was\nleft to conquer for himself the education he was determined to have,\nand to make his own way in the world with such small help as a brother\nand an uncle could afford him, both of them battling with life, and\nboth of them counting, not in vain, upon the young student\u2019s aid in the\nmaintenance of his widowed mother and her young family.\n\nHis twenty-first year found the future President admitted to the Bar\nin Buffalo, the chief city of Western New York. He distinguished\nhimself from the outset of his professional career by his indomitable\nindustry and his devotion to duty. These qualities soon secured for\nhim the honorable but laborious post of Assistant District Attorney.\nHe was not blinded by the glamor and glitter of the \u201cgreat Civil War\u201d\nto the rascalities of Reconstruction, but adopted the Democratic\nfaith in politics, though living in a strongly Republican city. In\n1870 he was elected Sheriff of Buffalo, and twelve years afterwards,\nhaving returned meanwhile to a successful practice at the Bar, the\nbest citizens of Buffalo of all parties rallied to his support as the\nDemocratic candidate for the Mayoralty, in a contest which curiously\nprefigured, on a smaller arena, the Presidential campaign of 1884.\nThe taxpayers of Buffalo had been systematically plundered by a\nRepublican \u201cmunicipal ring,\u201d just as the taxpayers of New York many\nyears ago were plundered by the Democratic municipal ring of Tweed\nand Sweeney, of which so much and such unscrupulous use has been made\nby Republican writers and speakers to vilify the Democratic party.\nIt has not usually occurred to these ingenious party trumpeters to\ninsist upon the fact that the \u201cTweed ring\u201d was broken and that its\nmembers were brought to chastisement mainly through the persistent\nefforts of two distinguished Democrats.\n\nOne of these was the late Charles O\u2019Conor, in his time the acknowledged\nleader of the American Bar, and a Democratic candidate for the\nPresidency in opposition to the headlong and absurd nomination of\nHorace Greeley, a life-long Whig Protectionist, into which a Democratic\nConvention allowed itself to be cajoled, despite the manly protest of\nsuch true Democratic leaders as Senator Bayard at Baltimore in 1872.\nThe other was Mr. Samuel J. Tilden, whose services against the Tweed\nring led first to his election by the Democratic party as Governor of\nNew York in 1874, and then to his election as President of the United\nStates in 1876, the year of the great electoral fraud.\n\nThe task which these distinguished Democrats assumed in New York Mr.\nCleveland took up in Buffalo, and carried through with such impartial\nenergy and courage that before the expiration of the first year of his\nterm of office as Mayor, he was invited by the Democrats of New York to\nenter upon the larger stewardship of the State executive. He had been\nchosen mayor of Buffalo in 1881, by a majority of 3,500 votes. He was\nchosen Governor of New York in 1882 by a majority of nearly 200,000 in\na total poll of 893,000 votes. His opponent was Mr. Folger, a leading\nRepublican, who had sat with distinction on the bench of the highest\nState Tribunal in New York, and who died the other day as Secretary\nof the Treasury in the Cabinet of President Arthur; and it is an open\nsecret that the tremendous overthrow of the Republican candidate was\npartially due to the machinations of the friends of Mr. Blaine who had\nbeen dropped for cause from the Cabinet of President Arthur with some\nemphasis in December of the preceding year. It was the calculation\nof Mr. Blaine that the defeat of the President\u2019s candidate in the\nPresident\u2019s own State of New York in 1882 would materially damage\nMr. Arthur\u2019s chances and strengthen his own of securing a Republican\nPresidential nomination at Chicago in 1884. It was a good calculation,\nbut whether the retrospect of the gubernatorial campaign of 1882 in New\nYork is as gratifying now to Mr. Blaine as it was two years ago may\nperhaps be doubted.\n\nAs Governor of New York, Mr. Cleveland has shown himself what he was\nas Mayor of Buffalo\u2014rigidly honest, indefatigable, simple in his\npersonal tastes and habits, disdainful of the silly state, and the\npetty parade of official importance into which too many public servants\nof the United States have suffered themselves to be seduced during the\nreign of King Mammon at Washington. It has been his custom to walk\nevery morning from the Executive Mansion to the Governor\u2019s Rooms in the\nCapitol at Albany, and to spend the day there, incessantly occupied,\nbut always visible to those who have had any real occasion to see\nhim. It will be a wholesome thing to see the Presidential office once\nmore administered in this unostentatious fashion. Mr. Cleveland may\nbe called a representative of the Young Democracy, since he will go\ninto the White House a bachelor, like the last Democratic President,\nMr. Buchanan, but a young bachelor, the youngest President indeed yet\nelected. In his fidelity to the traditions of Jefferson, who rode up\nto the Capitol on horseback to be inaugurated, \u201chitched his horse to\na post,\u201d took the oath and went about his business, Mr. Cleveland\nwill be supported by the new Vice-President\u2014ex-Governor Hendricks\nof Indiana, who represents the stanch and experienced Democratic\nleaders who have borne the brunt of the intense political warfare\nof the last quarter of a century with unwavering courage and signal\nability. As a representative in Congress, as a senator of the United\nStates, as Governor of the great Western State of Indiana, and as the\nDemocratic candidate for the Vice-Presidency on the same ticket with\nGovernor Tilden in 1876, Mr. Hendricks has linked his name with the\nbest traditions, and drawn to himself the general confidence of his\nparty. On the 6th of February, 1869, what is called a \u201cconcurrent\nresolution\u201d (which may be passed without requiring the assent of the\nPresident) was introduced into the Senate under the \u201cReconstruction\u201d\nlegislation of 1868, directing the President of the Senate to deal in\na particular manner with the vote of Georgia as \u201ca State lately in\nrebellion\u201d and to allow that electoral vote to be alluded to only if\nthe counting or omitting to count it would not effect the decision of\nthe election in favor of either candidate. The candidates were General\nGrant and Governor Seymour of New York. Mr. Hendricks, then a Senator\nfrom Indiana, sustained with memorable force and conviction the right\nof Georgia to her proper and unqualified voice in the election. One\nRepublican Senator alone voted against the \u201cconcurrent resolution,\u201d\nand that Senator, Mr. Trumbull of Illinois, is now a recognised leader\nof the Democratic party in the State which gave Abraham Lincoln to the\nPresidency. At the second election of Grant\u2014Horace Greeley having\ndied immediately after the choice of the electors\u2014most of the votes\ngiven against General Grant were given to Mr. Hendricks; and in the\nDemocratic Convention of 1876 Mr. Hendricks who was the second choice\nof a majority of the Convention after Governor Tilden, was eventually\nnominated, almost against his will, for the Vice-Presidency. He is\na man of fine presence and dignified manners, who will preside with\nability and tact over that Upper House of the national Legislature\nwhich stands as the fortress of Home Rule and State Rights, founded\nupon the ideal constituency of State sovereignty, and set more safely\nbeyond the reach of the gusts of popular passion than the hereditary\nprinciple in Europe.\n\nThe first duty of the President Elect will be the selection of his\nCabinet officers. Under the American system these officers do not sit\nin Congress, and, with the exception of the Secretary of the Treasury,\nthey are simply agents of the Executive. But it is customary to select\nthem from the most prominent and influential men of the party, and\nwith reference to the party strength in different sections of the\ncountry. To recite the names of the men, any one of whom would be\naccepted by public opinion in the United States as a fitting Cabinet\nMinister of the new President, would really be almost to call the\nroll of the Democratic Senators, now thirty-six in number out of a\nSenate of Seventy-six members, and of the Democratic Chairmen of\nCommittees in the House, which as newly elected will be Democratic by\na majority of between thirty and forty votes. The names of Mr. Bayard\nof Delaware, the leading candidate after Governor Cleveland at Chicago;\nMr. Thurman of Ohio, long the leading Democratic, with Senator Edmunds\nas the Republican, \u201claw lord\u201d of the Senate, and the author of an Act\nenforcing upon the great Pacific railway corporations their obligations\nto the Government, which it has been left for a Democratic Executive to\ncarry into effect; General McClellan; Mr. Pendleton of Ohio, to whom\nthe country chiefly owes whatever measure of reasonable Civil Service\nreform it enjoys; Mr. McDonald of Indiana, Mr. Lamar of Mississippi,\nMr. Hewitt and Mr. Kernan of New York, Mr. Garland of Arkansas, Mr.\nBeck of Kentucky, Mr. Palmer of Illinois, have been already discussed\nin the open councils of the party, and intelligent Americans of all\nopinions will admit that a Cabinet framed of such materials would\ndeserve and command universal confidence. There are many other active\nand experienced party men whom it might be troublesome to replace in\none or the other House of Congress, but there need be no fear that the\nnew President will be at a loss to find able counsellors to aid him in\ndischarging his great trust.\n\nThe policy of the new Administration is involved and indicated in the\ntraditions of the party. In our foreign relations the United States\nunder a Democratic President will ask nothing of Europe except a\ncordial maintenance of treaties, an extension of commercial relations\nunder equitable conditions, a full recognition of the accepted rules of\ninternational law, a sedulous exemption everywhere of the persons and\nproperty of American citizens from unnecessary annoyance by arbitrary\npower. The State Department under President Cleveland may be expected\nto be administered, not in the swash-bucklering and speculative fashion\nwhich the Republican supporters of Mr. Blaine extolled during the late\ncanvass as brilliant and enterprising, but in the self-respecting,\nself-contained, and dignified spirit which controlled our foreign\nrelations under ex-Governor Marcy of New York thirty years ago, and\nwhich so honorably distinguished the administration of the same\ndepartment under ex-Governor Fish of New York from that of sundry other\nhigh officers of State in the time of President Grant.\n\nUpon the Treasury Department will fall the responsibility of dealing\nwisely and firmly with the most important domestic issue inherent in\nthe resumption of executive power by the party of the Constitution.\nThis can hardly be more authoritatively stated than it was a fortnight\nago by the Vice-President Elect, Mr. Hendricks, in a speech delivered\nby him to the people at Indianapolis after the election:\u2014\n\n        The watchword of the party in this contest,\n      as in the contest of eight years ago, has been\n      reform\u2014executive, administrative, and revenue\n      reform; an honest construction of the laws, and\n      an honest administration of them. The revenue\n      now collected exceeds the wants of an economical\n      administration by $85,000,000. Because of this the\n      Democrats say: \u201cLet there be revenue reform; let\n      that reform consist in part in the reduction of\n      taxation.\u201d Is it not patent to every man that there\n      ought to be a reform here? The Democratic party\n      this year came before the country with a clear\n      and straightforward statement of the reform they\n      intended to accomplish. In the national platform they\n      declared that reform they would have. It was, first,\n      that the taxation shall not exceed the wants of the\n      Government economically administered; second, that\n      taxation shall be for public purposes alone, and not\n      for private gain or advantage; third, that in the\n      adjustment care shall be taken to neither hurt labor\n      nor harm capital; and fourth, that taxation shall\n      be heaviest on articles of luxury and lightest on\n      articles of necessity.\n\nFor now a quarter of a century the \u201cParty of Protection and Monopoly\u201d\nhas persistently transgressed the limits set to the Federal authority\nby the Constitution, and used the earnings of labor and of capital,\nin the form of excessive taxes, to fertilise and fatten private\nenterprises.\n\nThis must stop. And when this stops, the manufacturers of England and\nof Europe may make up their minds to meet the competing exports of the\nUnited States in all those markets of the world from which American\nexports have been excluded by American legislation ever since the\nWhig-Republicans of 1861 laid their grasp upon our fiscal policy. It\ncannot stop too soon. The official returns of the exports of the United\nStates show that during the fiscal year which ended on the 30th of June\n1884, the exports of domestic merchandise from the United States to\nall parts of the world fell off in value $79,258,780, as compared with\nthe exports for the year ending the 30th of June, 1883. Our exports of\nmachinery fell off nearly a million dollars; of general manufactures of\niron and steel more than a million and a quarter of dollars. There was\na good deal of gunpowder burned in the year 1883-4, but the value of\nour exports of it fell off a quarter of a million of dollars. The value\nof our exports of flax and hemp fell from $547,111 in 1882-3 to $67,725\nin 1883-4; our exports of agricultural implements declined during the\nlast year more than a million of dollars in value; our exports of\ncotton goods, colored and uncolored, more than twelve hundred thousand\ndollars. Clearly Protection does not develop the manufactures of the\nUnited States. It \u201cprotects\u201d the manufacturers (which is quite a\ndifferent thing) against and at the expense of the consumers of the\nUnited States, and gives point to the Duke of Somerset\u2019s assertion that\n\u201cin no country has the power of capital been more invidiously exerted\u201d\nthan in the United States. If our foreign manufacturing friends had any\nmoney to spend on American politics, they would have done well to throw\nit into one pool with the contributions of Mr. Blaine\u2019s two hundred\nmillionaires!\n\nAlexander Hamilton, the Federalist Secretary of the Treasury under\nWashington, was the first apostle of Protection in America, but\nin approaching the subject he \u201cwalked delicately,\u201d like Agag. The\nAmericans of 1789 established absolute free trade between all the\nsovereign States of the new Republic; nay more, during the negotiations\nfor peace at Versailles in 1783, the American Commissioners offered\nGreat Britain absolute free trade between the new States \u201cand all\nparts of the British dominions, saving only the rights of the British\nchartered companies.\u201d David Hartley, the philosophic writer on \u201cMan,\u201d\none of the British Commissioners, had wisdom enough to see the immense\nimportance of this offer, and urged the British Government to close\nwith it. Lord Shelburne, I believe, agreed with him. But the king\nperemptorily refused to entertain a proposition which, had it been\naccepted, must have changed the whole subsequent course of the history\nof the two countries.\n\nDown to 1809 no import duties were levied in the United States except\nfor purposes of revenue only. High rates of duty were levied in 1816\nafter the war of 1812, not for \u201cprotection,\u201d but in order to meet the\nexigencies of a most dangerous financial situation. In 1824, Henry\nClay, backed by New England and the middle States, carried through a\ntariff to \u201cprotect American industry.\u201d This was followed up by the\ntariff of 1828, known as the \u201cBill of Abominations.\u201d But the Democratic\nsense of the country clearly saw that as the power to levy protective\ntaxes must be derived from the revenue power it is of necessity\nincidental, and that as the incident cannot go beyond that to which it\nis incidental, Congress cannot constitutionally levy duties avowedly\nfor Protection; and the Democratic party has never since departed, and\nnever can depart, from this doctrine in its party action. In 1833,\nunder President Jackson, \u201cProtection\u201d went down with Nullification. In\n1846, under President Polk, the liberal Democratic tariff of Secretary\nWalker was framed, under which our exports increased from $99,299,766\nin 1845, to $196,689,718 in 1851, and our net imports from $101,907,734\nto $194,526,639. In 1856, under Democratic rule, our net imports\nwere $298,261,364, in specie value, and our exports $310,586,330.\nIn that year the Democratic Convention declared \u201cthe time has come\nfor the people of the United States to declare themselves in favor\nof progressive free trade throughout the world.\u201d Under Republican\nProtection, despite the development of the population, our net imports\nfell from $572,080,919 in 1874, to $455,407,836 in 1876, and our\nexports from $704,463,120 (mixed values, gold and inflated currency)\nto $655,463,969; and in 1876 the Democratic Convention declared, \u201cWe\ndemand that all Custom House taxation shall be only for revenue.\u201d Of\ncourse trade can never be said to be free excepting where, as in the\ninternal commerce of the United States, no tax is levied on trade; and\ntherefore so long as any revenue is raised by duties it is absurd, as\nSenator Sherman said in discussing the tariff question in 1867, to\ntalk of a \u201cfree trade tariff.\u201d But it cannot be denied that under the\nDemocratic Revenue Tariff of 1846 a revenue of at least $140,000,000\nwould easily now be raised, and Senator Sherman, in the speech to\nwhich I refer, admitted that \u201cthe wit of man could not possibly frame\na tariff\u201d which should produce that sum \u201cwithout amply protecting our\ndomestic industry.\u201d If this happens as an incident to raising such a\nrevenue, American manufacturers will do well to be thankful for it. Had\nthe monopolists succeeded in getting Mr. Blaine into the White House\nto thwart legislative reform of tariff taxation for four years more, a\nworse thing would have overtaken them. For it is unquestionable that\na spirit of resistance to protective monopolies is moving through the\ncountry, and especially through that nursery of empire, the great\nNorth-West, which will not much longer be denied. The Democratic\nConvention at Chicago wisely took note of this when it made Mr. Vilas\nof Wisconsin, one of the most eloquent and popular of North-Western\nDemocrats, permanent chairman of the body; and Mr. Vilas has stated\nthe purposes and the convictions of the North-West with plainness of\nspeech:\u2014\n\n        The tariff (he says) is a form of slavery not\n      less hateful because the whip is not exposed. No\n      free people can or will bear it. There is but one\n      course. The plan of protective robbery must be\n      utterly eradicated from every law for taxation. With\n      unflinching steadfastness, but moderately, without\n      destructive haste or violence, the firm demand of\n      freedom must be persistently pressed, until every\n      dollar levied in the name of Government goes to the\n      Treasury, and the vast millions now extorted for a\n      class are left in the pockets of the people who earn\n      the money. Resolute to defend the sacred rights of\n      property, we must be resolute to redress the flagrant\n      wrongs of property.\n\nThese are strong words. But they are only the echo from the land\nof the Great Lakes in 1884 of the liberal principles embodied by\nJefferson in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and sanctioned\nby the Constitution of the United States in 1789. Those principles\nare the life of the Democratic party. The Democratic party can only\nbe opposed by opposing those principles. It can only be crushed\nby crushing them; and it is their inextinguishable vitality which\nguarantees the permanence of our indissoluble Union of indestructible\nStates.\u2014_Nineteenth Century._\n\n\n\n\nRONSARD: ON THE CHOICE OF HIS TOMB.\n\n\n\u201c_Antres, et vous fontaines._\u201d\n\nBY J. P. M.\n\n    Ye caverns, and ye founts\n    That from these rocky mounts\n    Well forth, and fall below\n                With glassy flow;\n\n    Ye forests, and ye waves\n    Whose stream these meadows laves;\n    Ye banks and copses gay,\n                Hear ye my lay.\n\n    When Heaven and my last sun\n    Shall tell my race is run,\n    Snatched from the dwelling bright\n                Of common light;\n\n    No marble chiselled be,\n    That boastfulness may see\n    A grander pomp illume\n                My lowly tomb.\n\n    But may, in marble\u2019s stead,\n    Some tree with shading head\n    Uplift its leafy screen,\n                For ever green.\n\n    And from me, grant, O Earth!\n    An ivy plant its birth,\n    In close embraces bound\n                My body round:\n\n    And may enwreathing vine\n    To deck my tomb entwine,\n    That all around be made\n                A trellised shade.\n\n    Thither shall swains, each year,\n    On my feast-day draw near,\n    With lowing herds in view,\u2014\n                A rustic crew;\n\n    Who, hailing first the light\n    With Eucharistic rite,\n    Addressing thus the Isle,[5]\n                Shall sing, the while:\u2014\n\n    \u201c_How splendid is thy fame,\n   O tomb, to own the name\n   Of one, who fills with verse\n                The Universe!_\n\n    _\u201cWho never burned with fire\n    Of envious desire\n    For glorious Fate affords\n                To mighty lords;_\n\n    \u201c_Nor ever taught the use\n    Of love-compelling juice;\n    Nor ancient magic art\n                Did e\u2019er impart;_\n\n    \u201c_But gave our meads to see\n    The Sister Graces three\n    Dance o\u2019er the swarded plains\n                To his sweet strains._\n\n    \u201c_Because he made his lyre\n    Such soft accords respire,\n    As filled us and our place\n                With his own grace._\n\n    \u201c_May gentle manna fall,\n    For ever, on his pall;\n    And dews, exhaled in May,\n                At close of day._\n\n    \u201c_Be turf, and murmuring wave,\n    The fence around his grave:\n    Wave, ever flowing seen\u2014\n                Turf, ever green._\n\n    \u201c_And we, whose hearts so well\n    His noble fame can tell,\n    As unto Pan, will bear\n                Honors, each year._\u201d\n\n    So will that choir strike up;\n    Pouring from many a cup\n    A lamb\u2019s devoted blood,\n                With milky flood,\n\n    O\u2019er me, who then shall be\n    Of that High City free,\n    Where happy souls possess\n                Their blissfulness.\n\n    Hail hurtles not, nor there\n    Fall snow, in that mild air;\n    Nor thunder-stroke o\u2019erwhelms\n                Those hallowed realms:\n\n    But evermore is seen\n    To reign, unfading green;\n    And, ever blossoming,\n                The lovely Spring.\n\n    Nor there do they endure\n    The lusts that kings allure\n    Their ruined neighbors\u2019 State\n                To dominate:\n\n    Like brothers they abide;\n    And, though on earth they died,\n    Pursue the tasks they set\n                While living yet.\n\n    There, there, Alc\u00e6us\u2019 lyre\n    I\u2019ll hear, of wrathful fire;\n    And Sappho\u2019s chords, which fall\n                Sweeter than all.\n\n    How those blest souls, whose ear\n    Shall strains so chanted hear,\n    In gladness must abound\n                At that sweet sound;\n\n    When Sisyphus the shock\n    Forgetteth, of his rock;\n    And Tantalus by thirst\n                Is no more curst!\n\n    The sole delicious Lyre\n    Fulfils the heart\u2019s desire;\n    And charms, with joy intense,\n                The listening sense.\n                               \u2014_Blackwood\u2019s Magazine._\n\n\n\n\nW\u00dcRZBURG AND VIENNA: SCRAPS FROM A DIARY.\n\n\nBY EMILE DE LAVELEYE.\n\n\nII.\n\nI arrive at Vienna at 10 o\u2019clock and alight at the \u201cM\u00fcnsch\u201d hotel,\na very old-established one, and very preferable, in my opinion, to\nthose gigantic and sumptuous \u201cRing\u201d establishments where one is a mere\nnumber. I find awaiting me a letter from the Baron de Neumann, my\ncolleague of the University of Vienna, and a member of the _Institut de\nDroit International_. He informs me that the Minister Taaffe will await\nme at 11 o\u2019clock, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, M. de K\u00e1lnoky,\nat 3 P. M. It is always well to make the acquaintance of\nMinisters when visiting foreign countries. It is the means of obtaining\nthe key to doors generally closed, to consulting documents otherwise\ninaccessible, and to getting out of prison if by mistake you happen to\nbe one day thrown therein.\n\nThe Home Office is a sombre-looking palace, situated in the\nJudenplatz, a dark and narrow street in old Vienna; the apartments\nare spacious, correct but bare; the furniture severe, simple but\npure eighteenth century style. It resembles the abode of an ancient\nfamily who must live carefully to keep out of debt. How different to\nthe Government Offices in Paris, where luxury is displayed everywhere\nin gilt panellings, Lyons velvets, painted ceilings and magnificent\nstaircases\u2014as, for instance, at the Financial and Foreign Offices. I\nprefer the simplicity of the official buildings of Vienna and Berlin.\nThe State ought not to set an example of prodigality. The Comte Taaffe\nis in evening dress, as he is going to a conference with the Emperor.\nHe, nevertheless, receives my letter of introduction from one of\nhis cousins most amiably, and also the little note I bring him from\nmy friend Neumann, who was his professor of public law. The present\npolicy of the Prime Minister, which gives satisfaction to the Tscheks\nand irritates the Germans so much, is not unjustifiable. He reasons\nthus:\u2014What is the best means to ensure the comfort and contentment of\nseveral persons living together in the same house? Is it not to leave\nthem perfectly free to regulate their lives just as they think well?\nForce them to live all in the same way to take their meals and amuse\nthemselves together, and they will be certain, very shortly, to quarrel\nand separate. How is it that the Italians of the Canton of Tesino never\nthink of uniting with Italy? Because they are perfectly satisfied\nto belong to Switzerland. Remember that Austria\u2019s motto is _Viribus\nunitis_. True union would be born of general contentment. The sure way\nto satisfy all is to sacrifice the rights of none. \u201cYes,\u201d I said, \u201cif\nunity could be made to spring from liberty and autonomy it would be\nindestructible.\u201d\n\nCount Taaffe has long been in favor of federalism. Under the\nTaaffe-Poto\u00e7ki Ministry, in 1869, he had sketched a plan of reforms\nwith the object of extending the sway of provincial governments.[6] In\nsome articles in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, in 1868-9 I tried to show\nthat this was the best solution of the question. Count Taaffe is still\nyoung; he was born in 1833, Feb. 24. He is descended from an Irish\nfamily and is a peer of that country, with the title of Viscount Taaffe\nof Correw and Baron of Ballymote; but his ancestors left their home and\nlost their Irish estates on account of their attachment to the Stuarts.\nThey took service, then, under the Dukes of Lorraine, and one of them\ndistinguished himself at the siege of Vienna in 1683. Count Edward,\nthe present Minister, was born at Prague. His father was President of\nthe Supreme Court of Justice. He himself commenced his career in the\nHungarian Administration under the Baron Bach, who, seeing his great\naptitudes and his perseverance, procured him rapid advancement. Taaffe\nbecame successively Vice-Governor of Bohemia, Governor of Salzburg,\nand finally Governor of Upper Austria. Called to the Ministry of the\nInterior in 1867, he signed the famous \u201cAusgleich\u201d of December 21,\nwhich forms the basis of the present Dual Empire. After the fall of the\nMinistry, he was appointed Governor of the Tyrol, and held that post to\ngeneral satisfaction for a space of seven years. On his return to power\nhe again took up the portfolio of the Interior, and was also appointed\nPresident of the Council. He continued to pursue his federalist policy,\nbut with more success than in 1869. The concessions he makes to the\nTscheks are a subject of both grief and wonder in Vienna. It is said\nthat he does it to secure their votes for the revision of the law of\nprimary education in favor of reactionary clericalism. Those who are\nof this opinion must forget that he has clearly shown his leaning to\nfederalism for more than sixteen years.\n\nWhat is more astonishing is the contradiction between Austria\u2019s home\nand foreign policy. At home the Slav movement is encouraged. All is\nconceded to it, with the exception of the re-establishment of the\nrealm of St. Wenceslas, the road to which is, however, being prepared.\nAbroad, on the contrary, and especially beyond the Danube, this\nmovement is opposed and suppressed as much as possible, even at the\nrisk of dangerously increasing Russia\u2019s influence and popularity. This\ncontradiction may be explained after this wise. The \u201cCommon\u201d Ministry\nof the Empire is entirely independent of the Ministry of Cis-Leithania.\nThis \u201cCommon\u201d Ministry, presided over by the Chancellor, is composed\nof three Ministers\u2014viz., those of Foreign Affairs, Finances, and War;\nit alone settles foreign policy, and the Hungarian element is dominant\nhere. Count Taaffe\u2019s principal residence is at Ellisham in Bohemia.\n\u201cBailli\u201d of the Order of Malta, he possesses the Golden Fleece. He is,\nin fact, in every respect, an important personage. In 1860 he married\nthe Countess Irma de Czaky of Keresztszegk, by whom he has had a son\nand five daughters. He has, thus, one foot in Bohemia and the other in\nHungary. All unanimously admit his extraordinary aptitudes, his\nindefatigable energy, and his clever administration; but in Vienna they\ncomplain that he is too aristocratic, and has too great a weakness for\nthe clergy. Probably a statue as high as the Hradsin Cathedral will\nbe raised in his honor at Prague, if he persuades the Emperor to be\ncrowned there.\n\nAt three o\u2019clock I proceeded to see Count K\u00e1lnoky at the Foreign Office\nin the Ballplatz. It is very well situated, near to the Imperial\nresidence, in a wide street, and in sight of the Ring. Large reception\nrooms, solemn-looking and cold; gilded chairs and white and gold\npanellings, red curtains, polished floorings, and no carpets. On the\nwalls, portraits of the Imperial family. While waiting to be announced,\nI think of Metternich. It was here he resided. In 1812 Austria decided\nthe fall of Napoleon. Now, again, she holds in her hands the destinies\nof Europe; for the balance changes as she moves towards the north,\nthe east, or the west; and I am about to see the Minister who directs\nher foreign policy. I expected to find myself in the presence of an\nimposing-looking person, with white hair, and very stiff; so I was\nagreeably surprised on being most affably received by a man of about\nforty, dressed in a brown morning suit, with a blue cravat. An open\nand very pleasing expression, and eyes brimming over with wit. All\nthe K\u00e1lnoky family have this particularity, it appears. He possesses\nthe quiet, refined, yet simple and modest distinction of manner of an\nEnglish nobleman. Like many Austrians of the upper class, he speaks\nFrench like a Parisian. I think this is due to their speaking six or\nseven languages equally well, so that the particular accent of each\nbecomes neutralized. The English and the Germans, even when they know\nFrench thoroughly, have still a foreign accent when speaking it; not\nso the Austrians. Count K\u00e1lnoky asks what are my plans for my journey.\nWhen he hears that I intend studying the question of the Eastern\nrailways, he says:\n\n\u201cThat is our great preoccupation at the present moment. In the West\nthey pretend that we are anxious for conquest. This is absurd. It\nwould be very difficult for us to make any which would satisfy the two\nparties in the Empire, and it is in fact greatly to our interest that\npeace should be maintained. But we are dreaming of different sorts of\nconquests, which, as an economist, you can but approve. I speak of\nconquests we are desirous of making for our industries, trade, and\ncivilization. For this to be possible, we want railways in Servia,\nBulgaria, Bosnia, and Macedonia; and, above all, a connection with the\nOttoman lines. Engineers and diplomatists are already at work, and\nwill soon succeed, I hope. I do not think any one will complain or\nthrow blame on us when a Pullman car takes him comfortably from Paris\nto Constantinople in three days. We are working for the benefit of the\nWestern world.\u201d\n\nIt has been said that speech was given to diplomatists to conceal\ntheir thoughts. I believe, though, that when Austrian statesmen deny\nany ideas of conquest and annexation in the East, they are expressing\nthe true intentions of the Imperial Government. The late Chancellor de\nHaymerl\u00e9 expressed similar opinions when I saw him in Rome in 1879, and\nin a letter which I received from him shortly before his death. Baron\nHaymerl\u00e9 was better acquainted with the East and the Balkan Peninsula\nthan any one. He had lived there many years, first as dragoman of the\nAustrian Embassy, and afterwards as a Government envoy, and he was a\nperfect master of all the different languages of the East.\n\nThe present Chancellor, Count K\u00e1lnoky, of K\u00f6rospatak, is of Hungarian\norigin, as his name indicates; but he was born at Littowitz, in\nMoravia, December 29, 1832. Most of his landed estates are in that\nprovince, amongst others Pr\u00f6dlitz, Ottaslawitz and Szabatta. He has\nseveral brothers, and a very lovely sister who has been twice married,\nfirst to Count Jean Waldstein, the widower of a Zichy, who was already\n62 years of age, and, secondly, to the Duke of Sabran. Chancellor\nK\u00e1lnoky\u2019s career has been very extraordinary. He left the army in 1879,\nwith the grade of Colonel, and took up diplomacy. He obtained a post\nat Copenhagen, where he appeared destined to play a very insignificant\npart in political affairs. Shortly after, however, he was appointed to\nSt. Petersburg, the most important of all diplomatic posts, and, on\nthe death of Haymerl\u00e9, he was called to Vienna as Foreign Minister,\nand thus in three years he advanced from the position of a cavalry\nofficer, brilliant and elegant it is true, but with no political\ninfluence, to be the arbiter of the destinies of the Austrian Empire,\nand consequently of those of Europe. How may this marvellously rapid\nadvancement, reminding one of the tales of the Grand Viziers in the\n\u201cArabian Nights,\u201d be accounted for? It is generally considered to\nbe due to Andrassy\u2019s friendship. But the real truth is very little\nknown. Count K\u00e1lnoky is even cleverer as a writer than as speaker.\nHis despatches from foreign Courts were really finished models. The\nEmperor, a most indefatigable and conscientious worker, reads all the\ndespatches from the Ambassadors, and was much struck with those from\nSt. Petersburg, noting K\u00e1lnoky as destined to fill high functions\nin the State. At St. Petersburg he charmed every one by his wit and\namiability, and in spite of the distrust felt for his country became\n_persona grata_ at the Court there. When he became Chancellor, the\nEmperor gave him the rank of Major-General.\n\nIt was thought in the beginning that his friendship for Russia might\nlead him to come to terms with that Power, and perhaps also with\nFrance, and to break off the alliance with Germany; but K\u00e1lnoky does\nnot forget that he is Hungarian and the friend of Andrassy, and that\nthe pivot of Hungarian policy, since 1866, has been a close alliance\nwith Berlin. In the summer of 1883 the German papers more than once\nexpressed vague doubts as to Austria\u2019s fidelity, and public opinion at\nVienna, and more especially as Pesth, was rather astir on the subject.\nK\u00e1lnoky\u2019s visit to Gastein, where the Emperor Wilhelm showed him\nevery mark of affection, and his interview with M. de Bismarck, where\neverything was satisfactorily explained, completely silenced these\nrumors. At the present, the young Minister\u2019s position is exceedingly\nsecure. He enjoys the Emperor\u2019s full confidence, and, apparently, that\nof the nation also, for, in the last session of the Trans-and\nCis-Leithanian Delegations he was acclaimed by all parties, even by\nthe Tscheks who are just now dominant in Cis-Leithania. Count K\u00e1lnoky\nis hitherto unmarried, which fact, it is said, renders Vienna mothers\ndespairing and husbands uneasy.\n\nI pass my evenings at the Salm-Lichtensteins\u2019. I had already the\npleasure of making the acquaintance of the Altgr\u00e4fin in Florence,\nand I am very glad to have an opportunity of meeting her husband, a\nmember of Parliament very deeply interested in the Tscheko-German\nquestion. He belongs to the Austrian Liberal party, and severely\nblames Taaffe\u2019s policy, and the alliance that the Feudal party,\nand especially members of his own and of his wife\u2019s families, have\nconcluded with the ultra-Tscheks. \u201cTheir aim is,\u201d he says, \u201cto obtain\nthe same situation for Bohemia as for Hungary. The Emperor would go to\nPrague to receive the crown of St. Wenceslas. An autonomous government\nwould be re-established in Bohemia under the direction of a Diet,\nas in Hungary. The Empire would become triune instead of dual. Save\nfor questions common to all, the three States would be independent\nof each other, united only in the person of the Sovereign. Such an\narrangement answered admirably in the Middle Ages, when it was usual;\nbut at the present day, when we are surrounded on all sides by great\nunited Powers, as France, Russia, Prussia and Italy, it is senseless\nto advocate it. I admit of federation for small neutral States like\nSwitzerland, or for a large country embracing an entire Continent,\nlike the United States; but I consider that for Austria, situated, as\nshe is, in the heart of Europe, exposed on all sides to complications\nand to the greed and envyings of her many neighbors, it would be\nabsolute perdition. My good friends of the Feudal party, supported by\nthe clergy, hope that when autonomy is established in Bohemia, and the\ncountry is completely withdrawn from the influence of the Liberals of\nthe Central Parliament, they themselves will be the masters there, and\nthe former order of things will be reset on foot. I think they make a\nvery great mistake. I believe that when the Tscheks have attained the\nend they have in view, they will turn against their present allies.\nThey are at heart all democrats, varying in shade from pale pink to\nbright scarlet; but all will band together against the aristocracy and\nthe clergy, and will make common cause with the German population of\nour towns, who are almost all Liberals. The country inhabitants would\nalso in a great measure join them, and thus the aristocracy and the\nclergy would be inevitably vanquished. If necessary the ultra-Tscheks\nwould call up the memories of John Huss and of Ziska, to ensure the\ntriumph of their party.\n\n\u201cStrange to say,\u201d he continues, \u201cthe majority of the old families\nheading the national movement in Bohemia are of German origin, and\ndo not even speak the language they wish to be made official. The\nHapsburg dynasty, our capital, our civilization, the initiative and\npersistent perseverance to which Austria owes its creation\u2014are not\nall these Germanic? In Hungary, German, the language of our Emperor,\nis forbidden; it is excluded also in Gallicia, in Croatia, and will\nsoon be so also in Carinthia, in Transylvania, and in Bohemia. The\npresent policy is perilous in every respect. It is deeply wounding to\nthe German element, which is nothing less than the enlightened classes,\ncommerce, money\u2014the power, in fact, of modern times. If autonomy\nis established in Bohemia, it will deliver over the clergy and the\naristocracy to the Tschek democrats and Hussites.\u201d\n\n\u201cAll that you say,\u201d I answer, \u201cis perfectly clear. I can offer but\none objection, which is: that from time to time in the affairs of\nhumanity certain irresistible currents are to be met with. They are so\nirresistible that nothing subdues them, and any impediment in their way\nmerely serves to increase their force. The nationality movement is one\nof these. See what a prodigious reawakening! One might almost compare\nit to the resurrection of the dead. Idioms buried hitherto in darkness\nspring forth into light and glory. What was the German language in the\neighteenth century, when Frederick boasted that he ignored it, and\nprided himself on writing French as perfectly as Voltaire? True, it was\nLuther\u2019s language; yet it was not spoken by the upper and educated\nclasses. Forty years ago, what was the Hungarian tongue? The despised\ndialect of the pastors of the Puzta. German was the only language\nspoken in good society and in Government offices, and, at the Diet,\nLatin. At the present day the Magyar dialect is the language of the\npress, of the parliament, of the theatre, of science, of academies,\nof the university, of poetry, and of fiction; henceforth the\nrecognized and exclusive official language, it is imposed even upon\nthe inhabitants of Croatia or Transylvania, who have no wish for it.\nTschek is gradually securing for itself the same place in Bohemia as\nMagyar had attained in Hungary. A similar phenomenon is taking place\nin Croatia, the dialect there, formerly merely a popular _patois_, now\npossesses a university at Agram, poets and philologists, a national\npress, and a theatre. The Servian tongue, which is merely Croatian\nwritten in Cyrillic characters, has become the official, literary,\nparliamentary, and scientific language of Servia. It is in precisely\nthe same position as its elder brothers, French and German, in their\nrespective countries. It is the same for the Bulgarian idiom in\nBulgaria and Roumelia, for the Romanian in Romania, for Polish in\nGalicia, for Finn in Finland, and soon also in Flanders, where, as\nelsewhere, the literary reawakening precedes political claims. With a\nconstitutional government, the nationality party is sure to triumph,\nbecause there is a constant struggle between the political opponents\nas to which shall make the most concessions in order to secure votes\nfor themselves. This has been also the case in Ireland. Tell me, do\nyou think it possible that any Government would be able to suppress so\ndeeply grounded, so universal a movement, whose root is in the very\nheart of long-enslaved races, and which must fatally develop as what\nis called modern civilization progresses? What is to be done, then, to\nquell this irresistible pressing forward of races all claiming their\nplace in the sunshine? Centralize and compress them, as Schmerl\u00edng and\nBach tried to do? It is too late for that now. The only thing is to\nmake compromises with these divers nationalities, as Count Taaffe is\ntrying to do, being careful, at the same time, to protect the rights\nof the minority.\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d answers the Altgraf, \u201cin Bohemia we Germans are in a minority,\nthe Tscheks could crush us mercilessly\u00b7\u201d\n\nThe following day I called on M. de V., an influential Conservative\nmember of Parliament. He appears to me even more distressed than\nCount Salm.\n\n\u201cAn Austrian of the old school, a sincere black and yellow, I am,\nand even, says M. de V., what you call in your extraordinary Liberal\njargon, a Reactionist. My attachment to the Imperial family is\nabsolute, as being the common centre of all parties in the State.\nI am attached to Count Taaffe, because he is the representative of\nConservative principles; but I deplore his federalistic policy, which,\nif pursued, will certainly lead to the disintegration of the Empire.\nMy audacity even goes so far as to declare that Metternich was a\nclever man. Our good friends, the Italians, reproached him with having\nsaid that Italy is a mere geographical expression. But of our empire,\nwhich he made so powerful, and, on the whole, so happy, not even that\nwill be left, if this system of chopping it into pieces be followed\nmuch longer. It will become a kaleidoscope instead of a State, a mere\ncollection of dissolving views. Do you recollect Dante\u2019s lines?\n\n    \u2018Quivi sospiri, pianti ed alti guai\n    Risonavan per l\u2019aer senza stelle.\n    Diverse lingue, orribile favelle,\n    Parole di dolore, accenti d\u2019ira,\n    Voci alte e fioche, e suon di man con elle.\u2019\n\n\u201cThis is the state of things that is being prepared for us. You would\nhardly, perhaps, believe that this mania is now so violently raging\nthat the Germans in Bohemia, dreading the future power of the Tscheks,\nhave requested autonomy for that portion of the country where they are\nin a majority. On the other hand the Tscheks would never suffer the\ndivision of their realm of St. Wenceslas, so this is another cause of\nquarrel. This struggle of races is but a return to barbarous ages. You\nare a Belgian and I an Austrian; could we not therefore agree to manage\na business or direct an institution together?\u201d \u201cOf course,\u201d I\nreply. \u201cWhen a certain degree of culture is attained, the important\npoint is conformity of feeling rather than a common language, but\nat the outset, language is the means of arriving at intellectual\nculture. The motto of one of our Flemish societies affirms this\nmost energetically: _De taal is het volk_ (\u2018Language is everything\nfor a people\u2019). In my opinion, reason and virtue are the important\npoints, but without language and letters there can be no progress in\ncivilization.\u201d\n\nI take note of a curious little incident, which shows how exceedingly\nbitter this animosity of races has become. The Tscheks of Vienna, who\nnumber about 30,000 requested a grant from the town council to assist\nthem to found a school, where the instruction would be given in their\nlanguage. The Rector of the University of that city spoke in favor\nof this request at the meeting of the council. The students of the\nTschek University of Prague, apprised of this, forwarded him a vote\nof thanks; but in what language? Not in Tschek, the Rector would not\nhave understood a word; nor in German the language of the oppressors;\nin French, as being a foreign idiom and neutral everywhere. The\nvote\u2014certainly very justifiable\u2014of the Rector in favor of a Tschek\nschool in Vienna, was so highly disapproved of by his colleagues that\nhe was forced to resign his post.\n\nI go next to see Baron von Neumann, one of the pillars of our Institute\nof International Law. Besides his vast legal knowledge he possesses\nthe precious faculty of speaking all European languages with equal\nfacility, and has also at his disposal a treasure of quotations\nfrom the most varied literature. In the different towns in which\nthe Institute has met, he has replied to the authorities appointed\nto receive us in their own language, and generally as fluently as a\nnative. Baron Neumann takes me to the University of which he is one\nof the chief ornaments. It is situated quite near the Cathedral,\nand is a very ancient building, which will shortly be abandoned for\nthe sumptuous edifice in course of construction on the Ring. I am\nintroduced to Professor Lorenz von Stein, author of the best work that\nhas ever been written on Socialism, \u201cDer Socialismus in Frankreich,\u201d\nand also several works on public law and political economy, which are\nvery highly considered in Germany. I am also very pleased to make the\nacquaintance of my youthful colleague M. Schleinitz, who has just\npublished an important work on the development of landed property.\nBaron Neumann transmits me a letter from Baron K\u00e1llay, the Financial\nMinister, appointing an interview with me before I leave; but I see\nfirst M. de Serres, the director of the Austrian railways, who will be\nable to give me some details as to the connection between the Hungarian\nand Servian and the Ottoman lines: a question of the very first\nimportance for the future of the East, and which I have promised myself\nto study.\n\nThe Austrian Railway Companies\u2019 offices are in a palace on the Place\nSchwarzenberg, the finest part of the Ring. Their interior arrangements\nare quite in keeping with the outside appearance. Immense white marble\nstaircases, spacious and comfortable offices, and the furniture in\nthe reception-rooms all velvet and gold. What a contrast between this\nmodern luxury and the simplicity of the Ministerial offices! It is\nthe symbol of a serious economic revolution. Industry takes priority\nof politics. M. de Serres spreads out a map of the railway system on\nthe table. \u201cSee,\u201d he says, \u201cthis is the direct line from Pesth to\nBelgrade; it crosses the Danube at Peterwardein and the Save at Semlin;\nit was necessary therefore to construct two immense bridges, the\npiles of which have been constructed by the Fives-Lille Company. The\nBelgrade-Nisch section will be very soon inaugurated. At Nisch there\nwill be a bifurcation of two lines, one continues to Sofia and the\nother, branching off, joins the Salonica-Nitrovitza branch at Uskub or\nat Varosch. The line is to run along the Upper Morava by Lescovatz and\nVraina. The latter town can then be easily connected with Varosch on\nthe Salonica line, the distance between these two places being quite\ntrifling. This branch line, which will be quickly terminated, is of\ncapital importance. It will be the nearest route to Athens, and even to\nEgypt and the extreme East; and will ultimately, in all probability,\nbeat not only Marseilles but Brindisi. The other section of the line,\nfrom Nisch to Sofia and Constantinople, presents great difficulties.\nIn the first place, the Pass through which the Nischava flows before\nreaching Pirot is so wild, narrow, and savage, as to challenge the\nskill of our engineers. Then, after leaving Pirot, the line must rise\nover some of the last heights of the Balkans to reach the plain of\nSofia; the rocks here, too, are very bad. Beyond, on the high plateau,\nthere will be no difficulty, and a line was half completed by the\nTurks ten years ago, between Sofia and Sarambay (the terminus of their\nsystem); fifteen or sixteen months would suffice to finish it. To be\nbrief, this year we shall be able to go by rail all through Servia\nas far as Nisch. A year later, if no time be lost, we shall reach\nSalonica, and, two years afterwards, Constantinople.\u201d\n\nI thanked M. de Serres for all these interesting details. \u201cThe\ncompletion of these lines,\u201d I said, \u201cwill be an event of capital\ninterest for the Eastern world. It will be the signal for an economic\ntransformation far otherwise important than political combinations, and\nwill hasten the accomplishment of an inevitable result\u2014the development\nand the supremacy of the dominant races. Your Austrian railways and\nHungary will be the first to benefit, but very soon the whole of Europe\nwill share the advantages which will accrue from the civilization of\nthe Balkan peninsula.\u201d\n\nI call after this on Baron K\u00e1llay. I am very pleased to have an\nopportunity of seeing him, for I am told on all sides that he is\none of the most distinguished statesmen of the empire. He is a pure\nMagyar, descended from one of Arpad\u2019s companions, who came to Hungary\ntowards the close of the ninth century. They must have been a careful\nand thrifty family, for they have been successful in retaining their\nfortune, an excellent precedent for a Financial Minister! When quite\nyoung, K\u00e1llay displayed an extraordinary taste for learning, and he was\nanxious to know everything; he worked very hard at the Slav and Eastern\nlanguages, and translated Stuart Mill\u2019s \u201cLiberty\u201d into Magyar, and for\nhis literary labor he obtained the honor of being nominated a member of\nthe Hungarian Academy.\n\nHaving failed to be elected deputy in 1866, he was appointed\nConsul-General at Belgrade, which post he held for eight years. This\nperiod was not lost to science, for he spent it in collecting matter\nfor a history of Servia. In 1874 he was elected deputy in the Hungarian\nDiet and took his place on the Conservative benches, now the Moderate\nLeft. He started a newspaper, the _Kelet Nepe_ (The People of the\nEast), in which he depicted the part Hungary ought to play in Eastern\nEurope.\n\nIt will be remembered that when the Turko-Prussian war broke out,\nfollowed by the occupation of Bosnia in 1876, the Magyars were most\nvehement in their manifestations of sympathy with the Turks, and\nthe opposition was most violent in attacking the occupation. The\nHungarians were so bitterly hostile to this movement, because they\nthought it would be productive of an increase in the number of the Slav\ninhabitants in the Empire. Even the Government party was so convinced\nof the unpopularity of Andrassy\u2019s policy that they durst not openly\nsupport it. Just at this time, K\u00e1llay took upon himself to defend it\nin the House. He told his party that it was senseless to favor the\nTurkish cause. He proved clearly that the occupation of Bosnia was a\nnecessity, even from a Hungarian point of view; because this State\nforms a corner separating Servia from Montenegro, and thus being in the\nhands of Austria-Hungary, prevents the formation of an important Slave\nState which might exercise an irresistible attraction on the Croatians,\nwho are of the same race and speak the same language. He explained\nhis favorite projects, and spoke of the commercial and civilizing\nmission of Hungary in the East. This attitude of a man who knew the\nBalkan peninsula by heart and had deeply studied all the questions\nreferring to it, was most irritating to many members of his party, who\ncontinued for some little time Turcophile; but the speech produced a\nprofound impression on the nation in general, and public opinion was\nconsiderably modified. Baron K\u00e1llay was designated by Count Andrassy as\nthe Austrian representative in the Commission on Roumelian affairs, and,\non his return to Vienna, he was appointed chief of a section in the\nForeign Office. He published his history of Servia in Hungarian; it has\nsince been translated into German and Servian, and, even at Belgrade,\nit was admitted to be the best that exists. He also published, about\nthis time, an important pamphlet in German and Hungarian, on the\naspirations of Russia in the East during the past three centuries.\nUnder the Chancellor Haymerl\u00e9 he became Secretary of State, and his\nauthority increased rapidly. Count Szlavy, formerly Hungarian Minister,\na very capable man, but with little acquaintance with the countries\nbeyond the Danube, was then Financial Minister; and, as such, was the\nsole administrator of Bosnia. The occupation was a total failure. It\nentailed immense expense, the taxes were not paid into the exchequer,\nit was said that the money was detained by the Government officials\nas during the reign of the Turks, and both the Trans-Leithanian and\nCis-Leithanian Parliaments showed signs of discontent. Szlavy resigned\nhis post. The Emperor very rightly thinks an immense deal of Bosnia. It\nis his hobby, his special interest. During his reign Venetian Lombardy\nhas been lost, and his kingdom, consequently, diminished. Bosnia is a\ncompensation for this, and possesses the great advantage of adjoining\nCroatia, so that it could easily be absorbed into the empire; whereas,\nwith the Italian provinces, this was totally impossible. The Emperor\nthen looked around him for the man capable of setting Bosnian affairs\nin order, and at once selected K\u00e1llay, who was appointed to replace\nSzlavy.\n\nThe first act of the new Minister was personally to visit the occupied\nprovince of which he speaks all the varied dialects, and to converse\nwith the Catholics, Orthodox and Mahommedans there. He thus succeeded\nin reassuring Turkish landholders, in encouraging the peasantry to\npatience, in reforming abuses and turning the thieves out of the\ntemple. Expenses became at once reduced and the deficit diminished, but\nthe undertaking might well be compared to the cleansing of the Augean\nstables. Baron K\u00e1llay employed great tact and consideration, coupled\nwith relentless firmness. To be able to set a clock in thorough order\nit is necessary to be perfectly acquainted with its mechanism. Last\nyear he was warned that a tiny cloud was appearing in Montenegro. A\nfresh insurrection was dreaded. He started at once to ascertain the\nexact position of affairs for himself, and he took his wife with\nhim to give his visit a non-official character. Lady K\u00e1llay is as\nintelligent as she is beautiful, and as courageous as intelligent;\nthis latter is indeed a family quality: Countess Bethlen, she is\ndescended from the hero of Transylvania, Bethlen Gabor. Their journey\nthrough Bosnia would form the subject of a poem. While on his way from\novation to ovation, he succeeded in stamping out the lighted wick\nwhich was about to set fire to the powder. Since then, it appears,\nmatters there have continued to improve; at all events, the deficit\nhas disappeared, the Emperor is delighted, and every one tells me\nthat if Austria succeed in retaining Bosnia she will certainly owe\nit to K\u00e1llay, and that a most important _r\u00f4le_ is assuredly reserved\nfor him in the future administration of the empire. He believes in a\ngreat destiny for Hungary, but he is by no means an ultra-Magyar. He\nis prudent, thoughtful, and is well aware of the quagmires by the way.\nHis Eastern experience is of great service to him. I call on him at his\noffices, in a little narrow street and on the second floor. The wooden\nstaircase is dark and narrow. I cannot help comparing it in my mind to\nthe magnificent palace of the Railway Company, and I must confess my\npreference for this. I am astonished to find him so young; he is but\nforty-three years old. The old empire used to be governed by old men,\nbut this is no longer the case. Youth has now the upper hand, and is\nresponsible, doubtless, for the present firm and decisive policy of\nAustria-Hungary. The Hungarians hold the reins, and their blood has\npreserved the ardor and decision of youthful people. It seemed to me\nthat I breathed in Austria an air of revival.\n\nBaron K\u00e1llay spoke to me first of the Zadrugas, the family communities\nwhich existed everywhere in India, as has so well been shown by Sir\nHenry Maine. \u201cSince you published your book on Primitive Property\u201d\n(which was, he says, at the time perfectly accurate), \u201cmany changes\nhave taken place\u2014the patriarchal family living on its collective and\nunalienable domain is rapidly disappearing. I regret this quite as much\nas you can do, but what can be done?\u201d\n\nSpeaking of Bosnia, \u201cWe are blamed,\u201d he says, \u201cfor not having yet\nsettled the agrarian question there, but Ireland is sufficient proof\nof the difficulties to be met with in solving such problems. In Bosnia\nthese are further complicated by the conflict between the Mussulman\nand our Western laws. One must be on the spot and study these vexed\nquestions there, fully to realize the hindrances to be met with at\nevery step. For instance, the Turkish law constitutes the State the\nowner of all forests, and I am especially desirous of retaining rights\non these for the purpose of preserving them; on the other hand, in\naccordance with a Slav custom, the villagers claim certain rights on\nthe forests. If they merely cut the wood they needed for household\npurposes, only slight harm would be done; but they ruthlessly cut\ndown trees, and then turn in their goats to eat and destroy the young\nshoots, so that there is never any chance of the old trees being\nreplaced. These wretched animals are the plague of the country.\nWherever they manage to penetrate, nothing is to be found but brushwood.\n\n\u201cAs the preservation of these woods is of the first necessity in so\nmountainous a region we intend to pass a law to this end, but the\ndifficulty will be to enforce it. It would almost necessitate an army\nof keepers and constant struggles in every direction. What is really\nlacking in this fine country so favored by Nature is a _gentry_ who\nwould set an example of agricultural progress, as in Hungary. I will\ngive you an example in proof of this. As a boy I remember that a very\nheavy old-fashioned plough was used on our land. In 1848, compulsory\nlabor was abolished, wages increased, and we had to cultivate\nourselves. We at once sent for the most perfected American iron\nploughs, and at the present day these alone are employed even by the\npeasants. Austria has a great mission to fulfil in Bosnia, which will\nin all probability benefit general Europe even more than ourselves. She\nmust, by civilizing the country, justify her occupation of it.\u201d\n\n\u201cFor myself,\u201d I replied, \u201cI have always maintained, in opposition to\nmy friends the English Liberals, that the annexation of Bosnia and\nHerzegovina to Dalmatia was a necessity, and I fully explained this at\na period when the question was not at all under discussion,[7] but the\nessential point of all is the making of a railway and roads to connect\nthe interior with the ports on the coast. The Serayevo-Mortar line is\nabsolutely a necessity.\u201d\n\n\u201cI am quite of your opinion,\u201d answers Baron K\u00e1llay, \u201c_ma i danari_, all\ncannot be done in a day. We have but just completed the Brod-Serayevo\nline, which takes passengers in a day from Vienna to the centre of\nBosnia. It is one of the first boons conferred by the occupation, and\nits consequences will be almost measureless.\u201d\n\nI refer to a speech he has recently pronounced at the Academy of Pesth.\nIn it he develops his favorite subject, the great mission Hungary is\ndestined to fulfil in the future; being connected with the East through\nthe Magyars and with the West through her ideas and institutions, she\nmust be a link between the Eastern and Western worlds. This theory\nprovoked a complete overflow of attacks against Magyar pride from all\nthe German and Slav papers. \u201cThese Hungarians,\u201d they said, \u201cimagine\nthemselves to be the centre of the universe and their Hungaria, the\nentire world, _Ungarischer Globus_. Let them return to their steppes,\nthese Asiatics, these Tartars, these first cousins of the Turks.\u201d In\nthe midst of all this vehemence, I am reminded of a little quotation\nfrom a book of Count Zays, which most accurately paints the ardent\npatriotism of the Hungarians at once, their honor and strength, but\nwhich develops a spirit of domination and makes them detested by other\nraces. The quotation is as follows: \u201cThe Magyar loves his country and\nhis nationality better than humanity, better than liberty, better than\nhimself, better even than God and his eternal salvation.\u201d K\u00e1llay\u2019s high\nintelligence prevents his falling into this exaggerated Chauvinism.\n\u201cNo one understood me,\u201d he says, \u201cand no one chose to understand. I\nwas not talking politics. I had no desire to do so in our Academy at\na scientific and literary meeting. I simply announced an undeniable\nfact. Situated at the point of junction of a series of different races\nand for the very reason that we speak a non-Indo-Germanic idiom\u2014call\nit even Asiatic, if you will\u2014we are compelled to be acquainted with\nall the languages of Western Europe. Our institutions, our educational\nsystems, belong to the Western world. At the same time, by some\nmysterious connection with our blood, Eastern dialects are very easily\naccessible and comprehensible to us. I have over and over again\nremarked that I can grasp much more clearly the meaning of an Eastern\nmanuscript or document by translating it into Magyar, than if I read a\nGerman or English translation of it.\u201d\n\nThe \u201cRing,\u201d and how this splendid boulevard has been made, is certainly\na question worthy of an economist\u2019s inquiries. What changes since 1846!\nAt that period, from the heights of the old ramparts that had sustained\nthe famous siege of 1683, one could obtain a panorama of the entire\ncity, with its extensive faubourgs separated from the centre by a\ndusty esplanade where the Hungarian regiments, with their tight blue\ntrousers, drilled every evening. The Volksgarten, where Strauss played\nhis waltzes, and the Grecian temple with Canova\u2019s statue, have been\nleft intact; but a boulevard twice as wide as those in Paris runs along\nthe entire length; ample space has been reserved for the erection\nof public monuments and the remainder of the land sold at enormous\nprices. The State and the town have constructed public edifices vying\nwith each other in magnificence; two splendid theatres, a town hall,\nwhich will certainly cost fifty million francs; a palace for the\nuniversity, two museums, and a House of Parliament for the Reichsrath.\nAll around the Ring in addition to the buildings just mentioned, are\nArchdukes\u2019 palaces, immense hotels, and private residences, which,\nfrom their grand proportions and the richness of their decorations,\nare monuments themselves. I know of nothing comparable to the Ring in\nany other capital. Where did Austria find the necessary funds for all\nthese constructions? The State and the town made a most successful\nspeculation: the price paid to them for the ground on the esplanade\nalmost covered all their expenses, but the purchasers of that ground\nand the constructions placed upon it\u2014who paid for all that? The\nhundreds of millions of francs represented by this land and by the\npublic buildings and private dwellings on it, all that must spring from\nthe savings of the country. This affords a clear proof that in spite of\nthe unfortunate wars, the loss of Venetian Lombardy and the Krach of\n1873, in spite also of home difficulties and the persistent deficit,\ncontinuing from year to year, Austria has become much wealthier.\nThe State is a beggar, but the nation has accumulated capital which\nexpands itself in all these splendors of the Ring. As on the banks of\nthe Rhine, all this is due to machinery. As man can with his new and\npowerful tools procure nourishment and clothing for a less sum, he can\ndevote a larger portion of his revenue and labor to his board, his\npleasures, to art and various institutions.\n\nAll that I succeeded in ascertaining in Vienna with respect to the\npresent situation of Bosnia served to confirm the views I already\nentertained as to that country. The interests of civilization, and\nespecially those of the Southern Slavs, command our approval of this\noccupation. We arrive at this conclusion by an argument which appears\nto me irrefutable. Was it, yes or no, of importance that Bosnia should\nbe freed from the Turkish yoke? No friend of humanity in general and of\nthe Slavs can answer this question otherwise than in the affirmative.\nWho then is to carry out this freedom? Russia is not to be thought of.\nThe forming of Bosnia into an independent State would be still worse,\nfor it would be simply delivering up the rayas without the slightest\ndefence to the Mussulman Begs. The most tempting plan seemed to be to\nunite it to Servia, but in that case Bosnia would have been separated\nfrom its neighbor Dalmatia, and the Servian Government would have\nbeen compelled to undertake the difficult task of keeping its ancient\nenemies, the Mussulman Bosniacs, in check. The only other solution was\nthe present one. Austria-Hungary can neither Magyarize nor Germanize\nBosnia. She brings it safety, order, education and roads; or, in\nother words, the elements of modern civilization. Is not this all the\nSlavophils can possibly desire? Thus will be formed a new nation,\nwhich will grow up side by side with Croatia and Dalmatia, fortifying\nthese two countries as it develops, and serving at the same time as a\nconnecting link between them.\u2014_Contemporary Review._\n\n\n\n\nENGLISHMEN AND FOREIGNERS.\n\n\nThere has always been in the minds of those who have amused themselves\nwith speculating upon the ultimate destiny of mankind a dim belief that\na good time is coming, when wars shall cease, distinctions of race fade\naway, frontiers be abolished, and all nations, kindreds, and languages\nbe united in the great family of humanity, ruled by \u201cthe Parliament\nof Man, the Federation of the World.\u201d I should not care to be the\npresident of that assembly. But indeed there seems little likelihood\nthat the Millennium will begin yet awhile, or that we, as Englishmen,\nshall have any immediate cause to regret our geographical position. As\nmatters stand at present, isolation has its obvious advantages, and,\njudging by analogy, we should neither feel more friendly towards our\nneighbors nor understand them better if we could shake hands with them\nacross an imaginary line, instead of bowing politely to them from the\nother side of the waves which Britannia rules.\n\n_Comprendre c\u2019est pardonner._ Perhaps so; but we are a very long way\nfrom understanding one another as yet. The simple beauty of Free\nTrade is not recognised; standing armies have increased; potential\narmies include whole nations, and ingenious persons continue to busy\nthemselves in devising machines for the wiping out of the largest\npossible number of their fellow-creatures in the briefest possible\nspace of time. In short, it may safely be prophesied that the dawn of\nuniversal peace will be deferred until there shall be a common consent\nto keep the ninth commandment, which is as much as to say that we shall\nnone of us live to see the Greek Kalends.\n\nBut we are progressing towards the goal, some sanguine people affirm.\nThe movement of the earth, which is spinning through space at the\nrate of over a thousand miles a minute, is imperceptible to the atoms\nthat crawl upon its surface; the movements of society are hardly to\nbe detected by its component parts, which vanish and are replaced\ncontinually. What we do know is that we ourselves are bustling about\nmuch more frequently and rapidly than our forefathers did. We have all\nbecome more or less of rolling stones; and the moss of ignorance and\nprejudice is being rubbed off us day by day. It seems natural to assume\nthat this must be so; but, as a matter of fact, is it so? Do Mr. Cook\u2019s\nexcursionists obtain the smallest insight into the habits and character\nof Continental nations? and do the more ambitious ladies and gentlemen\nwho would scorn to be \u201cpersonally conducted\u201d anywhere, and who hastily\nsurvey mankind from China to Peru every year, bring back with them\nany notion of what a Chinaman or a Peruvian is like beyond such\nas might have been gathered from photographs purchased in Regent\nStreet? Steam power has enabled us to see many races of men, but it\nhas made it infinitely more difficult for us to know them. There is,\nor there formerly was, in use among the Genevese a queer kind of\ncarriage, surrounded on three sides by leathern curtains, in which\nthe occupant sits as in a wagonette, contemplating only that portion\nof the landscape which directly faces him; and it is narrated that\nan Englishman once hired one of these conveyances, and, after making\nthe complete circuit of Lake Leman, inquired innocently where it\nwas. The modern English traveller labors under a somewhat similar\ndisadvantage. He spends his holidays abroad. He rubs elbows with the\nnatives in the streets; he gazes at the outside of their houses and at\ntheir closed doors; but he has his back turned to them, as it were,\nthe whole time; he is among them, but he is not of them. They are not\ninterested in him. Nor is he ambitious of making their acquaintance. It\nis not upon them that he depends for society. When his doctor orders\nhim to go south for the winter he has no change to dread or hope for,\nexcept a change of scene and climate. Wherever he may go he will\nbe tolerably sure to find a more than sufficient assemblage of his\nfellow-countrymen, an English club, a rubber of whist in the afternoon\nif he wishes for it, lawn-tennis grounds innumerable, possibly even a\npack of hounds; and he will be invited to dinners and balls, at which\nhe may perchance from time to time meet a stray foreigner or two, just\nas he might in London.\n\nWith this state of things the generality of us are very well contented.\nWe no longer think, as Lord Chesterfield did, that \u201cit is of much more\nconsequence to know the _mores multorum hominum_ than the _urbes_;\u201d and\nthe instructions issued by that shrewd old gentleman to his son, when\nthe latter was completing his education in foreign parts, are simply\namazing to fathers who live in the latter part of the nineteenth\ncentury. \u201cI hope,\u201d says he, \u201cthat you will employ the evenings in the\nbest company in Rome. Go to whatever assemblies or _spectacles_ people\nof fashion go to. Endeavor to outshine those who shine there the most;\nget the _garbo_, the _gentilezza_, the _leggiadria_ of the Italians....\nOf all things I beg of you not to herd with your countrymen, but to be\nalways either with the Romans or with the foreign ministers residing\nat Rome,\u201d and so forth. Fancy advising a young man of the present day\nto \u201cget the _garbo_ of the Italians,\u201d and imagining that he would, or\ncould, do any such thing!\n\nLord Chesterfield, no doubt, was able to procure admission for\nhis son into \u201cthe best company\u201d at Rome and elsewhere; but in the\npr\u00e6-railway era most European capitals were very hospitably disposed\ntowards persons of less distinction. Provided that these were decent\nsort of folks, and that they were received by their ministers,\nno further questions were asked, and every facility was afforded\nthem for acquiring the _garbo_ of the Italians and whatever other\ndistinctive attributes the French or Germans may have been supposed\nto possess. It is probable that they did not take much advantage of\nthese opportunities, for the English are not naturally imitative; but\nat all events they learnt something about the manners and customs\nof their entertainers. Most of us have seen letters written by our\ngrandfathers\u2014possibly even by our fathers\u2014which testify, with that\nold-fashioned fulness of style which cheap postage has killed, what\na much more amusing experience travel was then than it is now. The\nwriters had all kinds of small adventures, incidents, and impressions\nto recount; they jogged leisurely along the highroads of Europe in\ntheir heavy travelling carriages, keeping their eyes open as they went;\nwhen they reached a famous city they did not set to work to calculate\nin how few days the sights of that city could be seen and done with,\nbut hired for themselves a house or an _appartement_, prepared for a\nlong stay, and presented their letters of introduction. Of course they\nwere in a small minority. Half a century ago it was not everybody who\nhad time enough or money enough to leave home for an indefinite period.\nBut, as far as the promotion of universal brotherhood is concerned,\nthe knowledge of the few may perhaps be as useful as the superficial\nfamiliarity of the many.\n\nAs a means to the above end increased facility of locomotion seems to\nhave failed. Some time-honored superstitions have, it is true, been\nswept away thereby; we no longer imagine that frogs form the staple\narticle of a Frenchman\u2019s diet, while the French, on their other side,\ndo not now accuse us of selling our wives at Smithfield, although their\nbelief that we prefer raw to cooked meat appears to be ineradicable.\nYet there are very few Englishmen\u2014so few that one might venture to\nmake a list of them\u2014who can be said to be at home in French society\nor to be capable of following the drift of French opinion. This last,\nit must be confessed, is not an easy feat, and indeed can hardly\nbe accomplished by anything short of a prolonged residence in the\ncountry. Foreigners naturally form their opinion of a nation as much\nfrom reading as from personal observation, and probably there is no\npeople so ill-represented by its press as the French. Any one who\nshould read for a year the \u201cTimes,\u201d the \u201cDaily News,\u201d the \u201cStandard,\u201d\nand \u201cPunch,\u201d to say nothing of the weekly reviews, would be able, at\nthe end of that time, to pronounce a fairly accurate judgment upon\nEnglish politics and English habits of thought. Can it be supposed\nthat, after a twelvemonth\u2019s patient study of the \u201cJournal des D\u00e9bats,\u201d\nthe \u201cR\u00e9publique Fran\u00e7aise,\u201d the \u201cFigaro,\u201d and the \u201cVie Parisienne,\u201d the\ninquiring stranger would be in an equally favorable position as regards\nour neighbors across the water? English novels, again, may be said to\nmirror English life faithfully, upon the whole, but if a man should\nbase his estimate of French society upon a study of the best French\nnovelists he would arrive at a conclusion almost grotesquely unlike the\ntruth.\n\nFor the French novelist, for all his so-called realism, takes neither\nhis characters nor his scenes from everyday life, his contention being\nthat, were he to do so, he would produce a work so insufferably dull\nthat no one would buy it. Writing, not as we do _virginibus puerisque_,\nbut for readers who like the dots to be placed upon the i\u2019s, he sets\nbefore them a succession of pictures from life, drawn often with great\npower and insight into human nature, nearly always with scrupulous\nexactitude of detail, and asserts\u2014what cannot be denied\u2014that they are\ntrue pictures. It is a pity that they are usually unpleasant pictures,\nand that they are liable to be misinterpreted by readers who adopt\nthe too common course of arguing from the particular to the general.\nThere is no occasion to dispute the accuracy of the scenes portrayed\nin such books as \u201cLe Nabab\u201d or \u201cLes Rois en Exil,\u201d or to doubt that\nthe author could, if he chose, point to the living or dead originals\nof his chief characters and declare that he has maligned none of them;\nbut when we find him, year after year dwelling and insisting upon what\nis most ignoble in his fellow-creatures, we are surely entitled to\naccuse him of a _suppressio veri_ and a _suggestio falsi_. With the\nsingle exception of \u201cTartarin de Tarascon,\u201d which is a burlesque, I do\nnot remember one of M. Daudet\u2019s books, from \u201cFromont Jeune et Risler\nA\u00een\u00e9,\u201d down to \u201cSapho,\u201d his last and infinitely his worst production,\nwhich does not leave behind it a profound impression of sadness.\n\u201cC\u2019est la faute de la vie, qui dicte,\u201d he said once, in answer to this\nreproach, as though life had but one side, or as though the literal\ntruthfulness of a photograph conveyed all that there is to be seen in a\nlandscape. But indeed some people, as we know, have the misfortune to\nbe color-blind, and to them, no doubt, the outlines of the world must\nseem to be filled in rather with shade than with light. One may pay\na willing homage to M. Daudet\u2019s genius and yet suspect that life, if\nhe had chosen to listen, might have dictated to him different stories\nfrom those which he has published, and one may question whether his\nsons will be much the better for reading \u201cSapho\u201d even \u201cquand ils auront\nvingt ans.\u201d\n\nThe subject of French fiction, its tendencies and its influences,\nis too long a one to be more than glanced at here. The wit, the\nbrilliancy, the charm of style of About, Octave Feuillet, Cherbuliez,\nJules Clar\u00e9tie, and others of less repute are familiar to most educated\nmen. Not all of them are such pessimists as M. Daudet; yet those who\nknow what _ordinary_ French life is will find only a faint reflection\nof it in the novels of the above-named writers, unless it be here and\nthere in the pages of the first. It is always best to avoid making\nstatements which, from their very nature, are not susceptible of proof;\nbut, after associating pretty constantly with French people for a\nmatter of twenty years, I will take upon me to say that I doubt very\nmuch whether the marriage-vow is broken more frequently in France than\nelsewhere. That weary old tale of conjugal infidelity, which appears\nto be as essential to the French novelist as the more legitimate love\naffair and marriage at the end of the third volume are to his British\nconfr\u00e8re, might, I believe, be told with as much or as little truth of\nother countries. There is an old story of an artist who sent a sketch\nof some Indian scene to one of the illustrated papers, and afterwards\ncomplained that it had been tampered with before publication, a group\nof palms having been introduced into the background, whereas those\ntrees were unknown in the region which he had depicted. \u201cThat is very\npossible, Mr.----,\u201d replied the editor; \u201cbut let me tell you that the\npublic expects palms in an Oriental landscape, and _will have them_.\u201d\nNot being a publisher, I am not in a position to affirm that the French\npublic expects, and will have, a breach of the seventh commandment in\nits novels; but there is every reason to infer that such is the opinion\nof French authors.\n\nOf course it may be urged that, in literature as in forms of\ngovernment, people commonly get what they deserve, and that a public\nwhich demands the kind of nutriment alluded to must be an unhealthy\nand immoral sort of public. It should, however, be borne in mind that\nthere is a much larger portion of the French than of the English public\nwhich never reads novels at all. Whether the immense sale commanded by\nsuch works as \u201cL\u2019Assommoir\u201d and \u201cNana\u201d is or is not a sign of national\ndecadence is a question which will not be too hastily answered by any\none who remembers the various phases through which literature has\npassed in other lands, but none need hesitate to say that the effect\nproduced by them upon outside opinion of France and the French has\nbeen eminently unfavorable. It is not with impunity that a nation can\ndelight, or seem to delight, in the contemplation of foulness. France,\n\u201cce pays de gens aimables, doux, honn\u00eates, droits, gais, superficiels,\npleins de bon c\u0153ur,\u201d to quote M. Renan, who knows his countrymen\nwell and does not always flatter them, is becoming more and more\nregarded as a sink of iniquity, and those who watch the development of\nher manners, as illustrated by some of her most popular novelists, are\nbeginning to ask themselves whether any good can come out of Nazareth.\nIn England more especially this feeling is gaining ground. If we are\nlittle, or not at all, better acquainted with the French people than\nwe were fifty years ago, we are a good deal better acquainted with\nthe French language. We read all the new French books, particularly\nthe new French novels (sometimes we have to keep them under lock and\nkey, and peruse them stealthily after the other members of the family\nhave gone to bed), and it is hardly surprising that we should take\nour neighbors at what appears to be their own valuation. Englishmen,\nsober, reticent\u2014a trifle Pharisaical, it may be\u2014cannot pardon writers\nwho take pleasure in stripping poor human nature of its last shred\nof dignity and exhibiting it to the world under its most revolting\naspects. These things are true, the naturalistic school of novel\nwriters say. What then? we may return. Most people know that hideous\nforms of vice exist; but most people think it is safer and wiser not\nto talk about them. As for those who do not know, for what conceivable\nreason should they be told? And so the Englishman, when he takes his\nwalk through the streets of Paris, feels that he would just as soon\nhave nothing to do with the unclean persons who, as he presumes inhabit\nthat city.\n\nThe truth is that there has never been any real sympathy between these\ntwo nations, so nearly united in geographical position and by some\npolitical ties and so widely separated in all other respects. Perhaps\nour one and only point of resemblance is our common inability to\nadapt ourselves to ways that are not our ways. A Frenchman, wherever he\ngoes, is always a Frenchman, and an Englishman is always an Englishman.\nIn this particular the Americans have the advantage of us. With their\nkeenness of observation, their restless curiosity, their desire to\npick out and appropriate whatever seems to them best in foreign lands,\nthe Americans have fewer prejudices and fewer antipathies than we who\nlive in the Old World. Their extreme sensitiveness does not often\ntake the form of self-consciousness; they readily pick up the tone of\nthe society that they frequent, and, although they are not as a rule,\nfirst-rate linguists, they soon acquire enough knowledge of a language\nto enable them to converse easily with the inhabitants of the country\nin which they are sojourning. Moreover, they are less prone than we\nare to save themselves trouble by accepting other people\u2019s views, and,\nwhatever their opinion may be worth, are generally able at least to\ngive grounds for holding it.\n\nIn the case of our kinsmen on the other side of the Atlantic we have\nof late years unquestionably made a great advance towards mutual\nunderstanding, and, it may be added, friendship. Possibly we are none\nthe worse friends for having disliked one another very cordially not\nso long ago. There is a prevalent impression in this country that the\nquarrel was one-sided, that the Americans were irritated (excusably\nperhaps) by our recognition of the Confederate States as belligerents,\nas well as by the general sympathy that was felt in England for the\nSouthern cause, and that we really never said half such unpleasant\nthings about them as they did about us. But if they expressed their\naversion more loudly than we did it is not so certain that ours was\nany less deep; and in our present liberal and enlightened mood we can\nafford to admit that most of us had but a poor opinion of our cousins,\nfrom a social point of view, twenty years back. I happened, towards the\nclose of the civil war, to be in a German city much frequented both\nby English and Americans, who could hardly be induced to speak to one\nanother. The British chaplain of the place\u2014remembering, I suppose,\nthat the Americans who attended his services contributed something\ntowards the defrayal of the expenses connected therewith\u2014took it into\nhis head one Sunday to pray for the President of the United States,\na custom which has since become universal among mixed congregations\non the Continent. In those days it was an innovation, and an English\ngentleman who was present marked his disapproval of it by thumping his\nstick on the floor and saying aloud, \u201cI thought this was an English\nchurch!\u201d after which he picked up his hat and walked out. It is only\nfair to his compatriots to add that in the very pretty quarrel which\nensued they declined to support him: but I doubt whether it was so much\nwith his sentiments that they were displeased as with his disregard for\nreligious propriety. How the affair ended I do not know. Let us hope\nthat bloodshed was averted, and that the irate Briton was brought to\nsee that there could be no great harm in paying the same compliment to\nthe President of the United States as we are accustomed to pay to Jews,\nTurks, infidels, and heretics. Squabbles of this kind are, happily,\nnow rare. The \u201cAlabama\u201d claims were settled long ago; Americans in\nlarge numbers visit our shores every year, and are to be met with\npretty frequently in London society, where they are kind enough to\nsay that they have a lovely time; some are almost domiciled among us,\nand have recorded in print their intimate acquaintance with our mode\nof life in London and in the country. Perhaps their criticisms were a\ntrifle too subtle for us just at first, but now that the subtlety has\nbeen discovered and proclaimed we quite delight in it. We, for our\nparts, think no more of crossing the Atlantic than we used to think\nof crossing the Channel; we partake of the boundless hospitality that\nawaits us on the other side, and do not fail to let our entertainers\nknow how pleased we are with them before we re-embark. We used to add\na kindly expression of surprise at finding them so agreeable, but we\ndon\u2019t do this any more now. If the perennial interchange of civilities\nis sometimes broken by a stage aside we pretend not to hear it, and it\nmay safely be asserted that we have as much real affection for one\nanother as commonly subsists between collaterals. That, of course, is\nsaying no more than that we shall probably continue to be friends until\na cause for dispute arises; but more than this cannot, surely, be said\nof any two nations upon the earth\u2019s surface, and, fortunately, there is\nlittle prospect of a difference between England and America which may\nnot be peaceably settled.\n\nSince the war of 1870 our eyes have been turned towards Germany\nwith the interest and admiration which success must ever command.\nOur military system has been remodelled upon the German system; we\nhave crowned our soldiers with a helmet somewhat resembling the\n_Pickelhaube_, which is, I believe, found to be quite as inconvenient\nas that celebrated head gear, and which is certainly several degrees\nmore unsightly. Also we have a high respect for Prince Bismarck,\nconsidering him as the greatest statesman of the age, and drinking in\neagerly the reports of his utterances vouchsafed to us by Dr. Busch\nand others. I have not, however, observed as yet any sign that we\u2014as\nrepresented by our Government\u2014are inclined to display flattery in its\nsincerest form by adopting the Chancellor\u2019s decisive method of dealing\nwith any little difficulties that may arise.\n\nIn point of consanguinity the people whom he has succeeded in uniting\ninto a nation are not a long way removed from us; in times past they\nhave frequently been our allies; they have, moreover, given us our\nreigning dynasty. Perhaps, upon the whole we get on better with them\nthan with any other continental race. Many English families repair to\nGermany for educational purposes, are received at the smaller courts,\nvisited by the high-nobly born _Herrschaft_ with whom they are brought\ninto contact, and thus gain some idea of German ways. It has been said\nthat a sailor is the best of good fellows anywhere except on board\nhis own ship, when he is apt to become\u2014well, not quite so good a\nfellow. The contrary rule would appear to apply to the German, who is a\nkindly, pleasant, person at home, but whose demeanor when abroad leaves\nsomething to be desired. We have all met him in Italy or Switzerland,\nand we are all aware that his manners, like Mr. Pumblechook\u2019s, \u201cis\ngiven to blusterous.\u201d We have suffered from the loud, harsh voice with\nwhich Nature has afflicted him, as well as from his deep distrust of\nfresh air and his unceremonious method of making his way to the front\nat railway stations. But in their own country the Germans show to\nmuch greater advantage. They are well-disposed towards strangers; not\na few of them have the sporting pro-civilities which are a passport\nto the British heart; they are easily pleased, and are, in the main,\namiable, unassuming people. It is much to their credit that their sober\nheads were never turned by victories which would assuredly have sent a\nneighboring nation half crazy. Of course there are Germans and Germans,\nand the inhabitants of the State which holds the chief rank in the\nEmpire have never been renowned for prepossessing manners or for an\nexcess of modesty. Even they, however, have a good deal of the innocent\nunsuspiciousness which is one of the charms of the Teutonic character.\nNot long ago I chanced to be speaking to a Prussian gentleman about\nthe ill-feeling which existed at that time between his country and\nRussia, and which seemed likely enough to culminate in an outbreak of\nhostilities. He assured me that the ill-feeling was entirely on the\nRussian side.\n\n\u201cWe have nothing against them,\u201d he declared, \u201cand we want nothing\nfrom them; but they are angry with us, and that is easily explained.\nThey cannot get on without us; they are obliged to employ our people\neverywhere instead of their own, and they are furious because they have\nto acknowledge the superiority of the German intellect.\u201d\n\nI remarked that the superiority of the German intellect was manifest;\nwhereupon he shrugged his shoulders quickly, and snorted in the\nwell-known Prussian fashion, as who should say, \u201cCould any one be such\na fool as to doubt it?\u201d\n\nI went on to observe that in philosophy, science, and music Germany led\nmankind. He agreed with me, and added, \u201cAlso in the art of war.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe Germans,\u201d I proceeded, \u201care the best-educated people in the\nworld;\u201d and he replied, \u201cNo doubt.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd they are the pleasantest company.\u201d\n\n\u201cCertainly,\u201d answered he, \u201cthat is so.\u201d\n\n\u201cAnd what adds so much to the attractiveness of their conversation,\u201d I\ncontinued, \u201cis their delicate wit and keen perception of irony.\u201d\n\nI confess that after I had made this outrageous speech I shook in my\nshoes and looked down at my plate. I ought never to have said it, and\nindeed I would not have said it if he had not led me on until it became\nirresistible. But there was no occasion for alarm. When I raised my\neyes to my neighbor\u2019s face I found it irradiated with smiles. He laid\nhis hand on my arm quite affectionately.\n\n\u201cWhat you say is perfectly true,\u201d he cried; \u201cbut do you know you are\nthe very first stranger I have ever met who has had the sense to\ndiscover it?\u201d\n\nAnd then he explained to me that the Germans were absurdly considered\nby Frenchmen and other superficial observers to be a rather dull-witted\nand heavy race.\n\nNow I really do not see how any one is to help liking a nation so\nhappily self-complacent. The Prussians are said to be arrogant and\noverbearing; but I don\u2019t think they are so, unless they are rubbed the\nwrong way; and what pleasure is there in rubbing people the wrong way?\nWhen Victor Hugo announces that France is supreme among nations, when\nhe invites us to worship the light that emanates from the holy city of\nParis, and hints that we might do well to worship also the proclaimer\nof that light, we are half shocked and half incredulous. The bombast\nseems too exaggerated to be sincere; it has the air of challenging and\nexpecting contradiction. We find it impossible to believe that any\nsane man can really mean much of what this great poet tells us that he\nmeans. French vanity\u2014and Victor Hugo, whether at his highest or at his\nlowest, is always essentially French\u2014is not amusing. It is the kind of\nvanity which is painful to witness, and which cannot but be degrading\nto those who allow themselves to give way to it. But in the placid\nNorth German self-approval there is a child-like element, which is not\nunpleasing nor even wholly undignified. It may provoke a smile; but\nthe smile is a friendly one. These excellent stout professors and\nbearded warriors who are so thoroughly pleased with themselves, and\nwho never suspect that anybody can be laughing at them, command our\nsympathies\u2014perhaps because John Bull himself is not quite a stranger\nto the sensations that they experience.\n\nYet, when all is said and done, John Bull remains John Bull. German\nphilosophy, French wit, American acuteness, the \u201c_garbo_ of the\nItalians\u201d\u2014these things are not for him, nor is he specially desirous\nof assimilating them. He is as God made him, and has an impression that\nworse types have been created. At the bottom of his heart\u2014though he no\nlonger speaks it out as freely as of yore\u2014there still lurks the old\ncontempt for \u201cforeigners.\u201d As I have already made so bold as to say, I\ndo not think that the hustle and bustle of the present age have brought\nhim any clearer comprehension of these foreigners than his forefathers\npossessed, or that the advent of the universal republic has been at all\nhastened by the rise of democracy and the triumph of steam. Certainly\nall men are human, and all dogs are dogs; but you will not convert a\nbulldog into a setter by taking him out shooting, nor a mastiff into\na spaniel by keeping them in one kennel. It is doubtless well that\nthose who own a large number of dogs should encourage familiarity among\nthem, and restrain them from delighting to bark and bite, and it might\nalso be a good thing to induce them, if possible, to recognise each\nothers respective utilities. But they never do recognise these. On the\ncontrary, they contemplate one another\u2019s performances with the deepest\ndisdain, and if we could see into the workings of their canine minds\nwe should very likely discover that each is perfectly satisfied with\nhimself, and as convinced that his breed is superior to all others as\nVictor Hugo is that Paris is the light of the world.\n\nRecent inventions have dealt some heavy blows at time and space, but\nhave not as yet done much towards abolishing national distinctions of\ncharacter. One result of them, as melancholy as it is inevitable, is\nthe slow vanishing of the picturesque. The period of general dead-level\nhas set in; old customs have fallen into abeyance and old costumes are\nbeing laid aside. The \u201cRanz des Vaches\u201d no longer echoes among the\nSwiss mountains; the Spanish _sombrero_ has been discarded in favor\nof a chimney-pot hat; the Hungarian nobles reserve their magnificent\nfrippery for rare state occasions, and the black coat, deemed so\nsignificant a sign of the times by Alfred de Musset, is everywhere\nreplacing the gay clothing of a less material era. But, for all that,\nmastiffs are mastiffs and spaniels spaniels. Democracy claims to be\ncosmopolitan: perhaps some of us may live long enough to see what\nthe boast is worth. If it be permitted to ground a prophecy upon the\nlessons of history, we may say that co-operation is possible only so\nlong as interests are identical, and that the mainspring of all human\ncollective action is, and will be, nothing more or less than that\nselfishness which, as Lord Beaconsfield once told us, is another word\nfor patriotism.\u2014_Cornhill Magazine._\n\n\n\n\nFRENCH DUELLING.\n\n\nBY H. R. HAWEIS.\n\nOne of the liveliest little duels we have lately heard of is that which\ntook place in October between the journalist M. Rochefort and Captain\nFournier. It appears that the gallant captain felt himself aggrieved by\nsome free expressions in the \u201cIntransigeant,\u201d challenged the editor,\nand both belligerents went out with swords, whereupon Rochefort pinked\nFournier, Fournier slashed Rochefort, both lost a teaspoonful or so of\nblood, and honor appears to have been satisfied.\n\nIn the eyes of the average Briton there is always something absurd\nabout a duel. He either thinks of the duel in \u201cThe Rivals,\u201d as it\nis occasionally witnessed at Toole\u2019s theatre, or of Mark Twain\u2019s\nincomparable \u201caffair\u201d with M. Gambetta; but it seldom occurs to any one\nin this country to think of a duel as being honorable to either party,\nor capable of really meeting the requirements of two gentlemen who may\nhappen to have a difference of opinion.\n\nThe Englishman kicks his rival in Pall Mall, canes him in Piccadilly,\nor pulls his nose and calls him a liar at his club. He is then had up\nfor assault and battery, his grievance is well aired in public, he is\nconsoled by the sympathy of an enlarged circle of friends, pays a small\nfine, and leaves the court \u201cwithout a stain upon his character.\u201d If, on\nthe other hand, his rival is in the right, the damages are heavy, and\nhis friends say, \u201cPity he lost his temper and made a fool of himself,\u201d\nand there the matter ends. In either case outraged justice or wounded\nhonor is attended to at the moderate cost of a few sovereigns, a bloody\nnose, or a smashed hat.\n\nWe think on the whole it is highly creditable to England that this\nshould be so. The abolition of duelling by public opinion is a distinct\nmove up in the scale of civilisation.\n\nPerhaps we forget how very recent that \u201cmove up\u201d is.\n\nWhen it ceased to be the fashion to wear swords in the last century,\npistols were substituted for these personal encounters. This made\nduelling far less amusing, more dangerous, and proportionally less\npopular. The duel in England received practically its _coup de gr\u00e2ce_\nwith the new Articles of War of 1844, which discredited the practice\nin the army by offering gentlemen facilities for public explanation,\napology, or arbitration in the presence of their commanding officer.\nBut previous to this \u201cthe duel of satisfaction\u201d had assumed the most\npreposterous forms. Parties agreed to draw lots for pistols and to\nfight, the one with a loaded, the other with an unloaded weapon.\n\nThis affair of honor (?) was always at short distances and\n\u201cpoint-blank,\u201d and the loser was usually killed. Another plan was to go\ninto a dark room together and commence firing. There is a beautiful and\npathetic story told of two men, the one a \u201ckind\u201d man and the other a\n\u201ctimid\u201d man, who found themselves unhappily bound to fight, and chose\nthe dark-room duel. The kind man had to fire first, and, not wishing to\nhurt his adversary, groped his way to the chimney-piece and, placing\nthe muzzle of his pistol straight up the chimney, pulled the trigger,\nwhen, to his consternation, with a frightful yell down came his\nadversary the \u201ctimid\u201d man, who had selected that fatal hiding-place.\n\nAnother grotesque form was the \u201cmedical duel,\u201d one swallowing a pill\nmade of bread, the other swallowing one made of poison. When matters\nhad reached this point, public opinion not unnaturally took a turn\nfor the better, and resolved to stand by the old obsolete law against\nduelling, whilst enacting new bye-laws for the army, which of course\nreacted powerfully, with a sort of professional authority, upon the\npractice of bellicose civilians.\n\nThe duel was originally a mere trial of _might_, like our prize fight;\nit was so used by armies and nations, as in the case of David and\nGoliath, or as when Charles V. challenged Charlemagne to single combat.\nBut in medi\u00e6val times it got to be also used as a test of _right_,\nthe feeling of a judicial trial by ordeal entering into the struggle\nbetween two persons, each claiming right on his side.\n\nThe judicial trial by ordeal was abandoned in the reign of Elizabeth,\nbut the practice of private duelling has survived in spite of adverse\nlegislation, and is exceedingly popular in France down to the present\nday. The law of civilised nations has, however, always been dead\nagainst it. In 1599 the parliament of Paris went so far as to declare\nevery duellist a rebel to his majesty; nevertheless, in the first\neighteen years of Henri Quatre\u2019s reign no fewer than 4,000 gentlemen\nare said to have perished in duels, and Henri himself remarked, when\nCreyin challenged Don Philip of Savoy, \u201cIf I had not been the king I\nwould have been your second.\u201d Our ambassador, Lord Herbert, at the\ncourt of Louis XIII., wrote home that he hardly ever met a French\ngentleman of repute who had not either killed his man or meant to do\nso! and this in spite of laws so severe that the two greatest duellists\nof the age, the Count de Boutteville and the Marquis de Beuron, were\nboth beheaded, being taken _in flagrante delicto_.\n\nLouis XIV. published another severe edict in 1679, and had the courage\nto enforce it. The practice was checked for a time, but it received\na new impulse after the close of the Napoleonic wars. The dulness of\nLouis Philippe\u2019s reign and the dissoluteness of Louis Napoleon\u2019s both\nfostered duelling. The present \u201copportunist\u201d Republic bids fair to\noutbid both. You can hardly take up a French newspaper without reading\nan account of various duels. Like the suicides in Paris, and the\nrailway assaults in England, duels form a regular and much appreciated\nitem of French daily news.\n\nIt is difficult to think of M. de Girardin\u2019s shooting dead poor\nArmand Carell\u2014the most brilliant young journalist in France\u2014without\nimpatience and disgust, or to read of M. Rochefort\u2019s exploit the other\nday without a smile.\n\nThe shaking hands in the most cordial way with M. Rochefort, the\ncompliments on his swordsmanship, what time the blood flowed from an\nugly wound, inflicted by him as he was mopping his own neck, are all so\nmany little French points (of honor?) which we are sure his challenger,\nCaptain Fournier, was delighted to see noticed in the papers. No doubt\nevery billiard-room and caf\u00e9 in Paris gloated over the details, and the\nheroes, Rochefort and Fournier, were duly f\u00eated and dined together as\nsoon as their respective wounds were sufficiently healed.\n\nMeanwhile John Bull reads the tale and grunts out loud, \u201cThe whole\nthing is a brutal farce and the \u2018principals\u2019 are no better than a\ncouple of asses.\u201d\n\nNow, admitting that there are some affronts which the law cannot and\ndoes not take cognisance of, in these days such affronts are very few.\nThat terrible avenger, public opinion, is in this nineteenth century a\nhundred-handed and a hundredfold more free, powerful, and active than\nit used to be, before the printing-press, and, I may add, railways,\ntelegraphs, and daily newspapers. But of all cases to which duelling,\nby the utmost stretch of honorable license, could be applied\u2014a mere\npress attack is perhaps the least excusable.\n\nHere are the French extolling the freedom of the English press by\nimitating\u2014or trying to imitate\u2014English independence and the right\nto speak and act and scribble _sans g\u00eane_\u2014and it turns out that an\nhonorable member in the Senate cannot lose his temper, or a journalist\nwrite a smart article, without being immediately requested to fight.\n\u201cRisum teneatis, amici!\u201d and this is the people who think themselves\nfit for liberty, let alone equality and fraternity! (save the mark!)\n\nThe old town clerk at Ephesus in attempting to compose a dispute of a\nrather more serious character some eighteen hundred years ago, between\na certain Jew and a Greek tradesman, spoke some very good sense when he\nappealed to both disputants thus: \u201cIf Demetrius have a matter against\nany man the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one\nanother.\u201d\n\nNext time M. Rochefort pokes fun at Captain Fournier in the\n\u201cIntransigeant,\u201d we advise the captain, instead of pinking that witty\nbut scurrilous person, to try the law of libel. If he wins he will\nget money in his purse, which is better than an ugly gash in his\nside; if he loses he will go home to consider his ways and perchance\namend them, under the stimulus of a just public rebuke\u2014a sadder and\nperhaps a _wiser_ man: that, indeed, both he and Rochefort might easily\nbe.\u2014_Belgravia._\n\n\n\n\nJOHN WYCLIFFE: HIS LIFE AND WORK.\n\n\nThe quincentenary of the death of John Wycliffe occurring on the 31st\nday of this month (December 1884), invites us to review the work\nwith which the name of Wycliffe is associated and identified. \u201cJohn\nWycliffe,\u201d says Dean Hook, \u201cmay be justly accounted one of the greatest\nmen that our country has produced. He is one of the very few who have\nleft the impress of their minds, not only on their own age, but on all\ntime,\u201d[8] He is also one of the few who are known to us only in their\nwork, and by their work. For it may be said that, apart from Wycliffe\u2019s\nwork, we know nothing of the man. His work is his memorial: in it he\nlives.\n\nWycliffe\u2019s work may be viewed in its relation to the\nUniversity\u2014Oxford; to the Crown\u2014the national independence; to the\nhierarchy\u2014the clergy; and to the laity\u2014the people. According to this\nmethod of survey and review, Wycliffe appears successively in history\nas a student and scholastic disputant; as a politician and patriot;\nas a theologian and reformer; and as a Christian evangelist and\npreacher of grace, righteousness, and truth. These successive phases\nof Wycliffe\u2019s work correspond with the events of his life; and they\nindicate the progress of the great work to which Wycliffe had dedicated\nhis powers. This, again, implies that it was only step by step\u2014little\nby little\u2014that Wycliffe\u2019s views assumed that form in which they were\ndeveloped and expressed in the later years of his life.\n\nIt is impossible to determine either the date of Wycliffe\u2019s first\nadmission to Oxford or the college in which he first studied. Of his\nearly life at the university, as of his earlier life at home, we know\nnothing. According to the statements of some of his biographers,\nWycliffe was born in the year 1324, in the hamlet of Spreswell, near\nold Richmond, in Yorkshire. In 1340, he went to Oxford, and was one\nof the first commoners received into Queen\u2019s college\u2014an institution\nopened that year for the first time. After a short attendance in\nQueen\u2019s, he joined himself to Merton, and became a fellow of that\nfamous College. The historian Fuller says that Wycliffe was a graduate\nof Merton, but he makes no mention of his having been at an earlier\ntime connected with Queen\u2019s College. \u201cWe can give no account,\u201d he\nsays, \u201cof Wycliffe\u2019s parentage, birthplace, or infancy; only we find an\nancient family of the Wycliffes in the bishopric of Durham,[9] since by\nmatch united to the Brackenburies, persons of prime quality in those\nparts. As for this our Wycliffe, history at the very first meets\nwith him a man, and full grown, yea, graduate of Merton College in\nOxford.\u201d[10] Of the six Oxford colleges of that time, Merton had\nacquired for itself a splendid and well-deserved reputation. \u201cAnd,\nindeed, malice itself cannot deny that this college, or little\nuniversity, rather, doth equal, if not exceed, any one foundation in\nChristendom, for the famous men bred therein.\u201d[11] Roger Bacon (1280),\n_Doctor Mirabilis_; John Duns Scotus (1308), _Doctor Subtilis_; Walter\nBurley (1337), _Doctor Approbatus_; William of Ocham (1347), _Doctor\nSingularis_ or _Pater Nominalium_; and Thomas Bradwardine (1350),\n_Doctor Profundus_,\u2014were all bred in Merton College. John Wycliffe\nseems to have early entertained and cherished the ambition to add\nhis name to the number of those renowned doctors who as students had\npreceded him in Merton College. If this was his ambition, he attained\nto the object of his desire when, by his contemporaries, he was\nrecognised as _Doctor Evangelicus_. It would appear that, at an early\nperiod in his life, he had, after much deliberation, made choice of\nthe Bible or the Gospel as his great theme. To be a \u201cBiblicist,\u201d or\nBible student and interpreter, was not considered a high or honorable\ndistinction by the schoolmen\u2014the men of \u201cculture\u201d of that age.\nBut to think for himself and to choose for himself was a notable\ncharacteristic of the young Yorkshireman, John Wycliffe. In making his\nchoice and in linking himself indissolubly to the Word and \u201ccause of\nGod,\u201d[12] he seems to have been much influenced by the example and by\nthe teaching of Bradwardine. But he made it his aim to be a proficient,\nand, if possible, a master in all attainable science and learning.\nThat he had been a thorough student of the Trivium and Quadrivium is\nproved by his works, for they all bear the impress of the disciplined\nscholastic and the skilful dialectician. In all respects he was a\nworthy successor of the distinguished band of men who had been his\npredecessors in Merton. The writings of Wycliffe show that he had\nstudied very carefully the works of Roger Bacon, of Duns Scotus, and of\nWilliam of Ocham. But the same writings show that he had early learned\nto call no man master\u2014for while he accepts much from Duns Scotus, he\nalso accepts much from William of Ocham. Truth seems to have been the\nobject of his early, eager, and constant pursuit.\n\nThe first notable and formal recognition of Wycliffe\u2019s eminence within\nthe university, is found in his appointment to be Warden or Master\nof Balliol. In this honorable office he continued only for a few\nyears\u20141360-1362. From Balliol he received nomination to the rectorship\nof the parish of Fylingham, in Lincolnshire. Soon after his appointment\nto a pastoral cure, he resigned his position as Master of Balliol.\nWycliffe\u2019s connection with the diocese of Lincoln, through his being\nrector of Fylingham, seems to have had an important influence on the\nprogressive development of his ecclesiastical and religious life. A\nformer Bishop of Lincoln\u20141235-1254\u2014Grosset\u00eate (Greathead), was spoken\nof by Roger Bacon as \u201cthe only man living\u201d in that age \u201cwho was in\npossession of all the sciences.\u201d The writings of this great and good\nbishop are continually quoted or referred to by Wycliffe.\n\nA most significant testimony to the standing influence and reputation\nof Wycliffe in the university was given in 1365 by Simon Islip,\nArchbishop of Canterbury, who appointed him Warden of Canterbury Hall.\nIn the Archbishop\u2019s letter of institution, Wycliffe is described, \u201cas\none in whose fidelity, circumspection, and prudence his Grace very\nmuch confided, and on whom he had fixed his eyes on account of the\nhonesty of his life, his laudable conversation, and his knowledge of\nletters.\u201d The significance and worth of this testimony can hardly\nbe overestimated. It is all the more significant because of the\ncircumstances in which it was given, and the nomination to which it\nwas designed to give effect. In founding Canterbury Hall, Islip had\nappointed Woodhull\u2014a monk of Canterbury\u2014to be Warden. With him three\nother monks and eight secular scholars were associated in the\ngovernment of the hall. After a trial of four years of this mixed\nadministration, finding that it did not work well, more particularly\nbecause of the jealousies, contentions, and collisions between the\nmonks and the secular associates, Islip, in the exercise of a right\nwhich he had reserved to himself, displaced the Warden and the\nthree other monks, and appointed Wycliffe in the place of Woodhull;\nand three secular priests, Selby, Middleworth, and Benger, to be\nassociates or fellows in the room of the three monks. This action\non the part of the Archbishop gave great offence to the monks of\nChrist Church and to the whole order of the Friars. It was regarded\nas virtually and in effect an act by which the Archbishop of\nCanterbury gave the weight of his high position and great authority\nto those who in Oxford were the resolute and strenuous opponents\nof the mendicant friars. Consequences that could not have been\nforeseen by any concerned in this action flowed from it. For not\nlong after Wycliffe\u2019s appointment to the Wardenship of Canterbury\nHall, Archbishop Islip died on the 26th April 1366, and was succeeded\nin November by Simon Langham, who had been monk, prior, and abbot\nof Westminster. By this Archbishop, Wycliffe and the three secular\npriests who had been so recently appointed to govern Canterbury\nHall were removed. Woodhull and his associates were reinstated in\nthe position from which they had been expelled by Islip, and, in\nviolation of the founder\u2019s will, the eight secular scholars were\nejected. The hall thus became virtually a monastic institution.\nWycliffe\u2019s appeal to the papal court at Avignon was of no avail.\nAfter a protracted process and long delay, the Pope gave judgment\nagainst him in 1370. We cannot better conclude this chapter in\nWycliffe\u2019s life than by quoting the words of Godwin. They will\nprepare us for what comes next in the order of events:\u2014\n\n        \u201cFrom Canterbury College, which his predecessor had\n      founded, he (Langham) sequestered the fruits of the\n      benefice of Pageham, and otherwise molested the\n      scholars there, intending to displace them all and to\n      put in monks, which in the end he brought to pass.\n      John Wycliffe was one of them that were so displaced,\n      and had withstood the Archbishop in this business\n      with might and main. By the Pope\u2019s favor and the\n      Archbishop\u2019s power, the monks overbore Wycliffe and\n      his fellows. If, then, Wycliffe were angry with Pope,\n      Archbishop, monks, and all, you cannot marvel.\u201d[13]\n\nNothwithstanding the very reasonable remark of Godwin that we need\nnot wonder much if Wycliffe, considering the treatment which he had\nreceived at the hands of the Pope, the Archbishop, and the monks,\nshould be angry against them all, there is no proof or evidence\nwhatever in support of the allegation of his adversaries, that his\nantagonism to the friars and his attitude towards the Pope proceeded\nfrom irritated feeling, discontent, and disappointed ambition. On\nthe contrary, the absence of all such feelings is one of the most\nremarkable and characteristic distinctions of his numerous writings.\n\nWycliffe\u2019s nomination by Islip to the Wardenship of Canterbury Hall\nis dated the 9th of December 1365. In that year Pope Urban V. revived\nand urged a claim against Edward III. which had been in abeyance for\nthirty-three years. This was the demand that Edward should pay the\nfeudal tribute or annual fee which for the crown of England he owed to\nUrban the Fifth of that name, exercising the functions of Bishop of\nRome in the place of the papal captivity at Avignon. The Servant of\nservants at Avignon\u2014moved by that necessity which knows no law, or by\nan equally lawless covetousness and ambition\u2014demanded of Edward III.\nof England payment of the feudal tribute-money alleged to be due by\nthat monarch to the Holy See. The demand of the Pope was for payment\nof the sum of a thousand marks annually due, and for payment of the\narrears that had accumulated for thirty-three years, or since Edward,\nceasing to be a minor, had exercised his sovereign rights as monarch\nof England. This papal claim was accompanied with an intimation to\nthe King of England that, in case of his failing to comply with the\npontifical demand, he should appear to answer for his non-fulfilment of\nthis duty in the presence of his feudal lord and sovereign, the Pope\nof Rome, at Avignon. It is difficult to say whether the arrogance or\nthe folly of Pope Urban V., in reviving and urging this claim at this\ntime was the greater of the two. Edward III., even in his decrepitude,\nand in the midst of the reverses which marked his declining years, was\nnot likely to crouch, like John, under the ignominious burden laid\non him in the time of his adversity by the Papacy. The Pope\u2019s claim\nproved the occasion of uniting the King and the nation in a common\nassertion and vindication of the national independence, and of the\ninalienable rights and prerogatives of the English Crown. It was the\noccasion of Wycliffe\u2019s first public appearance as the champion of\nthe royal supremacy and national independence against the usurpation\nand arrogance of the Court of Rome. The papal claim was submitted by\nEdward to the Parliament which met at Westminster in May 1366. After\ndeliberation, the answer of the Parliament\u2014the Lords and Commons of\nEngland\u2014to the demand of the Pope, concluded with these weighty and\nwell-measured words:\u2014\n\n        \u201cForasmuch as neither King John nor any other king\n      could bring this realm and kingdom in such thraldom\n      and subjection but by common consent of Parliament,\n      the which was not done; therefore, that which he did\n      was against his oath at his coronation, besides many\n      other causes. If, therefore, the Pope should attempt\n      anything against the King, by process or other\n      matters in deed, the King, with all his subjects,\n      should with all their force and power resist the\n      same.\u201d[14]\n\nAt the time when this resolution was come to, Wycliffe was Warden\nof Canterbury Hall. At this time, also, he stood in some very\nspecial relation to the King, as the King\u2019s private secretary or\nchaplain\u2014\u201cPeculiaris Regis Clericus.\u201d And his argument\u2014\u201cDeterminatio\nde Dominio\u201d\u2014in vindication of the Crown and the national independence,\nconsists mainly of a statement skilfully compiled by him out of what,\naccording to the report which he had heard, had been spoken by the\nsecular lords in a certain meeting of council\u2014\u201cQuam audivi in quodam\nconsilio a Dominis secularibus esse datam.\u201d Soon after the decision\nof Parliament to repudiate the Pope\u2019s claim, a monastic and anonymous\ndoctor, writing in support of the papal demand, challenged Wycliffe\nby name\u2014singling him out from all others\u2014to refute, if he could,\nthe argument urged by him on the part of the Pope; and to vindicate,\nif he could, the action of the English Parliament in refusing to pay\nthe feudal tribute demanded by Urban the Fifth. Wycliffe showed no\nhesitation in accepting the challenge of this anonymous doctor. And it\nmust be confessed that he conducts his argument with consummate skill,\nmoderation, and ability. His challenger had laid down the position that\n\u201cevery dominion granted on condition, comes to an end on the failure of\nthat condition. But our lord the Pope gifted our king with the kingdom\nof England, on condition that England should pay so much annually to\nthe Roman See. Now this condition in process of time has not been\nfulfilled, and the King, in consequence, has lost long ago all rightful\ndominion in England.\u201d Wycliffe\u2019s answer is, briefly, that England\u2019s\nmonarch is King of England, and has dominion there, not by the grace of\nthe Pope, but by the grace of God. Two other positions were maintained\nby this polemical monk\u2014namely, that the \u201ccivil power may not under\nany circumstances deprive ecclesiastics of their lands, goods or\nrevenues; and that in no case can it be lawful for an ecclesiastic to\nbe compelled to appear before a secular judge.\u201d Against these claims\nof exemption and immunity, Wycliffe urges with irresistible force the\nargument, that as the King is under God supreme in his kingdom, all\ncauses, whether relating to persons or to property, must be under his\ndominion, and subject to his jurisdiction. Wycliffe, in beginning\nhis reply, says: \u201cInasmuch as I am the King\u2019s own clerk, I the more\nwillingly undertake the office of defending and counselling _that the\nKing exercises his just rule in the realm of England when he refuses to\npay tribute to the Roman Pontiff_.\u201d Wycliffe constructs his argument\nout of what, as reported to him, had been spoken at a conference or\ncouncil of the barons or the lords temporal of the realm. It is not\nWycliffe but the noblemen of England who refute the monk and repudiate\nthe Pope\u2019s illegitimate and arrogant demand. An abstract of the\nspeeches of seven of the barons met in council is so given as to be an\nexhaustive and unanswerable argument against the papal claims, \u201cOur\nancestors,\u201d said the first lord, \u201cwon this realm, and held it against\nall foes by the sword. Julius C\u00e6sar exacted tribute by force; but force\ngives no perpetual right. Let the Pope come and take it by force; I\nam ready to stand up and resist him.\u201d The second lord thus reasoned:\n\u201cThe Pope is incapable of such feudal supremacy. He should follow the\nexample of Christ, who refused all civil dominion; the foxes have\nholes, and the birds of the air their nests, but He had not where to\nlay His head. Let us rigidly hold the Pope to his spiritual duties,\nboldly oppose all his claims to civil power.\u201d In support of this the\nthird lord said: \u201cThe Pope calls himself the Servant of the servants of\nthe Most High: his only claim to tribute from this realm is for some\nservice done; but what is his service to this realm? Not spiritual\nedification, but draining away money to enrich himself and his Court,\nshowing favor and counsel to our enemies.\u201d To this the fourth lord\nadded: \u201cThe Pope claims to be the suzerain of all estates held by the\nChurch; these estates, held on mortmain, amount to one-third of the\nrealm. There cannot be two suzerains; the Pope, therefore, for these\nestates is the King\u2019s vassal; he has not done homage for them; he may\nhave incurred forfeiture.\u201d The fifth argument is more subtle: \u201cIf the\nPope demands this money as the price of King John\u2019s absolution, it is\nflagrant simony; it is an irreligious act to say, \u2018I will absolve you\non payment of a certain annual tribute.\u2019 But the King pays not this\ntax; it is wrung from the poor of the realm: to exact it is an act of\navarice rather than salutary punishment. If the Pope be lord of the\nrealm, he may at any time declare it forfeited, and grant away the\nforfeiture.\u201d Following up this view of the case, the sixth lord says:\n\u201cIf the realm be the Pope\u2019s, what right had he to alienate it? He has\nfraudulently sold it for a fifth part of its value. Moreover, Christ\nalone is the suzerain; the Pope being fallible, yea, peccable, may be\nin mortal sin. _It is better as of old to hold the realm immediately of\nChrist._\u201d The seventh lord concluded the argument by a bold denial of\nthe right of King John to surrender or give way the sovereignty of the\nrealm: \u201cHe could not grant away the sovereignty of England; the whole\nthing\u2014the deed, the seals, the signatures\u2014is an absolute nullity.\u201d[15]\n\nIt cannot now be known how far Wycliffe\u2019s conduct in connection\nwith the claim for the payment of the feudal tribute influenced the\npapal decision in his appeal; but that decision was given after the\npublication of Wycliffe\u2019s treatise, \u201cDe Dominio.\u201d And there can be no\ndoubt that from May 1366, Wycliffe was marked at Avignon as a dangerous\nman. To be nearer to Oxford he exchanged, in 1368, the rectory of\nFylingham for that of Ludgershall in Buckinghamshire, and he became\nDoctor in Divinity about the year 1370. The ability, prudence, and\ncourage with which Wycliffe had vindicated the action of the Parliament\nand of the Crown against the papal claim, as asserted and defended\nby the anonymous monk, recommended him as singularly qualified to be\none of the Royal Commissioners appointed in 1374 to meet with the\npapal Nuncios at Bruges, to negotiate a settlement of the questions in\ndispute between England and the Papacy. In this Commission the name\nof Wycliffe holds the second place, being inserted immediately after\nthat of the Bishop of Bangor. The negotiations terminated in a sort of\ncompromise, according to which it was concluded \u201cthat for the future\nthe Pope should desist from making use of _reservations of benefices_,\nand that the King should no more confer benefices by his writ _Quare\nimpedit_.\u201d Although this was but a very partial and unsatisfactory\nsettlement of the matters in dispute, yet the part taken by Wycliffe in\nthe negotiations at Bruges appears to have met with the approbation of\nthe King and his advisers. For in November 1375, he was presented by\nthe King to the prebend of Aust, in the Collegiate Church of Westbury,\nin the diocese of Worcester. He had previously, in April 1374, received\nfrom the Crown, in the exercise of the patronage that devolved on it\nduring the minority of Lord Henry Ferrars, nomination to the rectory of\nLutterworth, and had resigned his charge of Ludgershall.\n\nIn the same year in which the treaty was concluded (1376), a most\nelaborate and detailed indictment against the usurpations and exactions\nof the Papacy and its minions was submitted to Parliament, and after\nbeing considered, was passed in the form of a petition to the King,\ncraving that measures of effective redress and remedy should be\ntaken against the notorious and intolerable evils complained of. The\nParliament which presented this complaint and petition to the King so\ncommended itself to the people of England that it received the singular\ndesignation of \u201cThe Good Parliament.\u201d Although the royal answer to\nthe petition was far from being satisfactory or encouraging, yet the\nParliament that met in January 1377 presented another petition to the\nKing, craving that the statutes against _Provisions_ passed at former\ntimes should be put into effective operation, and that measures should\nbe taken against certain cardinals who had violated those statutes,\nand against those who in England collected the papal revenues, and by\nso doing oppressed and impoverished the English people. So vividly do\nthe propositions of these two Parliaments express and represent the\nideas and opinions of Wycliffe, that Dr. Lechler concludes that he was\na member of both of these Parliaments. But there is no necessity for\nthis inferential assumption. Wycliffe\u2019s doctrines respecting the kingly\nsovereignty and national independence, and his sentiments regarding\nthe intolerable abuses of the papal officials, were by this time the\ndoctrines and the sentiments of not a few among the lords and commons\nof England. And without being himself a member of Parliament, Wycliffe\nhad ample opportunity and means for using his influence to stimulate,\ndirect, and guide those who in the National Assembly gave voice to the\ncomplaint and claim of the English people as against the usurpation\nand exactions of the Papacy. To this sort of influence on the part of\nWycliffe, as also to the weight attached to his judgment in a case\ninvolving a knowledge of canon and civil law, significant testimony\nwas borne by the action of the first Parliament of Richard II., which\nmet at Westminster on the 13th of October 1377. By this Parliament the\nquestion was referred to the judgment of Dr. Wycliffe, \u201cWhether the\nkingdom of England, on an imminent necessity of its own defence may\nlawfully detain the treasure of the kingdom, that it be not carried\nout of the land, although the lord Pope required its being carried\nout on the pain of censures, and by virtue of the obedience due to\nhim?\u201d As might be expected, Wycliffe answered that it was lawful, and\ndemonstrated this by the law of Christ, urging at the same time the\ncommon maxim of divines, that alms are not required to be given but to\nthose who are in need, and by those who have more than they need. \u201cBy\nwhich,\u201d says Lewis, \u201cit appears that Dr. Wycliffe\u2019s opinion was, that\nPeter-pence paid to the Pope were not a _just due_, but only an _alms_,\nor charitable gift\u201d[16]\n\nThe action of the English Parliament referring this question to the\njudgment of Wycliffe, is all the more interesting and significant\nif respect be had to the time and circumstances in which Wycliffe\u2019s\nopinion was required by Parliament. It was not only after the death\nof Edward III., which occurred on the 21st of June 1377, but also\nafter the almost tragical though picturesque incident in Wycliffe\u2019s\nlife, when, accompanied and protected by the Duke of Lancaster and\nLord Henry Percy, he appeared in the Ladye Chapel of St. Paul\u2019s\nCathedral on the 19th of February in the same year, to answer for\nhimself and his doctrines before a convention of ecclesiastics,\npresided over by Simon Sudbury, Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by\nCourtenay, the Bishop of London. It was, also, after no fewer than\nfive papal bulls, dated at Rome on the 22d of May, had been sent forth\nagainst Wycliffe. These things give great significancy to the action\nof Richard II.\u2018s first Parliament, when for its guidance it desired to\nhave the opinion of Wycliffe respecting the lawfulness of refusing to\ncomply with certain papal exactions.\n\nThe position and influence of Wycliffe, his standing in the University\nand among the representatives and leaders of the people, may be judged\nof by the elaborate and complicated measures taken against him. One\nof the Pope\u2018s missives was addressed to the King, another to the\nUniversity of Oxford and no fewer than three to the Archbishop of\nCanterbury and the Bishop of London. These documents were accompanied\nby a schedule or syllabus of nineteen articles which had been reported\nto the Pontiff, \u201cerroneous, false, contrary to the faith, and\nthreatening to subvert and weaken the estate of the whole Church,\u201d said\nto be held and taught by Wycliffe. Acting on these instructions, and\nproceeding in the business with the greatest wariness, the Archbishop\nsummoned Wycliffe to appear before a synod to be held in the chapel\nat Lambeth early in the year 1378.[17] On this occasion the Duke of\nLancaster and Lord Percy were not with him to protect him, but he\nreceived effective though tumultuous and boisterous help from the\ncitizens, who might be heard by the bishops shouting such sentences\nas, \u201cThe Pope\u2018s briefs ought to have no effect in the realm without\nthe King\u2018s consent;\u201d \u201cEvery man is master in his own house.\u201d But even\nmore effective help than that of the angry citizens was at hand. \u201cIn\ncomes a gentleman and courtier, one Lewis Clifford, on the very day of\nexamination, commanding them not to proceed to any definitive sentence\nagainst the said Wycliffe.\u201d \u201cNever before were the bishops served with\nsuch a _prohibition_; all agreed the messenger durst not be so stout\nwith such a _mandamus_ in his mouth, but because backed with the power\nof the prince that employed him. The bishops, struck with a panic-fear,\nproceeded no further\u201d[18]\u2014or as a contemporary historian (Walsingham)\nsays: \u201cTheir speech became soft as oil; and with such fear were they\nstruck, that they seemed to be as a man that heareth not, and in whose\nmouth are no reproofs.\u201d Wycliffe passed as safely out of Lambert Chapel\nas on a former occasion he had passed out of the Ladye Chapel of St.\nPaul\u2018s. Not long after the sudden conclusion of this Lambeth synod,\nintimation of the Pope\u2018s death, on the 27th March 1378, was received in\nEngland. This so arrested the process against Wycliffe, that no further\naction was taken under the five elaborate bulls of Pope Gregory XI.\nA new chapter in the life and work of Wycliffe begins with the great\npapal schism of 1378.\n\nTill recently it was supposed that Wycliffe had early assumed the\nattitude towards the friars which had been taken by Richard Fitzralph,\nwho, after he had been Chancellor of Oxford in 1333, and Archbishop of\nArmagh in 1347, died at Avignon in 1359. This supposition now appears\nto be historically without ground; and Dr. Lechler\u2018s researches tend\nto show that Wycliffe\u2018s controversy with the friars belonged not to\nthe earlier but to the later period of his life. This view agrees with\nall that we know of the method according to which Wycliffe conducted\nand developed his great argument against the Papacy. Wycliffe\u2018s study\nof the papal claims, pretensions, usurpations, and exactions, led him\nto investigate the grounds and foundations not only of the political,\nbut also of the ecclesiastical and spiritual, power and authority of\nthe Popedom. In his reply in 1366 to the anonymous monk champion of the\nPapacy, he had represented or reported, with manifest approbation, the\nstatement of one of the secular lords, declaring that the Pope was a\nman and peccable (_peccabilis_), and that he might be in mortal sin,\nand liable to what that involves. After he had taken his degree of\nDoctor in Divinity in 1370 or 1371, he expounded and vindicated from\nthe Scriptures the doctrines which, by his long study of the Divine\nWord, he had been led to receive as articles of faith founded on the\nwritten Word of God. These views, derived directly and immediately from\nHoly Scripture, he illustrated by quotations from the early\nfathers\u2014more particularly from the writings of Ambrose, Jerome,\nAugustine, and Gregory, the four fathers of the Latin Church. From the\ntime when he became Doctor in Divinity, \u201che began,\u201d says a contemporary\nopponent, \u201cto scatter forth his blasphemies.\u201d And as we know, it was\nafter his return from Bruges in 1376 that he began to speak of the\nPope not merely as peccable\u2014fallible, and liable to sin\u2014but as\n\u201cAntichrist, the proud, worldly priest of Rome.\u201d\n\nIt has been said that the language of Wycliffe in his tract entitled\n\u201cDe Papa Romana et Schisma Papae\u201d was too strong, too vehement and\nsweeping; and that his work was, in tendency and effect, destructive\nrather than constructive. So far is it from being true that his\nlanguage is that of passion, or of vehemence proceeding from passion,\nthat, on the contrary, it is the language of a reflective, circumspect,\nand keen-eyed observer of the evils and abuses of the papal system,\nwhich he contrasted with the primitive and apostolic model of the\nChurch. When compared with the language of some other assailants\nof the Papacy, Wycliffe\u2018s fiercest invectives are but the calm,\nmeasured, and temperate declaration of truth and reality, spoken by\none who so loved the truth, and was so earnest in his endeavors for\nthe reformation of the Church and the morals of the clergy, that he\navowed himself willing, if need be, to lay down his life, if by so\ndoing he could promote the attainment of this end. If the portraiture\nof the Papacy and of the papal dignitaries, officials, and underlings,\ngiven by Petrarch, in his \u201cLetters to a Father,\u201d be compared with the\nstatements of Wycliffe, we shall be constrained to say that the Oxford\nprofessor uses the language of reserve characteristic of the well-bred\nand well-disciplined Englishman who means to give practical effect\nto his words, as distinguished from the language used by Petrarch,\nwho neither intended, nor had the courage, to add deeds to his words.\nHistorically, Wycliffe\u2018s work appears to have been more destructive\nthan constructive. But this was not because Wycliffe set himself to\nroot out, to pull down, and to destroy, without, at the same time\nsetting himself to build and to plant. The reason why Wycliffe\u2018s work\nappears historically defective or incomplete as a constructive work\nis that, by the malice, ingenuity, and power of his adversaries,\nhis work in planting and in building\u2014that is to say, his work as\nconstructive\u2014was to the utmost impeded, pulled down, or rooted up.\n\u201cAnd,\u201d says Milton, \u201chad it not been the obstinate perverseness of\nour prelates against the divine and admirable spirit of Wycliffe,\nto suppress him as a schismatic and innovator, perhaps neither the\nBohemian Huss and Jerome, no, nor the name of Luther or of Calvin, had\nbeen ever known; the glory of reforming all our neighbors had been\ncompletely ours.\u201d[19]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe last six years of Wycliffe\u2018s life\u20141378-1384\u2014were packed full\nwith work. For in these years, besides developing and expounding his\nideas of the Church, the Papacy, and the hierarchy, and prosecuting\nhis controversy with the mendicant friars, he trained and sent forth\nevangelists, \u201cpoor priests\u201d to preach the Gospel in all places of the\nland; he expounded and taught the doctrine of Scripture concerning\nthe Eucharist or the \u201creal presence\u201d in relation to the bread and\nthe wine in the sacrament of the Lord\u2018s Supper; he professed and\ntaught theology in Oxford; he preached and discharged the duties of\nan evangelical pastor in Lutterworth; and with the assistance of a\nfew fellow-laborers, who entered into his purpose and shared with him\nin the desire for the evangelisation of the people of England, he\ntranslated the Scriptures out of the Latin Vulgate into the English\ntongue. \u201cHis life,\u201d and more especially this part of it, \u201cshows that\nhis religious views were progressive. His ideal was the restoration\nof the pure moral and religious supremacy to religion. This was\nthe secret, the vital principle, of his anti-sacerdotalism; of his\npertinacious enmity to the whole hierarchical system of his day.\u201d[20]\nHence as his views of truth became deeper, wider, and more fixed,\ninstead of attacking Popes and prelates, he assailed the Papacy and\nthe hierarchy; and instead of attacking friars, he attacked mendicancy\nitself\u2014denouncing it in common with the Papacy as contrary to\nthe doctrines of the Word of God, and inconsistent with the order\ninstituted by Christ within the Church, which is the house of God,\u2014the\npillar and ground of the truth.\n\nWhen Wycliffe appeared to answer for himself before the Pope\u2018s\ndelegates at Lambeth, in 1378, he is said to have presented a written\nstatement explanatory of the articles charged against him. The first\nsentence of that documentary confession is: \u201cFirst of all, I publicly\nprotest, as I have often done at other times, that I will and purpose\nfrom the bottom of my heart, by the grace of God, to be a sincere\nChristian, and, as long as I have breath, to profess and defend the law\nof Christ so far as I am able.\u201d[21]\n\nA document of a somewhat similar kind, called by Wycliffe \u201cA Sort of\nAnswer to the Bull sent to the University,\u201d was presented by him to\nParliament.\n\nIt is as a true and sincere Christian, and as a faithful and laborious\nChristian pastor and evangelist, that Wycliffe appears before us in the\nclosing period of his truly heroic life. The written word of God is now\nto him the supreme, perfect and sufficient rule of faith and morals:\nit is what, in his protestation, he calls \u201cthe law of Christ.\u201d The\nwatchword of his life\u2014the standard test, rule, directory, and measure\nof faith and duty\u2014is the Word of God written. His appeal is, first and\nlast, to that Word\u2014\u201cTo the law and to the testimony; if men speak not\naccording to that Word, there is no light in them;\u201d they are but blind\nguides of the blind. He had evidently made progress in his study of the\nwritings of Augustine, and had so profited by the study that he is bold\nto say that \u201cThe dictum of Augustine is not infallible, seeing that\nAugustine himself was liable to err\u201d\u2014\u201cLocus a testimonio Augustini non\nest infallibilis, cum Augustinus sit errabilis.\u201d The Bible is a charter\nwritten by God; it is God\u2018s gift to us: \u201cCarta a Deo scripta et\nnobis donata per quam vindicabimus regnum Dei.\u201d This is what a\npre-eminently illustrious poet denotes by the words\u2014\u201cThy gift, Thy\ntables.\u201d \u201cThe law of Christ is the _medulla_ of the laws of the\nChurch.\u201d \u201cEvery useful law of holy mother Church is taught, either\nexplicitly or implicitly, in Scripture.\u201d It is impossible that the\ndictum or deed of any Christian should become, or be held to be, of\nauthority equal to Scripture. He is a _mixtim theologus_\u2014a motley or\nmedley theologian\u2014who adds traditions to the written Word. He is\n_theologus purus_ who adheres to the Scripture. \u201cSpiritual rulers\nare bound to use the sincere Word of God, without any admixture in\ntheir rule or administration. To be ignorant of the Scriptures is to\nbe ignorant of Christ.\u201d \u201cThe whole of Scripture is one word of God.\u201d\n\u201cThe whole of the law of Christ is one perfect word proceeding from\nthe mouth of God.\u201d \u201cIt is impious to mutilate or pervert Scripture,\nor to wrest from it a perverse meaning.\u201d The true preachers are _Viri\nevangelici_, _Doctores evangelici_. Ignorance of Holy Scripture, or\nthe absence of faith in the written Word of God, is, he says, \u201cbeyond\ndoubt, the chief cause of the existing state of things.\u201d Therefore\nit was his great business, in life or by death, to make known to\nhis fellow-countrymen the will of God revealed in the Scriptures of\nTruth. The highest service to which man may attain on earth is to\npreach the law of God. This is the special duty of the priests, in\norder that they may produce children of God\u2014this being the end for\nwhich Christ espoused to Himself the Church.\u201d\n\nNext to the exclusive supremacy of Scripture, the truth which is set\nforth with perhaps the most marked prominency in the teaching of\nWycliffe, is the truth concerning the Lord Jesus Christ as the one\nMediator between God and man. Christ is not only revealed in the Word;\nhe is Himself the Mediating Word\u2014the way, and the truth, and the life.\nAnd what Wycliffe says of the Apostle Paul, that he lifts the banner of\nhis Captain, in that he glories only in the cross of Christ, admits, as\nDr. Lechler remarks, of being justly applied to Wycliffe himself;\nfor his text is the evangel, and his theme is Christ. Like Luther\nafterwards, Wycliffe lived through the truth which he proclaimed.\nIn his case the order was, first the Word, then Christ. In Luther\u2018s\nit was, first the Word, then justification by faith. The German\u2018s\nexperience implied the logical order of the Englishman\u2018s experience.\nFor the logic of this faith is the Word of grace, the Christ of grace,\nthe righteousness of grace. Luther\u2018s work implies, develops, and\ncompletes the work of Wycliffe, so that it holds true that the one\nwithout the other is not made perfect.\n\nIn the year 1380, after recovery from a severe illness, Wycliffe\npublished a tract in which he formulated his charges against the\nfriars under fifty distinct heads, accusing them of fifty heresies;\nand many more, as he said, if their tenets and practices be searched\nout. \u201cFriars,\u201d says he, towards the conclusion of this tract, \u201care the\ncause, beginning, and maintaining of perturbation in Christendom, and\nof all the evils of this world; nor shall these errors be removed until\nfriars be brought to the freedom of the Gospel and the clean religion\nof Jesus Christ.\u201d\n\nWycliffe did not indulge in mere denunciation. His invectives were\nwith a view to the work of reformation. Accordingly, at the time when\nhe published the fifty charges against the friars he was actively\ntraining, organising, and sending out agents\u2014\u201cpoor priests\u201d to\ninstruct the people in the knowledge of the Gospel, and by so doing\nundo the works of the friars, and promote evangelical religion and\nsocial virtue. At first these itinerant preachers were employed in\nsome places, as in the immense diocese of Lincoln, under episcopal\nsanction.[22] But so effectively and extensively did they propagate\nthe evangelical doctrines of Wycliffe, that in Archbishop Courtenay\u2018s\nmandate to the Bishop of London in 1382, they are denounced as\n\u201cunauthorised itinerant preachers, who set forth erroneous, yea,\nheretical, assertions in public sermons, not only in churches, but also\nin public squares, and other profane places; and who do this under\nthe guise of great holiness, but without having obtained any\nepiscopal or papal authorisation.\u201d It was against Wycliffe\u2018s\n\u201cpoor priests\u201d or itinerant preachers that the first royal\nproclamation in 1382 (statute it cannot be called), at the instance\nof Courtenay, for the punishment of heresy in England, was issued.\nThe unprecedented measures taken against the \u201cpoor priests\u201d bear\nmost significant testimony to the effect produced by their teachings\nthroughout the kingdom. It would be interesting to know how far,\nif at all, Wesley\u2018s idea of itinerant preachers was founded on, or\nproceeded from, the idea and the experiment of Wycliffe. At any rate,\nthese poor priests were not organised, nor was their action modelled,\naccording to any of the guilds, fraternities, or orders that had been\nformed or that had been in operation before the time of Wycliffe. The\nidea was truly original, and \u201cthe simplicity of the institution was\nitself a stroke of consummate genius.\u201d[23]\n\nHaving acted out his own principles that the student who would attain\nto the knowledge of the meaning of Scripture must cultivate humility\nof disposition and holiness of life, putting away from him all\nprejudicate opinions, and all merely curious and speculative theories\nand casuistical principles of interpretation, Wycliffe opened and\nstudied the Bible with the desire simply to know and to do the will of\nGod. It is no wonder if, with these sentiments, Wycliffe in his later\nyears, when engaged continually in reading, studying, expounding, and\ntranslating the Scriptures, should come to perceive the contrariety of\nthe papal or medi\u00e6val doctrine concerning the Eucharist to the doctrine\nof Scripture.\n\nWycliffe\u2018s views respecting transubstantiation having undergone\na great change between the years 1378 and 1381, he felt bound in\nconscience to make known what he now came to believe to be the\ntrue doctrine concerning the Eucharist. For, as he says in the\n\u201cTrialogus,\u201d \u201cI maintain that among all the heresies which have ever\nappeared in the Church, there was never one which was more cunningly\nsmuggled in by hypocrites than this, or which in more ways deceives\nthe people; for it plunders the people, leads them astray into\nidolatry, denies the teaching of Scripture, and by this unbelief\nprovokes the Truth Himself often-times to anger.\u201d[24] In accordance\nwith all this, Wycliffe in the spring of 1381 published twelve\nshort theses or conclusions respecting the Eucharist and against\ntransubstantiation.\u201d[25]\n\nAll Oxford was moved by these conclusions. By the unanimous judgment of\na court called and presided over by William de Bertram, the Chancellor,\nthey were declared to be contradictory to the orthodox doctrine of\nthe Church, and as such were prohibited from being set forth and\ndefended in the university, on pain of suspension from every function\nof teaching, of the greater excommunication, and of imprisonment. By\nthe same mandate all members of the university were prohibited, on pain\nof the greater excommunication, from being present at the delivery\nof these theses in the university. When this mandate was served on\nWycliffe, he was in the act of expounding the doctrine of Scripture\nconcerning the Lord\u2018s Supper. The condemnation of his doctrine came\nupon him as a surprise; but he is reported to have said that neither\nthe Chancellor nor any of his assessors could refute his arguments or\nalter his convictions. Subsequently he appealed from the Chancellor to\nthe King. In the meantime, finding himself \u201ctongue-tied by authority,\u201d\nhe wrote a treatise on this subject in Latin,[26] and also a tract in\nEnglish entitled \u201cThe Wicket,\u201d for the use of the people. Wycliffe\u2018s\ndoctrinal system may be said to have attained to its completeness when,\nrejecting the idea of transubstantiation, he accepted those simple\nand Scriptural views of the Eucharist which, apart from papalism or\nmedievalism, have in all ages prevailed within the Catholic Church\u2014\nthat is, within the society or congregation of believers in Christ,\nirrespectively of name, place, time, ceremony, or circumstance. While\nthis is so, \u201cit is impossible,\u201d as Dr. Lechler truly says, \u201cnot to be\nimpressed with the intellectual labor, the conscientiousness, and the\nforce of will, all equally extraordinary, which Wycliffe applied to the\nsolution of this problem. His attack on the dogma of transubstantiation\nwas so concentrated, and delivered (with so much force and skill) from\nso many sides, that the scholastic conception was shaken to its very\nfoundations.\u201d[27] He anticipated in his argument against the medieval\ndogma, and in favor of the primitive and catholic faith concerning the\nEucharist, the views of the greatest and best of the Reformers, leaving\nto them little more to do than to gather up, expound, develop, and\napply his principles.\n\nSoon after the proceedings which we have noted were taken against\nWycliffe, the country was threatened with anarchy by what is known as\nthe Wat Tyler and Jack Straw insurrection. It is enough to say that\nWycliffe had nothing whatever to do with the exciting of that reckless\nuprising. All his studies, meditations, and labors were designed to\npromote righteousness and peace, truth and goodwill, order and liberty,\nin England and all over the earth.\n\nIn the tract, \u201cA Short Rule of Life, for each man in general, for\npriests and lords and laborers in special, How each shall be saved in\nhis degree,\u201d addressing the \u201claborer,\u201d he says:\u2014\n\n        \u201cIf thou art a _laborer_, live in meekness, and\n      truly and willingly, so thy lord or thy master, if he\n      be a heathen man, by thy meekness, willing and true\n      service, may not have to grudge against thee, nor\n      slander thy God, nor thy Christian profession, but\n      rather be stirred to come to Christianity, and serve\n      not Christian lords with grudgings, not only in their\n      presence, but truly and willingly, and in absence;\n      not only for worldly dread, or worldly reward, but\n      for dread of conscience, and for reward in heaven.\n      For God that putteth thee in such service knoweth\n      what state is best for thee, and will reward thee\n      more than all earthly lords may if thou dost it truly\n      and willingly for His ordinance. And in all things\n      beware of grudging against God and His visitation in\n      great labor, in long or great sickness, and other\n      adversities. And beware of wrath, of cursing, of\n      speaking evil, of banning man or beast, and ever keep\n      patience, meekness, and charity, both to God and man.\u201d\n\nAs we cannot afford space to give what is said to \u201clords,\u201d whom he\ncounsels to\n\n      \u201clive a rightful life in their own persons, both in\n      respect to God and man, keeping the commandments of\n      God, doing the works of mercy, ruling well their\n      five senses, and doing reason, and equity, and good\n      conscience to all men,\u201d\u2014\n\nwe merely give here his concluding words:\u2014\n\n        \u201cAnd thus each man in the three states ought to life,\n      to save himself, and to help others; and thus should\n      life, rest, peace, and love, be among Christian men,\n      and they be saved, and heathen men soon converted,\n      and God magnified greatly in all nations and sects\n      that now despise Him and His law, because of the\n      false living of wicked Christian men.\u201d\n\nThese are not the sentiments or utterances of a man in fellowship with\nJohn Ball, Wat Tyler, Jack Straw, or any other such demagogues, rebels,\nor sowers of sedition.\n\nThe truth, as stated by Milman,[28] is, that this spasm or \u201coutburst\u201d\nof \u201cthralled discontent\u201d was but a violent symptom of the evils\nwhich it was the aim and design of Wycliffe to uproot and remove, by\ndisseminating and inculcating everywhere the principles and precepts\nof the Gospel. Writing in defence of the \u201cpoor priests\u201d or evangelists\nwhom he had trained and sent out, Wycliffe says:\u2014\n\n        \u201cThese poor priests destroien most, by God\u2018s\n      law, rebelty of servants agenst lords, and charge\n      servants to be sujet, though lords be tyrants. For\n      St Peter teacheth us, Be ye servants suget to lords\n      in all manner of dread, not only to good lords, and\n      bonoure, but also to tyrants, or such as drawen from\n      God\u2019s school. For, as St. Paul sieth, each man oweth\n      to be suget to higher potestates, that is, to men of\n      high power, for there is no power but of God, and\n      so he that agen stondeth power, stondeth agenst the\n      ordinance of God, but they that agenstond engetten\n      to themselves damnation. And therefore Paul biddeth\n      that we be suget to princes by need, and not only\n      for wrath but also for conscience, and therefore we\n      paien tributes to princes, for they ben ministers of\n      God.\u201d But \u201csome men that ben out of charity slandren\n      \u2018poor priests\u2019 with this error, that servants or\n      tenants may lawfully withhold rent and service fro\n      their lords, when lords be openly wicked in their\n      living;\u201d and \u201cthey maken these false lesings upon\n      \u2018poor priests\u2019 to make lords to hate them, and not to\n      meyntane truth of God\u2019s law that they teachen openly\n      for worship of God, and profit of the realm, and\n      stabling the King\u2019s power in destroying of sin.\u201d[29]\n\nAmong the victims of the rage of the rabble in the Wat Tyler\ninsurrection was Simon Sudbury, the Archbishop of Canterbury. \u201cHe\nwas,\u201d says Godwin, \u201ca man admirably wise and well spoken.\u201d But \u201cthough\nhe were very wise, learned, eloquent, liberal, merciful and for his\nage and place reverend, yet might it not deliver him from the rage\nof this beast with many heads\u2014the multitude\u2014than which being, once\nincensed, there is no brute beast more cruel, more outrageous, more\nunreasonable.\u201d[30]\n\nWilliam Courtenay, Bishop of London, succeeded Sudbury as Archbishop\nof Canterbury. Courtenay, a high-tempered, haughty, and resolute man,\nlost no time in bringing the powers of his new and high position to\nbear against the doctrines and adherents of Wycliffe. His pall from\nRome having been delivered to him at Croydon on the 6th of May 1382,\nhe summoned a synod to meet in the Grey Friars (mendicants) in London,\non the 17th of May, to deliberate and determine on the measures to be\ntaken for the suppression of certain stranger and dangerous opinions\n\u201cwidely prevalent among the nobility and commons of the realm.\u201d During\nthe sittings of this synod a great and terrible earthquake shook the\nplace of meeting and the whole city. Many of the high dignitaries\nand learned doctors assembled, interpreting this event as a protest\nfrom heaven against the proceedings of the council, would fain have\nadjourned the meeting and its business. But the Archbishop, with ready\nwit, interpreting the omen to suit his own purpose, said, \u201cthe earth\nwas throwing off its noxious vapors, that the Church might appear in\nher perfect purity,\u201d With these words Courtenay allayed the fears of\nthe more timid members of the synod, and the business went forward.\nOf four and twenty articles extracted from Wycliffe\u2019s writings, ten\nwere condemned as heretical, and the other fourteen were judged\nerroneous. It is unnecessary to say that among the articles condemned\nas heretical were the doctrines of Wycliffe concerning the Eucharist,\nand more particularly his denial of transubstantiation. Among the\ncondemned tenets there are some which Wycliffe never held or affirmed\nin the sense put upon them by the \u201cEarthquake Council.\u201d Some of the\ndeterminations of this synod were so framed as to imply or insinuate\nthat Wycliffe was implicated in the insurrection of the previous year,\nand that he was an enemy to temporal as well as to the ecclesiastical\nauthority\u2014in other words, that he was a traitor as well as heretic. An\nimposing procession, and a sermon by a Carmelite friar, served to give\nsolemnity and publicity, pomp and circumstance, to the decrees of the\nsynod.\n\nDr. Peter Stokes, a Carmelite preacher, furnished with the Archbishop\u2019s\nmandate and other artillery, was sent to bombard Oxford or to take it\nby storm. But neither the scholars nor the Chancellor (Rigge) were\ndisposed to surrender the university without a struggle in defence\nof its rights and liberties. The reception given to Dr. Stokes was\nnot at all satisfactory or assuring to the mind of the Archbishop of\nCanterbury, who indignantly gave expression to his sorrow and his\nanger in the words: \u201cIs, then, the University of Oxford such a fautor\nof heresy that Catholic truths cannot be asserted within her walls?\u201d\nAssuming to himself the ominous title of \u201cInquisitor of heretical\npravity within his whole province of Canterbury,\u201d he proceeded to\ndeal with Oxford as if it were nothing more than one of the outlying\nparishes of his episcopal province. The chancellor and several members\nof the university were summoned to appear before him and to purge\nthemselves of the suspicion of heresy. But Chancellors like Rigge,\nalthough courteous, are not readily compliant with what seems to invade\nthe privileges and prerogatives of their office. If Chancellor Rigge,\nafter his return to Oxford from London, gave formal effect to the\ninjunctions of the Archbishop, by intimating to Nicolas Hereford and\nPhilip Repington that he was under the necessity of suspending them\nfrom all their functions as members of the university, he promptly\nresented the insolence of Henry Cromp, who in a public lecture had\napplied the epithet \u201cLollards\u201d to those who maintained the views of\nWycliffe, by suspending him from all university functions.[31] Against\nthis sentence Cromp sought and found refuge in an appeal to Courtenay\nand to the Privy Council. Hereford, Repington, and John Aston were\nsummoned to appear before the Archbishop. Aston was declared to be\na teacher of heresy, and he afterwards recanted. Repington also\nrecanted after a time, and was promoted to great honors in the Church.\nHereford, having gone to Rome to plead his case before the Pope, was\nthere imprisoned; but it would seem that some time afterwards he\nmanaged to escape from prison, for in 1387 he is mentioned as the\nleading itinerant preacher of the Lollards. Thus within a few months\nafter Courtenay entered on the discharge of the functions of his high\noffice, he had greatly intimidated the adherents and fellow-laborers\nof Wycliffe in the university. But opinion rooted in conviction is\nnot easily suppressed. While the more prominent representatives of\nWycliffe\u2019s adherents were either driven out of the country or coerced\ninto submission, and to the recantation of opinions which they had held\nand taught, Wycliffe himself stood firm and erect amidst the tempest\nthat raged around. As if in calm defiance of the Archbishop and his\ncommissaries, he indited a petition to the King and the Parliament,\nin which he craves their assent to the main articles contained in his\nwritings, and proved by authority\u2014the Word of God\u2014and reason to be\nthe Christian faith; he prays that all persons now bound by vows of\nreligion may have liberty to accept and follow the more perfect law of\nChrist; that tithes be bestowed according to their proper use, for the\nmaintenance of the poor; that Christ\u2019s own doctrine concerning the\nEucharist be publicly taught; that neither the King nor the kingdom\nobey any See or prelate further than their obedience be grounded on\nScripture; that no money be sent out of the realm to the Court of Rome\nor of Avignon, unless proved by Scripture to be due; that no Cardinal\nor foreigner hold preferment in England; that if a bishop or curate\nbe notoriously guilty of contempt of God, the King should confiscate\nhis temporalities; that no bishop or curate should be enslaved to\nsecular office; and that no one should be imprisoned on account of\nexcommunication.[32]\n\nThis is Wycliffe\u2019s petition of right to the King and to the Parliament\nof England. We know nothing exactly like this document in the history\nof the past five hundred years. In one or two of the claims set forth\nin it, the document which bears to it the greatest resemblance is an\nanonymous petition addressed to King James in 1609, being \u201cAn Humble\nSupplication for Toleration and Liberty to enjoy and observe the\nOrdinances of Christ Jesus, in the administration of His Churches in\nlieu of human Constitutions.\u201d But compared with Wycliffe\u2019s petition,\nthat other is narrow and restricted in its range. This of Wycliffe is,\nlike his work, for all time. In it he seems to have gathered up the\nprinciples that governed his life, and to have expressed them so that\nthis document may be regarded as a summary of principles, a sort of\nEnchiridion for the use of the statesmen and people of England.\n\nIt is more than doubtful whether Wycliffe appeared before the\nArchbishop at Oxford in 1382; and it is certain that no recantation\never proceeded from his lips or pen. In the absence of any adequate\nreason hitherto assigned for Wycliffe\u2019s immunity or personal safety in\na time so perilous, may the reason have been that, silenced in Oxford\nby the decree of the preceding year, Wycliffe left the university, and,\nretiring to his rectory of Lutterworth, enjoyed there the protection\nof the Bishop of Lincoln, John Bokingham? Within the very extensive\ndiocese of Lincoln, we know that for a time Wycliffe\u2019s \u201cpoor priests\u201d\nenjoyed the episcopal protection. Is it too much to suppose that John\nBokingham, who protected and gave episcopal sanction to Wycliffe\u2019s\npreachers, extended his protection to Wycliffe himself? This \u201cJohn\nBokingham if this were the Bishop of Lincoln accounted of some very\nunlearned, was a doctor of divinity of Oxford, a great learned man in\nscholastical divinity, as divers works of his still extant may testify,\nand for my part, I think this bishop to be the man. The year 1397, the\nPope bearing him some grudge, translated him perforce from Lincolne\nunto Lichfield, a bishopric not half so good. For curst heart he would\nnot take it, but, as though he had rather have no bread than half a\nloaf, forsook both, and became a monk at Canterbury. He was one of\nthe first founders of the bridge at Rochester.\u201d[33] Our conjecture if\nprobable or true to fact, would explain not a little that has hitherto\nperplexed the biographers of Wycliffe.\n\nBut apart from this conjecture and all similar guesses and suggestions,\nperhaps the real cause of Wycliffe\u2019s safety was the regard cherished\nfor him by many of the nobility and leaders of the people, and the\nesteem in which he was held by the King\u2019s mother\u2014\u201cthe fair maid of\nKent\u201d\u2014whose message, conveyed by Sir Lewis Clifford, brought the\nproceedings of the Lambeth Synod to an abrupt termination. Nor must the\nprotecting influence of Richard\u2019s wife, the Queen\u2014Ann of Bohemia\u2014be\nignored. For in his book \u201cOf the Three-fold Love\u201d Wycliffe says: \u201cIt\nis possible that the noble Queen of England, the sister of C\u00e6sar, may\nhave and use the Gospel written in three languages\u2014Bohemian, German,\nand Latin. But to hereticate her on that account would be Luciferian\nfolly.\u201d But after all the circumstances of the case have been\nconsidered, we may say with Fuller: \u201cIn my mind it amounted to little\nless than a miracle, that during this storm on his disciples, Wycliffe\ntheir master should live in quiet. Strange that he was not drowned\nin so strong a stream as ran against him, whose safety under God\u2019s\nprovidence is not so much to be ascribed to his own strength in\nswimming as to such as held him up by the chin\u2014the greatness of his\nnoble supporters.\u201d[34] It would appear as if King Richard himself must\nbe reckoned one at least among Wycliffe\u2019s \u201cnoble supporters.\u201d This\nseems to be implied in what appears to be a reference to himself,\nmade in one of his last-written treatises, the \u201cFrivolous Citations,\u201d\nbeing the citations addressed by the Popes to those who were offensive\nto them. In that remarkable treatise the arguments in favor of papal\ncitations are shown to be untenable and sophistical, and the assumption\nof temporal power by the Pope, as exercised in the citation of those\nnot subject to his jurisdiction, is shown to be unjustifiable. From all\nthis the conclusion is, that the Church should return to primitive and\napostolic simplicity\u2014the simplicity of the Gospel of Christ without\nthe Pope and his statutes. In the fourth chapter he maintains that\nthree things warrant any one cited to refuse obedience to the citation:\nnecessary business, illness, and the prohibition of the sovereign\nof the realm: \u201cPrimum est gravis necessitas, qu\u00e6 videtur maxima in\ncustodia Christi ovium, ne a lupis rapacibus lanientur. Secundum est\ninfirmitas corporis, propter quam deficit citato dispositio data a\ndomino ad taliter laborandum. Et tertium est preceptio regia, quando\nrex precepit, sicut debet, suo legio, ne taliter extra suam provinciam\nsuperflue evagetur. Et omnes ist\u00e6 tres caus\u00e6 vel aliqua earum in\nqualibet citatione hujusmodi sunt reperte, et specialiter cum rex\nregum prohibeat taliter evagari.\u201d All this he applies to his own case,\nin language implying that he had been cited to appear to answer for\nhimself before the Pope: \u201cEt sic dicit, quidam debilis et claudus\ncitatus ad hanc curiam, quod prohibitio regia impedit ipsum ire, quia,\nrex regum necessitat et vult efficaciter, quod non vagat. Dicit etiam\nquod domi oportet ipsum eligere Pontificam Iesum Christum, quod est\ngravis necessitas eo, quod cum ejus omissione vel negligentia non\npotest Romanus Pontifex vel aliquis angelus dispensare.\u201d[35] The words\nseem to imply not only that he was cited to appear before the Pope,\nbut that in declining to obey the papal summons, he could plead bodily\ninfirmity, the will of the King of kings, and also the prohibition of\nthe only earthly sovereign to whom he owed a subject\u2019s duty. Shirley,\nwriting in 1858, says\u2014\u201cFrom his retreat at Lutterworth they summoned\nhim before the papal court. The citation did not reach him till\n1384.\u201d[36] If so, then his tract \u201cDe Citationibus Frivolis\u201d was one of\nthe last of the many writings that proceeded from his pen.\n\nBefore we make the briefest possible reference to the last and greatest\nwork of Wycliffe\u2014his translation of the Bible\u2014we may here allude to\nthe marvellous productiveness of the mind of this great Englishman of\nthe fourteenth century. In this respect, as in other characteristics\nof his genius, there is only one other name in English literature that\nis entitled to take rank and place beside John Wycliffe, and that is\nthe name of William Shakespeare. Chaucer and Langland and Gower, the\ncontemporaries of Wycliffe, wrote much, and wrote so as not only to\nprove the previously unknown capabilities of the half-formed English\nlanguage for giving expression to every variety of poetical conception,\nbut these illustrious poets also so wrote as to be the forerunners and\nthe leaders of those who, since the time when the English mind was set\nfree by the Reformation, have marched, and continue to march, as the\npoets of England in splendid equipage in their proud procession through\nthe ages. But the intellectual and literary productiveness of Chaucer\nand Langland and Gower comes far short of the truly extraordinary\nproductiveness of the genius of Wycliffe. Nothing but ignorance of what\nWycliffe did for the highest forms of thought in the University, for\nthe dignity and independence of the State, for truth and freedom in\nthe Church, and for virtue and godliness among the English people, and\nthrough them among all the nations of the world, can account for the\nindifference to the name and memory of Wycliffe, which prevails not in\nOxford alone, but throughout the country:\u2014\n\n      \u201cTo the memory of one of the greatest of Englishmen,\n      his country has been singularly and painfully\n      ungrateful. On most of us the dim image looks down,\n      like the portrait of the first of a long line of\n      kings, without personality or expression. He is the\n      first of the Reformers. To some he is the watchword\n      of a theological controversy, invoked most loudly\n      by those whom he would most have condemned. Of his\n      works, the greatest, \u2018one of the most thoughtful of\n      the middle ages,\u2019 has twice been printed abroad, in\n      England never.[37] Of his original English works,\n      nothing beyond one or two tracts has seen the light.\n      If considered only as the father of English prose,\n      the great Reformer might claim more reverential\n      treatment at our hands. It is not by his translation\n      of the Bible, remarkable as that work is, that\n      Wycliffe can be judged as a writer. It is in his\n      original tracts that the exquisite pathos, the keen\n      delicate irony, the manly passion of his short\n      nervous sentences, fairly overmasters the weakness\n      of the unformed language, and gives us English which\n      cannot be read without a feeling of its beauty to\n      this hour.\u201d[38]\n\nThe mind of Wycliffe was constitutionally of large capacity\u2014strong,\nmany-sided, intense. The strength and the luminousness of his\nunderstanding, operating through an emotional nature of great\ntranquillity and depth, found for themselves unimpeded expression in\nthe force and energy of a self-determining and resolute will. His\ndeliberations, not his passions, prompted, directed, and controlled\nhis actions. Hence the decisiveness of his conclusions; hence also\nthe heroic pertinacity with which he adhered to his convictions, and,\nwhether amidst compliments or curses, prosecuted his work. For to him\npersonally, _dominion_ signified the lordship of the intellect over the\nemotions, the sovereignty of conscience over the intellect, and the\nmonarchy of God over all. The \u201cpossessioner\u201d of rich and varied mental\nendowments, he put forth all to use. For in all the departments\nof learning and science, John Wycliffe was second to none whose\nnames adorn the annals of Oxford University and are the glory of\nEngland. Wycliffe\u2019s works, when known in Oxford and in this country\nwill not only vindicate what we have said, but will show that if\nhis constitutional abilities were singularly great, his industry\nwas indefatigable, and his studious course splendidly progressive.\n\u201cProscribed and neglected as he afterwards became, there was a time\nwhen Wycliffe was the most popular writer in Europe.\u201d[39] Contact with\nhis mind through his works, seems to have had a remarkably infectious\ninfluence on the men of his time and on the following generation. Hence\nthe unexampled measures taken not by William Courtenay alone, but by\nsuccessive Popes and by the Council of Constance (1415), to suppress\nthe heresies of Wycliffe. This influence of contact with his spirit in\nhis writings, shows itself very notably in the case of the able and\ncritical historian, Milman. Milman\u2019s own mind was of great capacity\nand force. But the vigor and enthusiasm of that mind seem to reveal\nthemselves more in the chapter on Wycliffe than in any other section of\nhis great work. There is an unusual glow\u2014one might say fervor\u2014as of\nsympathetic appreciation, in the greater part of that chapter.[40]\n\nShirley\u2019s statement that \u201cWycliffe is a very voluminous, a proscribed,\nand a neglected writer,\u201d is verified by the catalogue which Shirley\nhimself, at the cost of considerable labor scattered over a period of\nsome ten or twelve years, compiled, and published in 1865. By compiling\nand publishing this catalogue, Professor Shirley rendered great service\nnot only to the memory of Wycliffe but also to English literature.\nBale, Bishop of Ossory (1563), the author of many most valuable but now\nlittle appreciated, because little known, works, in his \u201cSummarium,\u201d[41]\nfirst published in 1547, gives a list of 242 of Wycliffe\u2019s writings,\nwith their titles. Lewis, in 1820, by some modifications and additions\nof Bale\u2019s list, extends the number to 284. A catalogue was also\nprefixed by Baber to his reprint of Wycliffe\u2019s New Testament (Purvey\u2019s\namended edition) in 1810. And Dr. Vaughan (who has got but scrimp\njustice at the hands of some), in his \u201cLife and Opinions of Wycliffe,\u201d\n1828 and 1831, and in his \u201cJohn de Wycliffe: a Monograph,\u201d 1853, gave\ncatalogues which had the effect of setting a few others to work in\nthe endeavor to determine with certainty the number of the genuine\nwritings left by Wycliffe. This work was undertaken and prosecuted\nwith no little labor and critical ability by Professor Shirley; but\ndeath at an early time arrested the progress of the work which he had\nprojected\u2014the editing and publishing of \u201cSelect Works of Wycliffe.\u201d\nMen die, but the work dies not. To the third volume of \u201cSelect English\nWorks of John Wycliffe,\u201d 1871, edited by Thomas Arnold, there is\nprefixed a \u201cList of MSS. of the Miscellaneous Works,\u201d and a \u201cComplete\nCatalogue of the English Works ascribed to Wycliffe, based on that\nprepared by Dr. Shirley, but including a detailed comparison with\nthe list of Bale and Lewis\u201d[42] Of Dr. Lechler\u2019s services in this as\nin every other respect we do not speak: they are inestimable. The\nexample set by him, and by Dr. Buddensieg of Dresden, and Dr. Loserth\nof Czernowitz, ought to stimulate Englishmen, and more especially the\ngraduates, fellows, and doctors of Oxford, to vindicate the University\nagainst the charge so justly and repeatedly made against it, of having\ntreated with indifference and neglect the name and memory of one of her\nmost illustrious sons. It is anything but creditable to Oxford that\nGerman scholars and princes should do the work which ought to be done\nby Englishmen\u2014and of all Englishmen by the men of Oxford. Do these\nlearned men know that in English literature there is a short treatise\nbearing the title \u201cThe Dead Man\u2019s Right?\u201d[43] It is time that they\nshould study it, and give to it such effect as only the men of Oxford\ncan give, in relation to the memory of the man who asserted and\nmaintained, in perilous and most hazardous times, the rights of Oxford\nUniversity against those who would reduce that noble institution, that\nrenowned seat of learning, to the level of one of the outhouses of the\nVatican Palace or of the Pope\u2019s privy chamber, at Avignon or at Rome.\n\nFrom the lists or catalogues of Wycliffe\u2019s works, it is evident that\nhis writing was like his mind\u2014steadily, splendidly progressive. To\nthe earlier period of his life belong the works on logic, psychology,\nmetaphysics, and generally what may be called his philosophical\nwritings. To the second period of his life belong his applied\nphilosophy in the form of his treatises on politico-ecclesiastical\nquestions. To the third period belong his works on scientific theology;\nand to the fourth and concluding period belong his works on applied\ntheology, or practical and pastoral divinity.\n\n\u201cThe earliest work to which, so far as I know, a tolerably exact date\ncan be assigned, is the fragment \u201cDe dominio,\u201d printed by Lewis, and\nwhich belongs to the year 1366 or 1367. We may confidently place the\nwhole of the philosophical works, properly so called, before this date.\nAbout the year 1367 was published the \u201cDe Dominio Divino,\u201d preluding to\nthe great \u201cSumma Theologi\u00e6,\u201d\u2014the first book of which, \u201cDe Mandatis,\u201d\nappears to have been written in 1369; the seventh, the \u201cDe Ecclesia,\u201d\nin 1378; the remainder at uncertain intervals during the next five\nyears. The \u201cTrialogus\u201d and its supplement belong probably to the last\nyear of the Reformer\u2019s life.\u201d[44]\n\nIn a letter of Archbishop Arundel, addressed to Pope John XXIII. in\n1412, it is said of Wycliffe that, \u201cIn order to fulfil the measure of\nhis wickedness, he _invented_ the translation of the Bible into the\nmother tongue.\u201d Of this, the great and crowning work of Wycliffe\u2019s\nlife, Knighton says:\u2014\n\n        \u201cChrist delivered his Gospel to the clergy and\n      doctors of the Church, but this Master John Wycliffe\n      translated it out of Latin into English, and thus\n      laid it out more open to the laity, and to women who\n      could read, than it had formerly been to the most\n      learned of the clergy, even to those of them that had\n      the best understanding. In this way the Gospel-pearl\n      is cast abroad, and trodden under foot of swine, and\n      that which was before precious both to clergy and\n      laity, is rendered, as it were, to the common jest\n      of both. The jewel of the Church is turned into the\n      sport of the people, and what had hitherto been the\n      choice gift of the clergy and of divines, is made for\n      ever common to the laity.\u201d[45]\n\nIt was for this very end that the \u201cWord of God written\u201d might be\nforever common to the people, as accessible to them as to the most\nprivileged orders, that Wycliffe seems at an early time in his life to\nhave entertained the great idea and formed the purpose of giving to his\ncountrymen a version of Holy Scripture in the English language. For,\nalthough we cannot here enter into details, it would appear from the\ncareful, learned, and elaborate preface to the magnificent edition of\nWycliffe\u2019s Bible by Forshall and Madden,[46] that the progressiveness\ncharacteristic of Wycliffe\u2019s views and work was apparent in the\ntranslation of the Bible. With all deference to the opinions of those\nwho believe that man\u2019s works spring full-formed from the human brain,\nlike Minerva from the head of Jupiter, there is reason for believing\nthat so early as 1356, or about that time, Wycliffe began his work\nof translating the Scriptures, and that, with many interruptions or\nintermissions, he continued to prosecute his great enterprise till\nhe had the joyful satisfaction of seeing the translation of the New\nTestament completed in 1380. The idea had grown in his mind, and the\nwork grew under his hand. He could now put a copy of the Evangel into\nthe hands of each evangelist whom he sent forth. Up to this time he\ncould but furnish his poor preachers with short treatises and detached\nportions of Scripture. But now he could give them the whole of the New\nTestament in the language of the people of England. It was a great\ngift, and it was eagerly desired by multitudes who had been perishing\nfor lack of knowledge. And but for the opposition of the hierarchy, the\nbook and the evangelist might now have had free course in England. The\nwork of translating the Old Testament was being prosecuted by Nicolas\nHereford, when he was cited to appear before the Archbishop. Two\nMS. copies of Hereford\u2019s translation in the Bodleian Library\n\u201cend abruptly in the book of Baruch, breaking off in the middle of a\nsentence.[47] It may thence be inferred that the writer was suddenly\nstopped in the execution of his work; nor is it unreasonable to\nconjecture, further, that the cause of the interruption was the summons\nwhich Hereford received to appear before the synod in 1382.\u201d\n\n        \u201cThe translation itself affords proof that it was\n      completed by a different hand, and not improbably by\n      Wycliffe himself. Hereford translates very literally,\n      and is usually careful to render the same Latin words\n      or phrases in an uniform manner. He never introduces\n      textual glosses. The style subsequent to Bar. iii.\n      20 is entirely different. It is more easy, no longer\n      keeps to the order of the Latin, takes greater\n      freedom in the choice of words, and frequently admits\n      textual glosses. In the course of the first complete\n      chapter the new translator inserts no less than\n      nine such glosses. He does not admit prologues. The\n      translation of this last part of the Old Testament\n      corresponds with that of the New Testament, not only\n      in the general style, but also in the rendering of\n      particular words.\u201d[48]\n\nWycliffe\u2019s work was really done when the whole Bible was published in\nthe English language. And although he set himself to improve, correct,\nand amend his own and Hereford\u2019s translation, yet he could now, as at\nno previous time, say, \u201cNow lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace.\u201d\nNot long after this he died in peace at Lutterworth, in Leicestershire,\non the 31st of December 1384. And notwithstanding the ridicule of\nall who snarl at Mr. Foxe for counting him a martyr in his calendar,\nhe really lived a martyr\u2019s life, and died a martyr\u2019s death: he lived\nand died a faithful witness of the truth. If he was not in spirit a\nmartyr, there never was a martyr in the history of the Church; and if\nhis persecutors were not in spirit tyrants whose purpose was to add\nWycliffe\u2019s name to the roll of martyrs, there never were those who\npersecuted the saints unto bonds, imprisonment, and death. What else\nmeans the decree of the Council of Constance in 1415, which not only\ncursed his memory, as that of one dying an obstinate heretic, but\nordered his body (with this charitable caution, \u201cif it may be discerned\nfrom the bodies of other faithful people\u201d), to be taken out of the\nground and thrown far off from any Christian burial? In obedience to\nthis decree\u2014being, as Godwin says, required by the Council of Sena so\nto do[49]\u2014Richard Fleming, Bishop of Lincoln, Diocesan of Lutterworth\nin 1428, sent officers to ungrave the body of Wycliffe. To Lutterworth\nthey come, take what was left out of the grave, and burning it, cast\nthe ashes into the Swift, a neighboring brook running hard by. \u201cThus\nhath this brook conveyed his ashes into Avon, Avon into Severn, Severn\ninto the narrow seas, and these into the main ocean. And thus the ashes\nof Wycliffe are the emblem of his doctrine, which now is dispersed all\nthe world over.\u201d[50]\n\nWith Fuller\u2019s graphic record of the action of the servants of Bishop\nFleming of Lincoln we might conclude our review of the work of this\ntruly great and good man; but we cannot conclude without saying that\nthe decree of the Constance Council and the action of the Lincoln\nbishop reveal at the same time the power of Wycliffe\u2019s doctrines and\nthe impotence of the papal opposition to Wycliffe and to Lollardism.\nTruth dies not: it may be burned, but, like the sacred bush on the\nhillside of Horeb, it is not consumed. It may fall in the street; it\nmay be trodden under foot of men; it may be put into the grave; but\nit is not dead,\u2014it lives, rises again, and is free. The bonds only\nare consumed; and the grave-clothes and the napkin only are left in\nthe sepulchre. The word itself liveth and abideth forever. It has in\nit not only an eternal vitality, but also a seminal virtue. It is the\nseed of the kingdom of God. Some of the books of Wycliffe were put\ninto the hands of John Hus in the University of Prague. Of Hus it may\nbe said that, like the prophet, he ate the books given to him. He so\nappropriated them, not in the spirit only, but also in the letter,\nthat the doctrines, and even the verbal expressions, of Wycliffe, were\nreproduced and proclaimed by him in Bohemia. This is demonstrated by\nDr. Loserth in his recent work, \u201cWycliffe and Hus.\u201d[51]\n\nThe story of the Gospel in Bohemia is really a record of the work\nof Wycliffe in a foreign land, where he was regarded as little less\nthan \u201ca fifth evangelist.\u201d The heresies of Wycliffe, condemned by the\nCouncil of Constance, were the Gospel for which John Hus and Jerome of\nPrague died the death of martyrs. But not only so.\n\n        \u201cWhen I studied at Erfurth,\u201d says Martin Luther,\n      \u201cI found in the library of the convent a book\n      entitled the \u2018Sermons of John Hus.\u2019 I had a great\n      curiosity to know what doctrines that arch-heretic\n      had propagated. My astonishment at the reading of\n      them was incredible. I could not comprehend for what\n      cause they burnt so great a man, who explained the\n      Scriptures with so much gravity and skill. But as the\n      very name of Hus was held in so great abomination,\n      that I imagined the sky would fall and the sun be\n      darkened if I made honorable mention of him, I shut\n      the book with no little indignation. This, however,\n      was my comfort, that he had written this perhaps\n      before he fell into heresy, for I had not yet heard\n      what passed at the Council of Constance.\u201d[52]\n\nGermany through Luther owes much to John Wycliffe. Germany acknowledges\nthe obligation, and through Lechler, Buddensieg, Loserth, and others,\nit is offering its tribute of gratitude to the memory of the earliest\nof the Reformers. For, although the fact is ignored by many, the\nReformation was but the exposition and developed application of\nthe doctrines of John Wycliffe. It was Shakespeare who said of the\ngreat Lollard chief of England\u2014Sir John Oldcastle, the good Lord\nCobham\u2014\u201cOldcastle died a martyr!\u201d[53] But it is one of the most coldly\nsevere and critical of historians who says:\u2014\n\n        \u201cNo revolution has ever been more gradually prepared\n      than that which separated almost one-half of Europe\n      from the communion of the Roman See; nor were Luther\n      and Zwingle any more than occasional instruments of\n      that change, which, had they never existed, would\n      at no great distance of time have been effected\n      under the names of some other Reformers. At the\n      beginning of the sixteenth century, the learned\n      doubtfully and with caution, the ignorant with zeal\n      and eagerness, were tending to depart from the faith\n      and rites which authority prescribed. But probably\n      not even Germany were so far advanced on this course\n      as England. Almost a hundred and fifty years before\n      Luther, nearly the same doctrines as he taught had\n      been maintained by Wycliffe, whose disciples, usually\n      called Lollards, lasted as a numerous though obscure\n      and proscribed sect, till, aided by the confluence\n      of foreign streams, they swelled into the Protestant\n      Church of England. We hear indeed little of them\n      during some part of the fifteenth century; for they\n      generally shunned persecution, and it is chiefly\n      through records of persecution that we learn the\n      existence of heretics. But immediately before the\n      name of Luther was known, they seem to have become\n      more numerous; since several persons were burned for\n      heresy, and others abjured their errors, in the first\n      years of Henry VIII.\u2019s reign.\u201d[54]\n\nCorresponding with what is stated by Hallam, is the fact that John Knox\nbegins his history of the Reformation in Scotland by giving, in what\nhe calls \u201cHistori\u00e6 Initium,\u201d a chapter on the history of Lollardism in\nScotland:\u2014\n\n        \u201cIn the scrolls of Glasgow is found mention of\n      one whose name is not expressed, that, in the year\n      of God 1422, was burnt for heresy; but what were\n      his opinions, or by what order he was condemned,\n      it appears not evidently. But our chronicles make\n      mention that in the days of King James the First,\n      about the year of God 1431, was deprehended in the\n      University of St. Andrews, one Paul Craw, a Bohemian,\n      who was accused of heresy before such as then were\n      called Doctors of Theology. His accusation consisted\n      principally that he followed _John Hus and Wycliffe\n      in the opinion of the Sacrament_, who denied that the\n      substance of bread and wine were changed by virtue\n      of any words, or that confession should be made to\n      priests, or yet prayers to saints departed.... He was\n      condemned to the fire, in the whilk he was consumed,\n      in the said city of Saint Andrews, about the time\n      aforewritten.\u201d\n\nProceeding with his narrative, Knox gives a picturesque description\nof what occurred in Court, when no fewer than thirty persons were\nsummoned in 1494 by Robert Blackburn, Archbishop of Glasgow, to appear\nbefore the King and his great council. \u201cThese,\u201d he says, \u201cwere called\nthe Lollards of Kyle. They were accused of the articles following, as\nwe have received them forth of the register of Glasgow.\u201d Among the\nthirty-four articles charged against them are many of the doctrines so\nably expounded and maintained by Wycliffe. \u201cBy these articles, which\nGod of His merciful providence caused the enemies of His truth to keep\nin their registers, may appear how mercifully God hath looked upon this\nrealm, retaining within it some spunk of His light even in the time of\ngreatest darkness.\u201d The Lollards of Kyle, partly through the clemency\nof the King, and partly by their own bold and ready-witted answers, so\ndashed the bishop and his band out of countenance, that the greatest\npart of the accusation was turned to laughter. For thirty years after\nthat memorable exhibition there was \u201calmost no question for matters of\nreligion\u201d till young Patrick Hamilton of gentle blood and of heroic\nspirit, appeared on the scene in 1527. \u201cWith him,\u201d says Knox, \u201cour\nhistory doth begin.\u201d[55]\n\n\u201cNo friendly hand,\u201d says Dr. Shirley, \u201chas left us any even the\nslightest memorial of the life and death of the great Reformer. A\nspare, frail, emaciated frame, a quick temper, a conversation \u2018most\ninnocent,\u2019 the charm of every rank\u2014such are the scanty but significant\nfragments we glean of the personal portraiture of one who possessed, as\nfew ever did, the qualities which give men power over their fellows.\nHis enemies ascribed it to the magic of an ascetic habit; the fact\nremains engraven on every line of his life.[56] His bitterest enemies\ncannot refrain from involuntary tributes of admiration extorted\nfrom them by the singular and unsullied excellence of the man whose\ndoctrines and doings as a reformer they detested. Like the \u201camiable\nand famous Edward, by-named, not of his color, but of his dreaded acts\nin battle, the Black Prince,\u201d[57] Wycliffe was in nothing black save\nin his dreaded doctrines and works of reformation. Apart from these,\n\u201call tongues\u2014the voice of souls\u201d\u2014awarded him the praise due to lofty\ngenius, exemplary virtue, and personal godliness. His heretical deeds\nwere the occasion of all the obloquy heaped upon his name and memory:\u2014\n\n    \u201cIn nothing art thou black save in thy deeds,\n     And thence this slander, as I think, proceeds.\u201d\n\nIf we cannot as yet cherish the hope that, besides erecting in Oxford\nsome visible monument to the memory of Wycliffe, the University\nshould, as an example to Cambridge and to the Scottish universities,\ninstitute a Wycliffe Lectureship for the exposition of the works of\nthe great Reformer, it is surely not too much to expect that Oxford\nshould give all possible countenance and support to the project for the\nprinting and the publication of Wycliffe\u2019s unprinted and unpublished\nwritings. This, in the meantime, is perhaps the best tribute that can\nbe offered to the memory of Wycliffe. For, as Dr. Shirley said, some\nnineteen years ago, \u201cThe Latin works of Wycliffe are, both historically\nand theologically, by far the most important; from these alone can\nWycliffe\u2019s theological position be understood: and it is not, perhaps,\ntoo much to say, that no writings so important for the history of\ndoctrine are still buried in manuscript.\u201d[58] These neglected, unknown,\nand hitherto inaccessible works, are being printed under competent\neditorship by \u201cThe Wycliffe Society.\u201d\u2014They have more than a mere\ntheological interest. They are important in their relation to the\nthought which developed itself in the reformation of religion, in the\nrevival of learning, and in the assertion, maintenance, and defence of\nconstitutional liberty in England.\n\nFor from the relation of his work to the University, to the\nindependence of the nation and the sovereignty of the Crown, to the\nChurch and to the people of England, a manifold interest must for\never belong to the name, the life, and the work of John Wycliffe.\nCorresponding with all this is the manifold obligation of the\nUniversity, the Crown, the Church, and the people of England. For\nWycliffe was the first of those self-denying and fearless men to whom\nwe are chiefly indebted for the overthrow of superstition, ignorance,\nand despotism, and for all the privileges and blessings, political and\nreligious, which we enjoy. He was the first of those who cheerfully\nhazarded their lives that they might achieve their purpose, which was\nnothing less than the felicity of millions unborn\u2014a felicity which\ncould only proceed from the knowledge and possession of the truth.\nHe is one of those \u201cwho boldly attacked the system of error and\ncorruption, though fortified by popular credulity, and who, having\nforced the stronghold of superstition, and penetrated the recesses\nof its temple, tore aside the veil that concealed the monstrous idol\nwhich the world had so long ignorantly worshipped, dissolved the\nspell by which the human mind was bound, and restored it to liberty!\nHow criminal must those be who, sitting at ease under the vines and\nfig-trees planted by the labors and watered with the blood of those\npatriots, discover their disesteem of the invaluable privileges\nwhich they inherit, or their ignorance of the expense at which they\nwere purchased, by the most unworthy treatment of those to whom they\nowe them, misrepresent their actions, calumniate their motives, and\nload their memories with every species of abuse!\u201d[59] While we look to\nthe men of Oxford for a thorough though tardy and late vindication\nof Wycliffe\u2019s name and services to the University and to learning,\nwe expect from the people of England a more effective and permanent\nmemorial of Wycliffe and his work than can be raised by any number of\nscholars or members of the University. Wycliffe lived for God and for\nthe people. He taught the English people how to use the English tongue\nfor the expression of truth, liberty, and religion. He was the first to\ngive to the people of England the Bible in the English language. What a\ngift was this! He was in this the pioneer of Tyndale, of Coverdale, and\nof all those who have lived and labored for the diffusion of the Word\nof God among their fellow-men. The British and Foreign Bible Society is\nreally Wycliffe\u2019s monument. His Bible, as translated from the Vulgate,\nwas itself an assertion of that independence for which Wycliffe lived\nand died. To him may be applied the words of Milton\u2014\n\n    \u201cServant of God, well done! well hast thou fought\n    The better fight; who single hast maintained\n    Against revolted multitudes the cause\n    Of truth; in word mightier than they in arms:\n    And for the testimony of truth hast borne\n    Universal reproach, far worse to bear\n    Than violence; for it was all thy care\n    To stand approv\u2019d in sight of God, though worlds\n    Judged thee perverse.\u201d[60]\n                                \u2014_Blackwood\u2019s Magazine._\n\n\n\n\nCURIOSITIES OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND.\n\n\nConsidering the world-wide reputation of the Bank of England, it is\nremarkable how little is generally known as to its internal working.\nStanding in the very heart of the largest city in the world\u2014a central\nlandmark of the great metropolis\u2014even the busy Londoners around it\nhave, as a rule, only the vaguest possible knowledge of what goes on\nwithin its walls. In truth, its functions are so many, its staff so\nenormous, and their duties so varied, that many even of those who have\nspent their lives in its service will tell you that, beyond their own\nimmediate departments, they know but little of its inner life. Its mere\nhistory, as recorded by Mr. Francis, fills two octavo volumes. It will\nbe readily understood, therefore, that it would be idle to attempt\nanything like a complete description of it within the compass of a\nmagazine article. There are, however, many points about the Bank and\nit\u2019s working which are extremely curious and interesting, and some of\nthese we propose briefly to describe.\n\nThe Bank of England originated in the brain of William Paterson, a\nScotchman\u2014better known, perhaps, as the organiser and leader of\nthe ill-fated Darien expedition. It commenced business in 1694, its\ncharter\u2014which was in the first instance granted for eleven years\nonly\u2014bearing date the 27th July of that year. This charter has been\nfrom time to time renewed, the last renewal having taken place in\n1844. The original capital of the Bank was but one million two hundred\nthousand pounds, and it carried on its business in a single room in\nMercer\u2019s Hall, with a staff of fifty-four clerks. From so small a\nbeginning has grown the present gigantic establishment, which covers\nnearly three acres, and employs in town and country nearly nine hundred\nofficials. Upon the latest renewal of its charter, the Bank was divided\ninto two distinct departments, the Issue and the Banking. In addition\nto these, the Bank has the management of the national debt. The books\nof the various government funds are here kept; here all transfers are\nmade, and here all dividends are paid.\n\nIn the Banking department is transacted the ordinary business of\nbankers. Here other banks keep their \u201creserve,\u201d and hence draw their\nsupplies as they require them. The Issue department is intrusted\nwith the circulation of the notes of the Bank, which is regulated as\nfollows. The Bank in 1844 was a creditor of the government to the\nextent of rather over eleven million pounds, and to this amount and\nfour million pounds beyond, for which there is in other ways sufficient\nsecurity, the Bank is allowed to issue notes without having gold in\nreserve to meet them. Beyond these fifteen million pounds, every note\nissued represents gold actually in the coffers of the Bank. The total\nvalue of the notes in the hands of the public at one time averages\nabout twenty-five million pounds. To these must be added other notes\nto a very large amount in the hands of the Banking department, which\ndeposits the bulk of its reserve of gold in the Issue department,\naccepting notes in exchange.\n\nAll Bank of England notes are printed in the Bank itself. Six\nprinting-presses are in constant operation, the same machine printing\nfirst the particulars of value, signature, &c., and then the number\nof the note in consecutive order. The paper used is of very peculiar\ntexture, being at once thin, tough, and crisp; and the combination of\nthese qualities, together with the peculiarities of the watermark,\nwhich is distributed over the whole surface of the paper, forms one\nof the principal guarantees against imitation. The paper, which is\nmanufactured exclusively at one particular mill, is made in oblong\nslips, allowing just enough space for the printing of two notes side by\nside. The edges of the paper are left untrimmed, but, after printing,\nthe two notes are divided by a straight cut between them. This accounts\nfor the fact, which many of our readers will doubtless have noticed,\nthat only one edge of a Bank-note is smooth, the other three being\ncomparatively ragged. The printing-presses are so constructed as to\nregister each note printed, so that the machine itself indicates\nautomatically how many notes have passed through it. The average\nproduction of notes is fifty thousand a day, and about the same number\nare presented in the same time for payment.\n\nNo note is ever issued a second time. When once it finds its way back\nto the Bank to be exchanged for coin, it is immediately cancelled; and\nthe reader will probably be surprised to hear that the average life\nof a Bank-note, or the time during which it is in actual circulation,\nis not more than five or six days. The returned notes, averaging, as\nwe have stated, about fifty thousand a day, and representing, one day\nwith another, about one million pounds in value, are brought into what\nis known as the Accountant\u2019s Sorting Office. Here they are examined by\ninspectors, who reject any which may be found to be counterfeit. In\nsuch a case, the paying-in bank is debited with the amount. The notes\ncome in from various banks in parcels, each parcel accompanied by a\nmemorandum stating the number and amount of the notes contained in it.\nThis memorandum is marked with a certain number, and then each note in\nthe parcel is stamped to correspond, the stamping-machine automatically\nregistering how many are stamped, and consequently drawing immediate\nattention to any deficiency in the number of notes as compared with\nthat stated in the memorandum. This done, the notes are sorted\naccording to number and date, and after being defaced by punching out\nthe letters indicating value, and tearing off the corner bearing the\nsignature, are passed on to the \u201cBank note Library,\u201d where they are\npacked in boxes, and preserved for possible future reference during\na period of five years. There are one hundred and twenty clerks\nemployed in this one department; and so perfect is the system of\nregistration, that if the number of a returned note be known, the head\nof this department, by referring to his books, can ascertain in a few\nminutes the date when and the banker through whom it was presented;\nand if within the period of five years, can produce the note itself\nfor inspection. As to the \u201cnumber\u201d of a Bank-note, by the way, there\nis sometimes a little misconception, many people imagining that by\nquoting the bare figures on the face of a note they have done all that\nis requisite for its identification. This is not the case. Bank-notes\nare not numbered consecutively _ad infinitum_, but in series of one\nto one hundred thousand, the different series being distinguished as\nbetween themselves by the date, which appears in full in the body of\nthe note, and is further indicated, to the initiated, by the letter and\nnumerals prefixed to the actual number. Thus 25/0 90758 on the face of\na note indicates that the note in question is No. 90758 of the series\nprinted on May 21, 1883, which date appears in full in the body of\nthe note, 69/N in like manner indicates that the note forms part of a\nseries printed on February 19, 1883. In \u201ctaking the number\u201d of a note,\ntherefore, either this prefix or the full date, as stated in the body\nof the note, should always be included.\n\nThe \u201cLibrary\u201d of cancelled notes\u2014not to be confounded with the Bank\nLibrary proper\u2014is situated in the Bank vaults, and we are indebted to\nthe courtesy of the Bank-note Librarian for the following curious and\ninteresting statistics respecting his stock. The stock of paid notes\nfor five years\u2014the period during which, as before stated, the notes\nare preserved for reference\u2014is about seventy-seven million seven\nhundred and forty-five thousand in number. They fill thirteen thousand\nfour hundred boxes, about eighteen inches long, ten wide, and nine\ndeep. If the notes could be placed in a pile one upon another, they\nwould reach to a height of five and two-third miles. Joined end to end\nthey would form a ribbon twelve thousand four hundred and fifty-five\nmiles long, or half way round the globe; if laid so as to form a\ncarpet, they would very nearly cover Hyde Park. Their original value is\nsomewhat over seventeen hundred and fifty millions, and their weight\nis about ninety-one tons. The immense extent of space necessary to\naccommodate such a mass in the Bank vaults may be imagined. The place,\nwith its piles on piles of boxes reaching far away into dim distance,\nlooks like some gigantic wine-cellar or bonded warehouse.\n\nAs each day adds, as we have seen, about fifty thousand notes to the\nnumber, it is necessary to find some means of destroying those which\nhave passed their allotted term of preservation. This is done by fire,\nabout four hundred thousand notes being burnt at one time, in a furnace\nspecially constructed for that purpose. Formerly, from some peculiarity\nin the ink with which the notes were printed, the cremated notes burnt\ninto a solid blue clinker; but the composition of the ink has been\naltered, and the paper now burns to a fine gray ash. The fumes of the\nburning paper are extremely dense and pungent; and to prevent any\nnuisance arising from this cause, the process of cremation is carried\nout at dead of night, when the city is comparatively deserted. Further,\nin order to mitigate the density of the fumes, they are made to ascend\nthrough a shower of falling water, the chimney shaft being fitted with\na special shower-bath arrangement for this purpose.\n\nPassing away from the necropolis of dead and buried notes, we visit the\nTreasury, whence they originally issued. This is a quiet-looking room,\nscarcely more imposing in appearance than the butler\u2019s pantry in a\nWest-end mansion, but the modest-looking cupboards with which its walls\nare lined, are gorged with hidden treasure. The possible value of the\ncontents of this room may be imagined from the fact that a million\nof money, in notes of one thousand pounds, forms a packet only three\ninches thick. The writer has had the privilege of holding such a\nparcel in his hand, and for a quarter of a minute imagining himself a\nmillionaire\u2014with an income of over thirty thousand per annum for life!\nThe same amount might occupy even less space than the above, for Mr.\nFrancis tells a story of a lost note for thirty thousand pounds, which,\nturning up after the lapse of many years, was paid by the Bank _twice\nover_! We are informed that notes of even a higher value than this have\non occasion been printed, but the highest denomination now issued is\none thousand pounds.\n\nIn this department is kept a portion of the Bank\u2019s stock of golden\ncoin, in bags of one thousand pounds each. This amount does not require\na very large bag for its accommodation, but its weight is considerable,\namounting to two hundred and fifty-eight ounces twenty pennyweights, so\nthat a million in gold would weigh some tons. In another room of this\ndepartment\u2014the Weighing Office\u2014are seen the machines for detecting\nlight coin. These machines are marvels of ingenious mechanism. Three or\nfour hundred sovereigns are laid in a long brass scoop or semi-tube, of\nsuch a diameter as to admit them comfortably, and self-regulating to\nsuch an incline that the coins gradually slide down by their own weight\non to one plate of a little balance placed at its lower extremity.\nAcross the face of this plate two little bolts make alternate thrusts,\none to the right, one to the left, but at slightly different levels.\nIf the coin be of full weight, the balance is held in equipoise, and\nthe right-hand bolt making its thrust, pushes it off the plate and down\nan adjacent tube into the receptacle for full-weight coin. If, on the\nother hand, the coin is ever so little \u201clight,\u201d the balance naturally\nrises with it. The right-hand bolt makes its thrust as before, but this\ntime passes harmlessly _beneath_ the coin. Then comes the thrust of\nthe left-hand bolt, which, as we have said, is fixed at a fractionally\nhigher level, and pushes the coin down a tube on the opposite side,\nthrough which it falls into the light-coin receptacle. The coins thus\ncondemned are afterwards dropped into another machine, which defaces\nthem by a cut half-way across their diameter, at the rate of two\nhundred a minute. The weighing machines, of which there are sixteen,\nare actuated by a small atmospheric engine in one corner of the room,\nthe only manual assistance required being to keep them supplied with\ncoins. It is said that sixty thousand sovereigns and half-sovereigns\ncan be weighed here in a single day. The weighing-machine in question\nis the invention of Mr. Cotton, a former governor of the Bank,\nand among scientific men is regarded as one of the most striking\nachievements of practical mechanics.\n\nIn the Bullion department we find another weighing-machine of a\ndifferent character, but in its way equally remarkable. It is the\nfirst of its kind, having been designed specially for the Bank by Mr.\nJames Murdoch Napier, by whom it has been patented. It is used for the\npurpose of weighing bullion, which is purchased in this department.\nGold is brought in in bars of about eight inches long, three wide, and\none inch thick. A bar of gold of these dimensions will weigh about two\nhundred ounces, and is worth, if pure, about eight hundred pounds.\nEach bar when brought in is accompanied by a memorandum of its weight.\nThe question of quality is determined by the process of assaying; the\nweight is checked by means of the weighing-machine we have referred to.\nThis takes the form of an extremely massive pair of scales, working\non a beam of immense strength and solidity, and is based, so as to\nbe absolutely rigid, on a solid bed of concrete. The whole stands\nabout six feet high by three wide, and is inclosed in an air-tight\nplate-glass case, a sash in which is raised when it is desired to use\nthe machine. The two sides of the scale are each kept permanently\nloaded, the one with a single weight of three hundred and sixty ounces,\nthe other with a number of weights of various sizes to the same amount.\nWhen it is desired to test the weight of a bar of gold, weights to the\namount stated in the corresponding memorandum, _less half an ounce_,\nare removed from the latter scale, and the bar of gold substituted in\ntheir place. Up to this point the beam of the scale is kept perfectly\nhorizontal, being maintained in that position by a mechanical break;\nbut now a stud is pressed, and by means of delicate machinery, actuated\nby water-power, the beam is released. If the weight of the bar has been\ncorrectly stated in the memorandum, the scale which holds it should be\nexactly half an ounce in excess. This or any less excess of weight over\nthe three hundred and sixty ounces in the opposite scale is instantly\nregistered by the machine, a pointer travelling round a dial until it\nindicates the proper amount. The function of the machine, however, is\nlimited to weighing half an ounce only. If the discrepancy between the\ntwo scales as loaded is greater than this, or if on the other hand the\nbar of gold is more than half an ounce less than the amount stated in\nthe memorandum, an electric bell rings by way of warning, the pointer\ntravels right round the dial, and returns to zero. So delicate is the\nadjustment, that the weight of half a penny postage stamp\u2014somewhat\nless than half a grain\u2014will set the hand in motion and be recorded on\nthe dial.\n\nThe stock of gold in the bullion vault varies from one to three million\npounds stirling. The bars are laid side by side on small flat trucks or\nbarrows carrying one hundred bars each. In a glass case in this vault\nis seen a portion of the war indemnity paid by King Coffee of Ashantee,\nconsisting of gold ornaments, a little short of standard fineness.\n\nOne of the first reflections that strike an outsider permitted to\ninspect the repository of so much treasure is, \u201cCan all this wealth\nbe safe?\u201d These heaps of precious metal, these piles of still more\nprecious notes, are handled by the officials in such an easy-going,\nmatter-of-course way, that one would almost fancy a few thousand would\nscarcely be missed; and that a dishonest person had only to walk in\nand help himself to as many sovereigns or hundred pound notes as his\npockets could accommodate. Such, however, is very far from being the\ncase. The safeguards against robbery, either by force or fraud, are\nmany and elaborate. At night the Bank is guarded at all accessible\npoints by an ample military force, which would no doubt give a good\naccount of any intruder rash enough to attempt to gain an entrance.\nIn the event of attack from without, there are sliding galleries which\ncan be thrust out from the roof, and which would enable a body of\nsharpshooters to rake the streets in all directions.\n\nFew people are aware that the Bank of England contains within its walls\na graveyard, but such is nevertheless the fact. The Gordon riots in\n1780, during which the Bank was attacked by a mob, called attention to\nthe necessity for strengthening its defences. Competent authorities\nadvised that an adjoining church, rejoicing in the appropriate name of\nSt. Christopher-le-Stocks, was in a military sense a source of danger,\nand accordingly an Act of Parliament was passed to enable the directors\nto purchase the church and its appurtenances. The old churchyard,\ntastefully laid out, now forms what is known as the Bank \u201cgarden,\u201d the\nhandsome \u201cCourt Room\u201d or \u201cBank Parlor\u201d abutting on one of its sides.\nThere is a magnificent lime-tree, one of the largest in London, in\nthe centre of the garden, and tradition states that under this tree\na former clerk of the Bank, _eight feet high_, lies buried. With\nthis last, though not least of the curiosities of the Bank, we must\nbring the present article to a close. We had intended briefly to\nhave referred to sundry eventful pages of its history; but these we\nare compelled, by considerations of space, to reserve for a future\npaper.\u2014_Chambers\u2019s Journal._\n\n\n\n\nTHE RYE HOUSE PLOT.\n\n\nBY ALEXANDER CHARLES EWALD.\n\nTowards the close of the autumn of 1682, the discontent which the\ndomestic and foreign policy of the \u201cMerry Monarch\u201d had excited among\nhis subjects at last began to assume a tangible and aggressive form.\nThe aim of our second Charles was nothing less than to overthrow the\nEnglish constitution, to render himself free of parliamentary control,\nto bias English justice, to make his lieges slaves, and to attain his\ndisloyal ends, if need be, by the aid of France, whose pensioner he\nwas. Nor had he been at this time unsuccessful in his object. In spite\nof the hostility of the country party\u2014as the opponents of the court\nwere styled\u2014the Duke of York was not debarred from succession to the\nthrone; for, thanks to the eloquence of the brilliant Halifax, the\nExclusion Bill had been rejected. The law had also been turned into\na most potent engine of oppression by causing it to interpret, not\njustice, but the wishes of the King; only such judges were appointed\nas would prove obedient to the royal will, and only such juries were\nsummoned as might be trusted to carry out the royal behests. The\nAnglican clergy rallied round the throne, and everywhere taught the\ndoctrine of passive obedience and the heinousness of resistance to\nthe divine right of kings. A secret treaty with Louis of France had\nrendered Charles, by its pecuniary clauses, entirely independent of\nhis subjects. The disaffection of London had been crushed by its Lord\nMayor being converted to the policy of the court, and by the nomination\nof the sheriffs, not at Guildhall, but at Whitehall\u2014an interference\nwhich made every corporation in the kingdom tremble for its stability.\nFor the last ten years the leaders of the country party had waged\nwar to the knife against this organised despotism on the part of the\nmonarch, yet all opposition had proved unavailing. The unscrupulous and\nvindictive Shaftesbury,\u2014\n\n    In friendship false, implacable in hate,\n    Resolved to ruin or to rule the State,\n\nhad led the attack, and endeavored in vain to stir up the nation\nagainst its sovereign; then, mortified at the failure of his efforts,\nhad withdrawn to the Continent, and there perished a victim to\ndisappointed revenge and dissatisfied ambition. The amiable Lord\nWilliam Russell had, in his place in Parliament, openly opposed the\ncourt, and warned the country of the dangers that would ensue should\nthe arbitrary government of Charles be longer tolerated. Algernon\nSydney, Essex, and Hampden had followed suit; but their teaching\nand invective had been delivered to no purpose; the power and the\nbribes of the throne, acting upon the natural servility of man, had\nbeen too puissant and convincing not to be effectual in crushing all\nresistance. Victory, therefore, at present rested with the King, not\nwith his opponents.\n\nAnd now it was that this disaffection, which had so long been futile\nin its efforts at revolt, began to trouble the minds of men of a far\ndifferent character from the recognised chiefs of the country party. At\nthat time there were certain desperadoes haunting the taverns of the\neast of London, who, after much secret council and drinking together,\nhad come to the conclusion that the simplest solution of the national\ndifficulty was to murder the King and his brother, the Duke of York,\nand then\u2014but not till then\u2014the throne being vacant, to consider\nwhat form of constitution should be adopted. The leader of the band\nwas one whose name will live as long as the great satire of Dryden is\nremembered. Anglican priest, Dissenting divine, political agitator,\nspy informer, as mischievous as he was treacherous, Robert Ferguson\nbelonged to that class which every conspiracy seems to enroll; foremost\nin advice, last in action, brave when there is no danger, but the first\nto fly and purchase safety by a base and compromising confession. On\nthis occasion he was the treasurer of the conspirators,\u2014\n\n    Judas that keeps the rebels\u2019 pension-purse;\n    Judas that pays the treason-writer\u2019s fee;\n    Judas that well deserves his namesake\u2019s tree.\n\nThe rest of the crew call for no special mention. Among the more\nprominent we find Josiah Keeling, a citizen and salter of London,\nwho was deep in the counsels of the plotters, and who repaid their\nconfidence by informing the Government, at the first sign of peril, of\nwhat had been discussed and planned; Colonel Walcot, an old officer\nof Cromwell; Colonel Romsey, a soldier of fortune who had fought with\ndistinction in Portugal; Sir Thomas Armstrong, \u201ca debauched atheistical\nbravo;\u201d Robert West, a barrister in good practice; Thomas Shepherd, a\nwine merchant; Richard Rumbald, an old officer in Cromwell\u2019s army, but\nat this time a maltster; Richard Goodenough, who had been under-sheriff\nof London; John Ayloffe, a lawyer, the very man who, on one occasion,\nto show how complete was the vassalage of England to France, had placed\na wooden shoe in the chair of the Speaker of the House of Commons; and\nFord, Lord Grey of Wark, who had brought himself conspicuously before\nthe public by debauching his wife\u2019s sister. Added to this list were\nbarristers, soldiers of fortune, bankrupt traders, and the men who,\nhaving nothing to lose and everything to gain, look upon agitation and\nconspiracy as a form of industry likely to lead to solid advantages.\nSuch was the reckless band which met to \u201camend the constitution,\u201d\nand \u201crestore our Protestantism,\u201d during the quiet hours of many an\nautumn evening, in the parlors of the Sun Tavern \u201cbehind the Royal\nExchange,\u201d the Horseshoe Tavern \u201con Tower Hill,\u201d the Mitre Tavern\n\u201cwithin Aldgate,\u201d the Salutation \u201cin Lombard Street,\u201d the Dolphin\n\u201cbehind Bartholomew Lane,\u201d and in other well-known hostels. The only\ntwo toasts permitted at the gatherings were \u201cTo the man who first draws\nhis sword in defence of the Protestant religion against Popery and\nslavery,\u201d and \u201cTo the confusion of the two brothers at Whitehall.\u201d In\norder to prevent their conversation being overheard by any inquisitive\nstranger, the conspirators adopted a peculiar language which they\nalone could understand. A blunderbuss was a \u201cswan\u2019s quill,\u201d a musket\n\u201ca goose-quill,\u201d pistols \u201ccrow-quills,\u201d powder and bullets, \u201cink and\nsand;\u201d Charles was either \u201cthe churchwarden at Whitehall,\u201d or \u201ca\nblackbird;\u201d whilst James, Duke of York, was \u201ca goldfinch.\u201d The object\nof these meetings was at last decided upon; it was resolved that the\nKing and his brother should be assassinated, or, in the slang employed\nby the plotters, \u201ca deed of bargain and sale should be executed to bar\nboth him in possession and him in remainder.\u201d[61]\n\nThis resolution carried, the next question which came up for settlement\nwas how the design should be accomplished. Much discussion ensued, but\nafter frequent deliberations a scheme of action was drawn up. It was\nknown that the King, on his return from racing at Newmarket, would\nhave to pass the farm of Richard Rumbald, called the Rye House. This\nfarm was situated in a prettily timbered part of Hertfordshire, about\neighteen miles from London, and derived its name from the Rye, a large\nmeadow adjoining the holding. Close to this paddock ran the by-road\nfrom Bishop\u2019s Stortford to Hoddesdon, which was constantly used by\nCharles and his brother when they drove to or from Newmarket. Thus the\nroyal couple, on such occasions, would fall within easy pistol-shot of\nany assailant secreted within the farm. The Rye House, from the nature\nof its situation, also seemed to favor conspiracy. It was an old strong\nbuilding, standing alone, and encompassed with a moat; towards the\ngarden it was surrounded by high walls \u201cso that twenty men might easily\ndefend it for some time against five hundred.\u201d From a lofty tower in\nthe house an extensive view was commanded; \u201chence all who go or come\nmay be seen both ways for more than a mile\u2019s distance.\u201d In approaching\nthe farm, when driving from Newmarket to London, it was necessary to\ncross a narrow causeway, at the end of which was a toll-gate; \u201cwhich\nhaving entered, you go through a yard and a little field, and at the\nend of that, through another gate, you pass into a narrow lane, where\ntwo coaches could not go abreast.\u201d On the left hand of this lane was\na thick hedge, whilst on the right stood a low, long building used\nfor corn chambers and stables, with several doors and windows looking\ninto the road. \u201cWhen you are past the long building you go by the moat\nand the garden wall: that is very strong, and has divers holes in it,\nthrough which a great many men might shoot.\u201d Along by the moat and\nwall the road continued to the river Ware, which had to be crossed by\na bridge; a little lower down another bridge, spanning the New River,\nhad to be traversed; \u201cin both which passes a few men may oppose great\nnumbers.\u201d Behind the long building was an outer courtyard, into which a\nconsiderable body of horse and foot could be drawn up unperceived from\nthe road, \u201cwhence they might easily issue out at the same time into\neach end of the narrow lane.\u201d[62]\n\nThe Rye House, affording such excellent opportunities, was accordingly\nfixed upon as the rendezvous for \u201cthose who were to be actors in the\nfact.\u201d Arms and ammunition, covered with oysters, were to be taken\nup the river Ware by watermen in the secret of the conspiracy, and\nlanded at the farm; men were to ride down from London at night in small\ndetachments, so as to escape observation, and then hide themselves in\nthe outbuildings around the holding; the servants of the farm, on the\nday appointed for the \u201ctaking off\u201d of the King and his brother, were to\nbe sent out of the way and despatched to market; whilst the anything\nbut hen-pecked maltster promised, when the critical moment came, \u201cto\nlock Mrs. Rumbald upstairs.\u201d[63] So far all was satisfactorily arranged\nas to the assembling of the conspirators. The next question that had\nto be determined was as to the execution of the infamous design. This\nwas soon arranged. The plotters had ascertained the exact hour the\nKing and the Duke of York were to quit Newmarket; a brief calculation\nwas sufficient for them therefore to arrive at the hour when the royal\ncoach would be driven past the road running under the windows of the\nRye House; still, to make matters more sure, a couple of watchers\nwere to be stationed in the tower of the farm, and give the signal\nwhen the quarry was in view. Upon the approach of the coach with its\nattendant equerries, the men especially selected for the immediate work\nof assassination were to steal out of their cover and hide themselves\nbehind the wall which ran along the road; the wall was to be provided\nwith convenient loopholes, and the conspirators were to stand with\ntheir muskets ready. \u201cWhen his Majesty\u2019s coach should come over\nagainst the wall, three or four of those behind it were to shoot at the\npostilion and the horses; if the horses should not drop then, there\nwere to be two men with an empty cart in the lane near the place, who\nin the habit of laborers should run the cart athwart the lane and so\nstop the horses. Besides those that were to shoot the postilion and\nthe horses, there were several appointed to shoot into the coach where\nhis Majesty was to be, and others to shoot at the guards that should\nbe attending the coach.\u201d The fell work accomplished, the farm with\nits outbuildings was to be at once vacated, the conspirators were to\njump into their saddles, and make their way to London by the Hackney\nMarshes as fast as their horses could lay to the ground. If this plan\nwas adopted, it was hoped \u201cthey might get to London as soon as the news\ncould.\u201d[64]\n\nStill the murder of Charles and his brother was only the beginning\nof the end. The death of the King was to be the signal for a general\nrising. The city and suburbs were to be divided into twenty districts,\nwith a captain and eight lieutenants at the head of each district;\nthe men to be armed and ready at an hour\u2019s notice for any raid that\nmight be commanded. The sum of twenty thousand pounds, which had been\nsubscribed by the disaffected, was to be distributed among the captains\nto expend as they thought best. The night before the return of the King\nfrom Newmarket, a body composed of two thousand men, drawn from these\nseveral districts, were to be secreted in empty houses, \u201cas near the\nseveral gates of the city and other convenient posts as could be; the\nmen were to be got into those houses and acquainted with the plot to\ntake off the King at Rye House; such as refused should be clapt into\nthe cellars, and the rest sally out at the most convenient hour, and\nseize and shut up the gates.[65]\n\nThe moment the revolt had broken out the different captains were to\nmuster their men and march them to the several places of rendezvous\nfixed upon; some were to be stationed in St. James\u2019s Square, others\nin Covent Garden, others again in Southwark, Lincoln\u2019s Inn Fields,\nand the Royal Exchange, whilst those named at Moorfields were to\ntake possession of the arms in the Artillery Ground. A large body\nof cavalry was, at the same time, to be on the alert and scour the\nstreets, so as to prevent the King\u2019s party from embodying or the Horse\nGuards from doing their duty. The bridges over the Thames were to be\nsecured, and fagots taken into the narrow streets around Eastcheap for\npurposes of conflagration, if necessary.[66] All these measures appeared\ncomparatively easy of execution to the conspirators; one detail in\nthe enterprise, however, seems greatly to have perplexed them. As\nlong as the Tower was in the hands of the King\u2019s guards, any rise in\nthe city might prove a failure. To obtain possession of the Tower was\ntherefore one of the most prominent features in the discussions held at\nthe various hostels which the conspirators frequented. Some suggested\nthat fagots should be heaped about the gates of the building at dead\nof night, and then set on fire; others that it should be bombarded\nfrom the Thames; whilst a third proposed that men should be lodged\nin Thames Street, and secretly fall upon the guard. \u201cSeveral ways,\u201d\nwitnesses Robert West,[67] \u201cwere proposed to surprise and take the Tower\nof London. One was to send ten or twelve men armed with pistols, pocket\ndaggers and pocket blunderbusses into the Tower under the pretence of\nseeing the armory; another number should go to see the lions, who, by\nreason of their not going into the inner gate, were not to have their\nswords taken from them, that the persons who went to see the armory\nshould return into the tavern just within the gate, and there eat and\ndrink till the time for the attempt was come, that some persons should\ncome in a mourning coach, or some gentleman\u2019s coach to be borrowed for\nthis occasion under pretence of making a visit to some of the lords in\nthe Tower; and just within the gate some of the persons issuing out of\nthe tavern should kill one of the horses and overturn the coach, so\nas the gate could not be shut; and the rest of the persons within and\nthose who went to see the lions should set upon the guards, that upon a\nsignal of the coach driving down a party of men (lodged in empty houses\nnear the Tower) should be ready to rush out, and upon the noise of the\nfirst shot immediately run down to the gate and break in; this way, if\nat all put in execution, was to be in the daytime about two o\u2019clock,\nbecause after dinner the officers are usually dispersed or engaged in\ndrinking, and the soldiers loitering from their arms.\u201d\n\nAnother suggestion was \u201cthat several men should enter actions against\none another in St. Catherine\u2019s Court, held for the Tower liberty within\nthe Tower, and that at the court day, at which time great liberty\nis allowed to all persons to come in, a party of men should go as\nplaintiffs and defendants, and witnesses who should come in under\npretence of curiosity, and being seconded by certain stout fellows\nworking as laborers in the Tower, should attempt the surprise.\u201d[68]\nIt would, however, appear that all these proposals, after full\nconsideration, were deemed impracticable, for we learn that no definite\ndecision was arrived at, but the capture of the Tower was left to the\nchapter of accidents. The first step, said the plotters, was to begin\nthe revolt; then events, at present unforeseen, would spring up and\nfavor the development of the insurrection. \u201cOnly let the football be\ndropped,\u201d said one, \u201cand there would be plenty to give it a kick.\u201d[69]\n\nThe King and his brother shot down, and the city in the hands of the\nconspirators, punishment was then swiftly to overtake those who had\nfavored the past policy of Charles. The late Lord Mayor of London,\nwho had specially shown himself the creature of the court in willing\nto yield the charter of the corporation, was to be killed. A similar\nfate was to befall the existing Lord Mayor, also guilty of the same\nsubservience; with this addition, that after death \u201chis skin should\nbe flayed off and stuffed and hung up in Guildhall, as one who had\nbetrayed the rights and privileges of the city.\u201d The office of chief\nmagistrate of the city thus vacant, it was to be filled by one Alderman\nCornish; should he refuse to accept the dignity, he was to be \u201cknocked\non the head.\u201d Certain members of the corporation, who \u201chad behaved\nthemselves like trimmers, and neglected to repeal several by-laws,\u201d\nwere to be forced to appear publicly and admit the fact: in the event\nof their declining to be thus humiliated, they also were to be \u201cknocked\non the head.\u201d The civic authorities chastened by this process of\ncorrection applied to the cranium, the bench was next to fall under\nthe ire of the plotters. All such judges as had been guilty of passing\narbitrary judgments, and of identifying the law with the royal will,\nwere to be brought to trial, \u201cand their skins stuffed and hung up in\nWestminster Hall.\u201d Then came the turn of the ecclesiastics; in the\nvicious hour of mob rule the Church is always one of the first and\ngreatest sufferers. On this occasion \u201cbishops, deans, and chapters were\nto be wholly laid aside,\u201d their lands confiscated, and such sums as it\nwas the custom to apply to educational purposes were to be appropriated\n\u201cto public uses in ease of the people from taxes.\u201d Men who had made\nthemselves unpopular during the late Parliament as greedy pensioners\nof the Crown were to be \u201cbrought to trial and death, and their skins\nstuffed and then hung up in the Parliament House as betrayers of the\npeople and of the trust.\u201d It was also thought \u201cconvenient\u201d that certain\nMinisters of State, such as my Lord Halifax, and my Lord Hyde, should\nbe \u201ctaken off.\u201d To complete the programme, should funds be lacking, a\nraid was to be made upon the city magnates, for, said these advocates\nof communism, \u201cthere was money and plate enough among the bankers and\ngoldsmiths.\u201d This scheme of revenge and spoliation was to be rigidly\ncarried out; and those to whom it was entrusted were to fulfil it as\nthey would \u201cobey the commandments.\u201d[70]\n\nThe insurrection once an accomplished fact, and the prerogative of the\nCrown, with all its attendant evils, overthrown, the reforms which had\ninspired the movement were immediately to be put in force. The House\nof Commons was no longer to be the creature of the throne, but of the\nnation. The people were to meet annually at a certain time to choose\nmembers of Parliament \u201cwithout any writ or particular direction to do\nso.\u201d The Parliament thus chosen was to assemble for a stated time;\nnor was it to be dissolved, prorogued, or adjourned except by its own\nconsent. Parliament was to consist of an upper and lower House; but\n\u201conly such nobility should be hereditary as were assisting in this\ndesign; the rest should only be for life, and upon their death the\nHouse of Lords should be supplied from time to time with new ones\nout of the House of Commons.\u201d To Parliament should be entrusted \u201cthe\nnomination, if not the election, of all judges, sheriffs, justices of\nthe peace, and other greater or lesser offices, civil or military.\u201d\nActs passed by both Houses of Parliament should be a perpetual law,\nwithout any necessity for the sanction of the Crown. A council\nselected from the Lords and Commons were to act as the advisers of the\nsovereign. The militia were to be in the hands of the people. Every\ncounty was to choose its own sheriffs. Parliament was to be held once\na year, and to sit as long as it had anything to do. All peers who had\nacted contrary to the interest of the people were to be degraded. In\nmatters of religion complete toleration was to be accorded to everyone.\nEngland was to be a free port, and all foreigners who willed it should\nbe naturalized. Finally, the only imports to be levied were the excise\nand land taxes.[71]\n\nThe example set by London in rising against the despotism of the Crown\nwas to be followed by the rest of the country. The Earl of Argyll\nagreed first for thirty thousand, then for ten thousand pounds, \u201cto\nstir the Scots,\u201d who were hotly in favor of revolt, \u201cthough they had\nnothing but their claws to fight with rather than endure what they\ndid.\u201d In the west of England, Bristol, Taunton, and Exeter were full\nof agents of the disaffected; whilst in the north, Chester, York, and\nNewcastle were ready at a moment\u2019s notice to act in union with London.\nIn the south, Portsmouth was the only town as yet which had voted\nin favor of the plot. The east of England was quiet. It was agreed\nthat upon the death of Charles his illegitimate son, the Duke of\nMonmouth, should be crowned king, but owing to the jealousy of the\ncouncil appointed to curb the prerogative, and to the measures of the\nreformers, it was said that the royal bastard would be more a \u201cDuke of\nVenice\u201d than an English monarch.[72]\n\nWhilst these schemes were being fashioned within the parlors of the\n\u201cDolphin,\u201d the \u201cRising Sun,\u201d and the rest of the City taverns, a\nvery different order of men were at the same time deliberating how\nto pull the nation out of the slough of despotism into which it had\nbeen plunged. Upon the death of Shaftesbury, who had been during\nthe last years of his life the most prominent of the foes of the\ncourt, especially of the Duke of York, and the most potent among the\ndisaffected in the city of London, the leaders of the Whig party,\naware of the danger which menaced them from \u201cfroward sheriffs, willing\njuries, mercenary judges, and bold witnesses,\u201d determined not to let\nthe cause which Shaftesbury had advocated fall to the ground. They\nheld frequent meetings at different places of rendezvous, and formed\nthemselves into a select committee, which was known by the name of\nthe \u201cCouncil of Six.\u201d The members of this council were the Duke of\nMonmouth, who was intriguing for the crown, Lord Essex, Algernon\nSydney, Lord William Russell, Lord Howard, and young Hampden, the\ngrandson of the opponent of ship-money. What the deliberations of this\ncouncil were it is now difficult to ascertain, owing to the prejudiced\nsources from which information had to be derived; the official accounts\nof the plot, drawn up at the request of the King by Ford, Lord Grey,\nand by Sprat, the servile Bishop of Rochester, are not to be implicitly\nbelieved in; nor is the evidence of the witnesses produced by the Crown\nat the trials of Sydney and Russell a whit more trustworthy. There can\nbe no doubt, however, that consultations were frequently held among\nthe Six as to the best course to pursue for resisting a Government\nwhich aimed at nothing less than arbitrary power. If we are to credit\nthe men who sold their testimony to the Crown, and the men who\npurchased life by turning King\u2019s evidence, the aim of the Council was\nto organise an insurrection all over the country, and with the help\nof the discontented Presbyterians in Scotland to put an end to the\ntyranny of Charles and his Popish brother. What was the exact extent\nof their designs we know not, but in all probability the statement by\nLady William Russell is not far from the truth. \u201cThere was,\u201d said her\nladyship, \u201cmuch talk about a general rising, but it only amounted to\nloose discourse, or at most embryos that never came to anything.\u201d\n\nNor have we, though the testimony is partial, much reason to doubt the\nassertion. Considering the condition of England at that time, and the\nconflicting views of the Six who constituted the council, it would have\nbeen difficult for any decided and unanimous scheme of action to have\nbeen prepared. Though the conduct of Charles had caused much discontent\nand distress, yet the nation at large felt itself powerless to oppose\nthe evil. The Whigs were in a minority, whilst the Royalists were a\nmost formidable party, in whose hands were all the military and naval\nresources of the kingdom. To levy war upon the Merry Monarch, as had\nforty years before been levied upon his father, was a scheme which bore\nfailure on its very face, and could not have been seriously entertained\nby keen and cautious men like Russell or Sydney. The Six in all\nprobability contented themselves with merely forming estimates of the\nstrength of their followers, and with knitting together a confederacy\nwhich absolute necessity might call into action. We must also remember\nthat the members of the Council were not in such harmony with each\nother as to render it probable that they had fixed upon any distinct\nplan of rebellion. Monmouth was in favor of a monarchy with himself\nas monarch. Algernon Sydney had no other object before him but the\nrealisation of his cherished idea of a republic, and frankly declared\nthat it was indifferent to him whether James Duke of York or James Duke\nof Monmouth was on the throne. Essex was very much the same way of\nthinking as Sydney. Russell and Hampden wished for the exclusion of\nthe Duke of York, as a Papist, from the throne, the redress of certain\ngrievances, and the return of the Constitution within its ancient\nlines; whilst Howard, the falsest and most mercenary of men, was\nready to vote for any change of government which could be harmlessly\neffected, and by which his own interests would not be forgotten. Many\nyears after the execution of her husband, Lady William Russell said,\nwith reference to these men and the measures they proposed, that she\nwas convinced it was but talk, \u201cand \u2019tis possible that talk going so\nfar as to consider if a remedy to suppress evils might be sought, how\nit could be found.\u201d\n\nTo return to the Rye House plotters. We are told by those given to\nspeculation and organisation that in all calculations a large allowance\nshould be made for that which upsets most plans\u2014the unforeseen. On\nthis occasion the conspirators were so sanguine of their scheme as\nnever to imagine it might be put to nought by pure accident. The farm\nhad been engaged, the men instructed, the necessary hiding-places\nprepared, and all things were ready for the murderous deed. Suddenly\nthe unforeseen occurred, and all the careful measures of the would-be\nregicides were rendered abortive. Owing to his house having caught\nfire, Charles was obliged to leave Newmarket eight days earlier than\nhe had intended, and thus, thanks to this happy conflagration, passed\nunscathed by the Rye House, then completely deserted; his Majesty was\ncomfortably ensconced at Whitehall, toying with his mistresses and\nsorting their bonbons, whilst his enemies, unconscious of his escape,\nwere congratulating themselves that in another week their work would be\ndone, and their victim fall an easy prey to their designs.\n\nAnd now the result ensued which invariably attends upon treason which\nhas failed and which fears detection. It was an age when plots were\nfreely concocted against the Crown and those in supreme authority, yet,\noften as conspiracies were entered into, there were always witnesses\nready to come forward and swear away the lives of their former\naccomplices, to divulge what they had pledged themselves to keep\nsecret, and if need be to follow in every detail the example of the\nbiggest scoundrel of the seventeenth century, Doctor Titus Oates of\nSalamanca. Among the minor persons engaged in the Rye House plot\nwas, as we have said, Josiah Keeling; he was now fearful of the fate\nwhich might befall him should the authorities at Whitehall get wind\nof the past deliberations, and accordingly with that prudence which\ncharacterised him he was determined to be first in the field to make\na clean breast of all that had been planned and suggested. First he\nwent to Lord Dartmouth, of the Privy Council, and told his tale, and\nthen was referred by that statesman to his colleague, Mr. Secretary\nJenkins. Jenkins took down the deposition of the man, but said that\nunless the evidence was supported by another witness, no investigation\nof the matter could be proceeded with. Keeling was, however, equal to\nthe occasion, and induced his brother John, a turner in Blackfriars,\nto corroborate his statements. The plot now authenticated by the two\nrequisite witnesses, the Secretary of State thought it his duty to\ncommunicate the affair to the rest of the advisers of the Crown. It\nappears, however, that a few days after his confession the conscience\nof the younger brother, John Keeling, pricked him, and he secretly\navailed himself of the first opportunity to inform Richard Goodenough\nthat the plot had been discovered by the Government, and advised all\nwho had been engaged in it to fly beyond sea.\n\nThis news coming to the ears of Colonel Romsey and Robert West, who\nwere bosom friends, the two, unconscious of the revelations of the\nKeelings, thought it now prudent to save their own skins by informing\nministers of all that had occurred, and, indeed, to make their story\nthe more palatable to the Government, of a little more than had\noccurred. Accordingly they wended their way to Whitehall, and there\ntold how the house at Rye had been offered them by Rumbald, the\nmaltster; how at this house forty men well armed and mounted, commanded\nin two divisions by Romsey and Walcot, were to assemble; and how on the\nreturn of the King from Newmarket, Romsey with his division was to stop\nthe coach, and murder Charles and his brother, whilst Walcot was to\nbusy himself in engaging with the guards. So far the narrative of the\ninformers tallied with the confessions of the Keelings. But Romsey\nand West, aware how hateful Lord William Russell, Algernon Sydney,\nand the rest of the cabal were to the Government, by their open\nopposition to the home and foreign policy of the court, essayed to\ngive the impression that the Council of Six were also implicated in\nthe detestable designs of the Rye House plotters.[73] When unscrupulous\nmen in supreme power are anxious to gratify their animosity, any\nevidence calculated to bring foes within reach is acceptable. The hints\nof Romsey and West were sufficient for the purpose, and orders were\ninstantly issued by the Secretaries of State for the arrest of the\nSix. The first victim was Lord William, who was at once taken before\nthe council for examination; but as he denied all the charges brought\nagainst him, he was forthwith sent to the Tower. Algernon Sydney next\nfollowed. He had been seized whilst at his lodgings, and all his papers\nsealed and secured by a messenger. Once before the council, he answered\na few questions, \u201crespectfully and without deceit,\u201d but his examination\nwas brief, for on his refusal to reply to certain queries put to him,\nhe also was despatched to the Tower. Monmouth, having received timely\nwarning, had placed the North Sea between him and the court. Ford, Lord\nGrey, had been brought before the council, had been examined and sent\nto the Tower, but managing to bribe his guards, had escaped. Lord Essex\nand Hampden were imprisoned: shortly after his confinement, Essex, who\nwas subject to constitutional melancholy, committed suicide by cutting\nhis throat. Lord Howard was still at large, protesting that there was\nno plot, and that he had never heard of any. Orders were, however,\nissued for his arrest, and when the officers came to his house, they\nfound him secreted up the chimney in one of his rooms. As Keeling had\ninformed against the Rye House plotters, so Lord Howard now informed\nagainst the Six. Weeping at the fact that he was a prisoner, he\npromised to reveal all; his revelations were considered so satisfactory\nthat within a few days after their being taken down by the council,\nboth Lord William Russell and Algernon Sydney were put upon their trial\nfor high treason.\n\nRussell was the first to stand at the bar. It appears that one evening\nhe had been present at the house of Thomas Shepherd in Abchurch Lane,\nwhere the Rye House conspirators were occasionally in the habit of\nmeeting and discussing their plans. He had gone thither to taste\nsome wine. \u201cIt was the greatest accident in the world I was there,\u201d\nsaid Russell at his trial, \u201cand when I saw that company was there I\nwould have been gone again. I came there to speak with Mr. Shepherd,\nfor I was just come to town.\u201d His excuse was raised in vain. Romsey,\nShepherd, and Howard were playing into the hands of the Crown, and\neach did his best by hard swearing and false testimony to make the\nprisoner\u2019s conviction certain. The gallant colonel asserted that he had\nseen his lordship at the house of Shepherd, where discourse was being\nheld by the cabal of conspirators as to surprising the King\u2019s guards\nand creating an insurrection throughout the country. Thomas Shepherd\nnext followed, and gave very much the same evidence as Romsey\u2014that\nhis house in Abchurch Lane was let as a place of rendezvous for the\ndisaffected; that the substance of the discourse of those who met\nthere was how to surprise the guards and organise a rising; that two\nmeetings were held at his house, and that he believed the prisoner\nattended both, but that he was certainly at the meeting when they\ntalked of seizing the guards. Then Lord Howard was called as a witness.\nHe said that he was one of the Six, and had attended the meetings at\nthe house of Shepherd; at such meetings it had been agreed to begin\nthe insurrection in the country before raising the city, and there had\nalso been some talk of dealing with the discontented Scotch; at these\ndeliberations no question was put or vote collected, and he of course\nconcluded by the presence of Lord William that the prisoner gave his\nconsent like the rest to the designs of the cabal.\n\nIn his defence Russell denied that he ever had any intention against\nthe life of the King; he was ignorant of the proceedings of the Rye\nHouse plotters, and his mixing with the conspirators on the sole\noccasion he had visited Shepherd at Abchurch Lane was purely due to\naccident. He had gone thither about some wine. He did not admit that\nhe had listened to any talk as to the possibility of creating an\ninsurrection; but even had he made such an admission, talk of that\nnature could not be construed into treason, for by a special statute\n(the old statute of treasons) passed in the reign of Edward III.,\n\u201ca design to levy war is not treason;\u201d besides, such talk had not\nbeen acted upon; they had met to consult, but they acted nothing in\npursuance of that consulting. The attorney-general held a different\nview, and asserted it had often been determined that to prepare forces\nto fight against the King was a design within the statute of Edward\nIII. to kill the King. The presiding judge, as a creature of the court,\nwas, of course, of the same opinion; he summed up the evidence, deeming\nit unfavorable to the prisoner; and the jury, basing their verdict upon\nthe tone of the bench, brought in a sentence of guilty of high treason.\nIn spite of every effort that affection could inspire and interest\nadvocate, Lord William Russell ended his days on the scaffold. \u201cThat\nwhich is most certain in the affair is,\u201d writes Charles James Fox in\nhis history of James II., \u201cthat Russell had committed no overt act\nindicating the imagining the King\u2019s death even according to the most\nstrained construction of the statute of Edward III.; much less was\nany such act legally proved against him; and the conspiring to levy\nwar was not treason, except by a recent statute of Charles II., the\nprosecutions upon which were expressly limited to a certain time which\nin these cases had elapsed; so that it is impossible not to assent to\nthe opinion of those who have ever stigmatised the condemnation and\nexecution of Russell as a most flagrant violation of law and justice.\u201d\n\nThe same measure was now meted out to Algernon Sydney as had been\ndealt to Russell. In the eyes of the bench, conspiring to levy war and\nconspiring against the King\u2019s life were considered one and the same\nthing. It was in vain that Sydney asserted that he had not conspired\nto the death of the King, that he had not levied war, and that he had\nnot written anything to stir up the people against the King. It was\nin vain that even the Rye House plotters had to confess they knew\nnothing of him, and had never seen him at the different meetings.\nCanting Nadab, however\u2014as Dryden, in his immortal satire, calls Lord\nHoward\u2014was there, ready to swear away a colleague\u2019s life or do any\nother dirty trick provided his own skin and estate were not forfeited\nfor past misdeeds; his evidence was the chief trump card on which the\ncourt relied to score the game. Accordingly his lordship began his\ntestimony by relating what had passed at the meetings of the Six, as\nto the best means for defending the public interest from invasion,\nand the advisability of the rising breaking out first in the country\ninstead of in the city. He also stated that it was the special province\nof Algernon Sydney to deal with the malcontent Scots, and had carried\nout this task through the agency of one Aaron Smith, who had gone north\nand been provided with funds for the purpose. This assertion, though\nHoward candidly said he only spoke from hearsay, was deemed sufficient\nby the advisers of the Crown to place Sydney\u2019s head in jeopardy. As\nthe law, however, demanded that in all trials for high treason there\nshould be _two_ witnesses against the prisoner before sentence could\nbe passed, and as no other witness had the baseness to act the part so\nwell played by Lord Howard, it was necessary for the court to resort\nto some expedient which would sufficiently answer its purpose of\nconvicting Sydney. The Court was equal to the emergency. Search was\nmade among Sydney\u2019s papers, and it was discovered that he had written\na treatise\u2014his famous discourse on Government\u2014which particularly\ndiscussed the paramount authority of the people and the legality of\nresisting an oppressive Government. A few isolated passages of the work\nwere read here and there, the extracts given were garbled, and, thanks\nto the coloring of the prosecution, the case against the prisoner\nlooked black indeed. Entering upon his defence, Sydney, like Russell,\ndenied that he had ever conspired to the death of Charles; nor was he a\nfriend of Monmouth, with whom he had spoken but three times in his\nlife: he objected to the evidence of Howard, which was based upon\nhearsay, but if such testimony were true, he was but one witness,\nand the law required two. As for regarding a mangled portion of his\ntreatise as a second witness, it was iniquitous. \u201cShould a man,\u201d he\ncried, \u201cbe indicted for treason for scraps of papers, innocent in\nthemselves, but when pieced and patched with Lord Howard\u2019s story,\nmade a contrivance to kill the King? Let them not pick out extracts,\nbut read the work as a whole. If they took Scripture to pieces, they\ncould make all the penmen of the Scripture blasphemous. They might\naccuse David of saying there is no God; the evangelists of saying that\nChrist was a blasphemer and seducer, and of the apostles that they\nwere drunk.\u201d Then he ended by denying that he had any connection with\nthe malcontents in Scotland. \u201cI have not sent myself,\u201d he said, \u201cnor\nwritten a letter into Scotland ever since 1659; nor do I know one man\nin Scotland to whom I can write, or from whom I ever received one.\u201d\nHe refuted the charges brought against him in vain. The notorious\nJeffries was now the presiding judge, and never was summing up from the\nbench more culpably partial or more flagrantly at variance with the\nclauses of the judicial oath. \u201cI look upon the meetings of the Six,\u201d\nsaid Jeffries to the jury, \u201cand the meetings of the Rye House plotters\nas having one and the same end in view; I place implicit faith in the\nevidence of Howard; I deny that it is necessary that there shall be\ntwo witnesses to convict a prisoner of high treason; and as for the\ntreatise of Sydney, I declare it is sufficient to condemn the author as\nbeing guilty of compassing and imagining the death of the King.\u201d Upon\nthe jury retiring to consider their verdict, Jeffries sternly informed\nthem that he had explained the law, and that they were bound to accept\nhis interpretation of it. Thus left without any option in the matter,\nthe jury returned at the end of half an hour into court, and brought\nin a verdict of guilty. After a brief confinement. Algernon Sydney was\nbeheaded on Tower Hill, Dec. 7, 1683.\n\nThus ended one of the most iniquitous and unjust trials that the annals\nof justice ever had to record. \u201cThe proceedings in the case of Algernon\nSydney,\u201d writes Fox, \u201cwere most detestable. The production of papers\ncontaining speculative opinions upon government and liberty, written\nlong before, and perhaps never intended to be published, together\nwith the use made of those papers in considering them as a substitute\nfor the second witness to the overt act, exhibited such a compound of\nwickedness and nonsense as is hardly to be paralleled in the history\nof judicial tyranny. But the validity of pretences was little attended\nto at that time in the case of a person whom the court had devoted\nto destruction; and upon evidence such as has been stated was this\ngreat and excellent man condemned to die.\u201d Upon the accession of \u201cthe\nDeliverer\u201d to the throne, an Act was passed annulling and making void\nthe attainder of Algernon Sydney on account of its having been obtained\n\u201cwithout sufficient legal evidence of any treason committed by him,\u201d\nand \u201cby a partial and unjust construction of the statute declaring\nwhat was his treason.\u201d The fate of the Rye House conspirators was very\nvarious. Some fled never to return, and were outlawed like Ferguson\nand Goodenough; others confessed, and were pardoned like Romsey;\nwhilst a third offered in vain to purchase life by turning informers,\nas was the case with Walcot and Armstrong. Two years later those who\nhad been outlawed, and were living in exile, again tried their hand at\ninsurrection by aiding Monmouth in his revolt.\u2014_Gentleman\u2019s Magazine._\n\n\n\n\nMR. ARNOLD\u2019S LAY SERMON.\n\n\nMr. Arnold\u2019s lay sermon to \u201cthe sacrificed classes\u201d at Whitechapel\ncontrasts doubly with the pulpit sermons which we too often hear. It\nis real where these sermons are unreal, and frankly unreal where these\nsermons are real. It does honestly warn the people to whom it was\naddressed, of the special danger to which \u201cthe sacrificed classes\u201d are\nexposed, whenever they in their turn get the upper-hand, the danger of\nsimply turning the tables on the great possessing and aspiring classes.\n\u201cIf the sacrificed classes,\u201d he said, \u201cunder the influence of hatred,\ncupidity, desire of change, destroy, in order to possess and enjoy in\ntheir turn, their work, too, will be idolatrous, and the old work will\ncontinue to stand for the present, or at any rate their new work will\nnot take its place.\u201d It must be work done in a new spirit, not in the\nspirit of hatred or cupidity, or eagerness to enjoy and appropriate\nthe privileges of others, which can alone stand the test of time and\njudgment. So far, Mr. Arnold was much more real than too many of our\nclerical preachers. He warned his hearers against a temptation which\nhe knew would be stirring constantly in their hearts, and not against\nabstract temptations which he had no reason to think would have any\nspecial significance to any of his audience.\n\nOn the other hand, if he were more real in what was addressed to his\nparticular audience than pulpit-preachers often are, he resorted once\nmore, with his usual hardened indifference to the meaning of words\nand the principles of true literature, to that practice of debasing\nthe coinage of religious language, and using great sayings in a new\nand washed-out sense of his own, of which pulpit-preachers are seldom\nguilty. This practice of Mr. Arnold\u2019s is the only great set-off against\nthe brilliant services he has rendered to English literature, but\nit is one which we should not find it easy to condemn too strongly.\nEvery one knows how, in various books of his, Mr. Arnold has tried\nto \u201cverify\u201d the teaching of the Bible, while depriving the name of\nGod of all personal meaning; to verify the Gospel of Christ, while\ndenying that Christ had any message to us from a world beyond our own;\nand even,\u2014wildest enterprise of all,\u2014so to rationalise the strictly\ntheological language of St. John as to rob it of all its theological\nsignificance. Well, we do not charge this offence on Mr. Arnold as in\nany sense whatever an attempt to play fast-and-loose with words; for he\nhas again and again confessed to all the world, with the explicitness\nand vigor which are natural to him, the precise drift of his\nenterprise. But we do charge it on Mr. Arnold as in the highest\npossible sense a great literary misdemeanor, that he has lent his\nhigh authority to the attempt to give to a great literature a pallid,\nfaded, and artificial complexion, though, with his view of it, his\nduty obviously was to declare boldly that that literature teaches\nwhat is, in his opinion, false and superstitious, and deserves our\nadmiration only as representing a singularly grand, though obsolete,\nstage in man\u2019s development. Mr. Arnold is as frank and honest as the\nday. But frank and honest as he is, his authority is not the less lent\nto a non-natural rendering of Scripture infinitely more intolerable\nthan that non-natural interpretation of the Thirty-nine Articles\nwhich once brought down the wrath of the world of Protestants on the\nauthor of \u201cTract 90.\u201d In this Whitechapel lecture Mr. Arnold tells his\nhearers that in the \u201cpreternatural and miraculous aspect\u201d which the\npopular Christianity assumes Christianity is not solid or verifiable,\nbut that there is another aspect of Christianity which is solid and\nverifiable, which aspect of it makes no appeal to a preternatural\n[_i. e._, supernatural] world at all. Then he goes on, after eulogising\nMr. Watts\u2019s pictures,\u2014of one of which a great mosaic has been set up\nin Whitechapel as a memorial of Mr. Barnett\u2019s noble work there,\u2014to\nremark that good as it is to bring home to \u201cthe less refined classes\u201d\nthe significance of Art and Beauty, it is none the less true that\n\u201cwhosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again,\u201d and to suggest,\nof course, by implication, that there is a living water springing up to\neverlasting life, of which he who drinks shall never thirst. Then he\nproceeds thus:\u2014\n\n        \u201cNo doubt the social sympathies, the feeling for\n      Beauty, the pleasure of Art, if left merely by\n      themselves, if untouched by what is the deepest\n      thing in human life\u2014religion\u2014are apt to become\n      ineffectual and superficial. The art which Mr.\n      Barnett has done his best to make known to the\n      people here, the art of men like Mr. Watts, the art\n      manifested in works such as that which has just now\n      been unveiled upon the walls of St. Jude\u2019s Church,\n      has a deep and powerful connection with religion. You\n      have seen the mosaic, and have read, perhaps, the\n      scroll which is attached to it. There is the\n      figure of Time, a strong young man, full of hope,\n      energy, daring, and adventure, moving on to take\n      possession of life; and opposite to him there is\n      that beautiful figure of Death, representing the\n      breakings-off, the cuttings short, the baffling\n      disappointments, the heart-piercing separations from\n      which the fullest life and the most fiery energy\n      cannot exempt us. Look at that strong and bold young\n      man, that mournful figure must go hand in hand with\n      him for ever. And those two figures, let us admit if\n      you like, belong to Art. But who is that third figure\n      whose scale weighs deserts, and who carries a sword\n      of fire? We are told again by the text printed on the\n      scroll, \u2018The Eternal [the scroll, however, has \u2018the\n      Lord\u2019] is a God of Judgment; blessed are they that\n      wait for him.\u2019 It is the figure of Judgment, and that\n      figure, I say, belongs to religion. The text which\n      explains the figure is taken from one of the Hebrew\n      Prophets; but an even more striking text is furnished\n      us from that saying of the Founder of Christianity\n      when he was about to leave the world, and to leave\n      behind him his Disciples, who, so long as he lived,\n      had him always to cling to, and to do all their\n      thinking for them. He told them that when he was gone\n      they should find a new source of thought and feeling\n      opening itself within them, and that this new source\n      of thought and feeling should be a comforter to them,\n      and that it should convince, he said, the world of\n      many things. Amongst other things, he said, it should\n      convince the world that Judgment comes, and that the\n      Prince of this world is judged. That is a text which\n      we shall do well to lay to heart, considering it with\n      and alongside that text from the Prophet. More and\n      more it is becoming manifest that the Prince of this\n      world is really judged, that that Prince who is the\n      perpetual ideal of selfishly possessing and enjoying,\n      and of the worlds fashioned under the inspiration of\n      this ideal, is judged. One world and another have\n      gone to pieces because they were fashioned under the\n      inspiration of this ideal, and that is a consoling\n      and edifying thought.\u201d\n\nNow, when we know, as Mr. Arnold wishes us all to know, that to him\n\u201cthe Eternal\u201d means nothing more than that \u201cstream of tendency,\nnot ourselves, which makes for righteousness,\u201d that \u201cJudgment\u201d\nmeans nothing but the ultimate defeat which may await those who set\nthemselves against this stream of tendency, if the stream of tendency\nbe really as potent and as lasting as the Jews believed God to be, we\ndo not think that the consoling character of this text will be keenly\nfelt by impartial minds. Further, we should remember that according to\nMr. Arnold, when Christ told his disciples that the Comforter should\n\u201creprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment; of\nsin because they believed not on me, of righteousness because I go\nto the Father, and ye see me no more; of judgment because the prince\nof this world is judged,\u201d we should understand this as importing,\nto those at least who agree with Mr. Arnold, only that, for some\nunknown reason, a new wave of feeling would follow Christ\u2019s death,\nwhich would give mankind a new sense of their unworthiness, a new\nvision of Christ\u2019s holiness, and a new confidence in the power of that\n\u201cstream of tendency, not ourselves, which makes for righteousness,\u201d\nin which Christ\u2019s own personality would then be merged; and further,\nthat this powerful stream of tendency would probably sweep away all\ninstitutions not tending to righteousness but opposing an obstacle\nto that tendency. Well, all we can say is that, in watering-down in\nthis way the language of the Bible, Mr. Arnold, if he is doing nothing\nelse, is doing what lies in his power to extinguish the distinctive\nsignificance of a great literature. The whole power of that literature\ndepends from beginning to end on the faith in a Divine Being who holds\nthe universe in his hand, whose will nothing can resist, who inspires\nthe good, who punishes the evil, who judges kingdoms as he judges the\nhearts of men, and whose mind manifested in Christ promised to Christ\u2019s\ndisciples that which his power alone availed to fulfil. To substitute\nfor a faith such as this, a belief\u2014to our minds the wildest in the\nworld, and the least verifiable\u2014that \u201ca stream of tendency\u201d effects\nall that the prophets ascribed to God, or, at least so much of it as\never will be effected at all, and that Christ, by virtue merely of his\ncomplete identification with this stream of tendency, is accomplishing\nposthumously, without help from either Father, Son, or Spirit, all that\nhe could have expected to accomplish through the personal agency of\nGod, is to extract the kernel from the shell, and to ask us to accept\nthe empty husk for the living grain. We are not reproaching Mr. Arnold\nfor his scepticism. We are reproaching him as a literary man for trying\nto give currency in a debased form to language of which the whole power\ndepends on its being used honestly in the original sense. \u201cThe Eternal\u201d\nmeans one thing when it means the everlasting and supreme thought\nand will and life; it is an expression utterly blank and dead when\nit means nothing but a select \u201cstream of tendency\u201d which is assumed,\nfor no particular reason, to be constant, permanent, and victorious.\n\u201cLiving water\u201d means one thing when it means the living stream of God\u2019s\ninfluence; it has no salvation in it at all when it means only that\nwhich is the purest of the many tendencies in human life. The shadow\nof judgment means one thing when it is cast by the will of the supreme\nrighteousness; it has no solemnity in it when it expresses only the\nsanguine anticipation of human virtue. There is no reason on earth\nwhy Mr. Arnold should not water-down the teaching of the Bible to his\nown view of its residual meaning; but then, in the name of sincere\nliterature, let him find his own language for it, and not dress up\nthis feeble and superficial hopefulness of the nineteenth century in\nwords which are undoubtedly stamped with an ardor and a peace for\nwhich his teaching can give us no sort of justification. \u201cSolidity and\nverification,\u201d indeed! Never was there a doctrine with less bottom in\nit and less pretence of verification than his; but be that as it may,\nhe must know, as well as we know, that his doctrine is as different\nfrom the doctrine of the Bible as the shadow is different from the\nsubstance. Has Mr. Arnold lately read Dr. Newman\u2019s great Oxford sermon\non \u201cUnreal Words\u201d? If not, we wish he would refer to it again, and\nremember the warning addressed to those who \u201cuse great words and\nimitate the sentences of others,\u201d and who \u201cfancy that those whom they\nimitate had as little meaning as themselves,\u201d or \u201cperhaps contrive to\nthink that they themselves have a meaning adequate to their words.\u201d It\nis to us impossible to believe that Mr. Arnold should have indulged\nsuch an illusion. He knows too well the difference between the great\nfaith which spoke in prophet and apostle, and the feeble faith which\nabsorbs a drop or two of grateful moisture from a \u201cstream of tendency\u201d\non the banks of which it weakly lingers. Mr. Arnold is really putting\nLiterature,\u2014of which he is so great a master,\u2014to shame, when he\ntravesties the language of the prophets, and the evangelists, and of\nour Lord himself, by using it to express the dwarfed convictions and\nwithered hopes of modern rationalists who love to repeat the great\nwords of the Bible, after they have given up the strong meaning of them\nas fanatical superstitions. Mr. Arnold\u2019s readings of Scriptures are the\nspiritual _assignats_ of English faith.\u2014_Spectator._\n\n\n\n\nAUTHORS AS SUPPRESSORS OF THEIR BOOKS.\n\n\nBY W. H. OLDING, LL.B.\n\nAlike in the annals of forgery\u2014State forgery of \u201creal\u201d evidence\u2014and\nin the annals of the British drama, \u201cThe Golden Rump\u201d has a history\nvery well known. It was a farce, the representation of which was\nmade the excuse for the passing of the Act whereunder the licensing\nof theatrical performances was established. At the same time it\nwas a farce which those in power had directly induced its author\nto compose. That there was no one to imagine or tolerate a play\nsufficiently rampant to justify the proposal to fetter, which Party\nGovernment imagined it well to execute\u2014that this was believed,\nbecomes a testimony to the potency of customary self-regulation. Now\nconversely, and carrying the analogy to all branches of literature, it\nmay be asserted that the suppression of books by authors themselves\nis likely to be comparatively frequent just in those countries in\nwhich the State does not much concern itself with suppression by its\nauthority. If this analogy have force it must, to Englishmen, be\npeculiarly gratifying\u2014though the elements of restraint have prevailed\nin our history to an extent far beyond general belief\u2014at a time when\nDr. Reusch\u2019s excellent Index of books prohibited by the authority of\nPope, Archbishop, or Continental University is extracting from the\ncompetent critics of all countries the homage which untiring assiduity,\nmonumental learning, and rich moderation compel.\n\nHowever, into the measurement of this comparative frequency, _causes_\nessentially enter. These, in England, as in other realms, have\nabounded. Now, of all the motives which have led authors to consign\ntheir compositions to the flames, one of the most frequent, if one of\nthe least seductive, has been the ridicule and elaborate discouragement\nwith which parents have received the knowledge of their offspring\u2019s\nfirst essays. The feeling which prompts this is not one to be\naltogether blamed: it has its partial justification even in\nthe distaste with which the recipient children lay open their\ntreasure-house to those who in days of feebleness have guarded\nthem. For there is, as Tom Tulliver felt, a \u201cfamily repulsion which\nspoils the most sacred relations of our lives,\u201d and which is only\nbroken down by some community of art levelling with the sense of a\nuniversality wherein all distinction of discipleship is lost, or else\nby dire circumstance shattering into shapelessness beyond disguise.\nThis, perhaps, rather than quicker sensitiveness, is why it is that\nyoung Mozart met response, but the little Burney girl did not. Only\nto Susanna, her sister, would Fanny breathe her secret, and anxious\nwas she because her mother gained sufficient inkling to induce her\nperiodically to tell the evils of a scribbling turn of mind. But, as\nwith Petrarch centuries before, some time in her fifteenth year the\npromptings of obedience gained the day. \u201cShe resolved,\u201d says Charlotte,\nher niece and editor, \u201cto make an auto da f\u00e9 of all her manuscripts,\nand, if possible, to throw away her pen. Seizing, therefore, an\nopportunity when Dr. and Mrs. Burney were from home, she made over to\na bonfire in a paved play-court the whole stock of her compositions,\nwhile faithful Susanna stood by, weeping at the conflagration. Among\nthe works thus immolated was one tale of considerable length, the\n\u2018History of Caroline Evelyn,\u2019 the mother of \u2018Evelina.\u2019\u201d\n\nAs if further to justify the halting or rebuking posture which at first\nis apt to prove provocative of indignation, remarkable diffidence in\nmaturer life has pushed its way into sight where early publications have\nbeen due to parental sympathy. The historian of Greece, Connop\nThirlwall, Bishop of St. David\u2019s, was taught Latin at the age of\nthree: at four could \u201cread Greek with an ease and fluency which\nastonished all who heard him,\u201d and at seven began the composition\nof didactic homilies. Now to this precocity was allied a taste for\nverse, especially as shown in Dryden and in Pope; and the result was\nthe issue of a work, edited and prefaced by the father, entitled\n\u201cPrimiti\u00e6: or Essays and Poems on Various Subjects, Religious, Moral\nand Entertaining; by Connop Thirlwall, eleven years of age.\u201d But not\nonly did these effusions lead to no riper verse, but it is understood\nthe Bishop disliked the little book, and by no means enjoyed seeing\ncopies of it. That he went to the length of Thomas Lovell Beddoes we\nare not prepared to say. _He_, when a freshman at Oxford, first owned\nhimself an author by sending to the press the \u201cImprovisatore.\u201d \u201cOf this\nlittle memento of his weakness, as he used to consider it,\u201d says his\nbiographer, \u201cBeddoes soon became thoroughly ashamed, and long before he\nleft Oxford he suppressed the traces of its existence, carrying the war\nof extermination into the bookshelves of his acquaintance, where, as he\nchuckled to record, it was his wont to leave intact its externals (some\ngay binding perhaps of his own selection), but thoroughly eviscerated,\nevery copy on which he could lay his hands.\u201d\n\nGymnasiarch as well as poet, it was natural that Pehr Henrik Ling,\nthe Swede, should do whatever he did with energy. Still, the burning\nof eleven volumes by the time the age of twenty-one was reached must\nbe allowed to show as much vigor and striving after excellence in\nthe language of the gods as in what has been humorously termed \u201cthe\nlanguage of nudges.\u201d Indeed, the author of the epic \u201cAsar\u201d does not\nseem to have thrown any work into general circulation until he arrived\nat thirty, and then only on the pressure offered by some friends,\nwithout his knowledge, having got up a subscription for the publication\nof one of his poems, when, says he, \u201cI could not honorably refuse.\u201d Yet\nthere must have been much of interest in these now perished volumes,\nfor not only had their author, early as school-days, experienced\nsomething of the bitterness of life\u2014of a political life, which was\nshared by the people\u2014in being driven from Wexio because he would not\nbetray innocent youngsters who had been comrades, but in the wandering\noutcast career which for some years following he had strange and drear\nexperience, which, acting on a nature poetic and passionate, can hardly\nbut have expressed itself now in soothing verse, now in melancholy,\nbut ever in rich and true. It could at least be wished, if but for the\npurpose of forwarding that life-resulting interchange of matter which\nmen of science assure us ceaselessly proceeds, that some of those who\ncompose under feeble inspiration, or under inspiration which has lost\nits fire with lapse of time and change of circumstance, and which,\nthough a spiritless yeast, tempts to use as a ferment, would be as\nlittle sparing in their sacrifices, so that it should not be held up as\na thing for boast, as we perceive it of late to have been in the case\nof the Rev. Dr. Tiffany, that some five hundred pages of _sermons_ have\nbeen delivered to the irrevocable pyre.\n\nThere is the semblance of a common motive inducing men to destroy their\nearly work, and give over the labor of their hands to consumption\non approach of death. But in the latter case there is usually more\nconcentration and intensity of purpose. The purpose unquestionably may\nhave this added intensity merely in meanness; but there is also scope\nfor more valorous self-judgment. The argument is clearly seized by\nDugald Stewart thus:\u2014\n\n        It is but seldom that a philosopher who has been\n      occupied from his youth with moral or political\n      inquiries succeeds completely to his wish in\n      stating to others the grounds upon which his own\n      opinions are founded; and hence it is that the\n      known principles of an individual who has approved\n      to the public his candor, his liberality, and his\n      judgment, are entitled to a weight and an authority\n      independent of the evidence which he is able,\n      upon any particular occasion, to produce in their\n      support. A secret consciousness of this circumstance,\n      and an apprehension that by not doing justice to\n      an important argument the progress of truth may\n      be rather retarded than advanced, have probably\n      induced many authors to withhold from the world the\n      unfinished results of their most valuable labors,\n      and to content themselves with giving the general\n      sanction of their suffrages to truths which they\n      regarded as peculiarly interesting to the human race.\n\nThis finely balanced observation\u2014kind, penetrating, lacking warmth,\nthat it may appear more general, more forcible\u2014was made apropos of\nAdam Smith. It appears from a letter to Hume that as early as 1773\nSmith, who died in 1790, had determined that the bulk of the literary\npapers about him should never be published. And he would in after-life\nseem carefully to have separated, as he esteemed it worthy or not,\nwhatever work he did. Among the papers destined to destruction one\nmay guess\u2014for though Smith, to the end a slow composer, had the\nhabit of dictating to a secretary as he paced his room, the contents\nof his portfolios were not certainly known to any\u2014were the lectures\non rhetoric which he read at Edinburgh in 1748, and those on natural\nreligion and jurisprudence which formed part of his course at Glasgow.\nBut his anxiety to blot out the trace of even these, which he was too\nconscientious not at one time to have deemed sound, so increased as his\nlast painful illness drew the threads of life out of his willing hand,\nthat Dr. Hutton says he not only entreated the friends to whom he had\nentrusted the disposal of his MSS., to destroy them with some small\nspecified exceptions, in the event of his death; but at the last could\nnot rest satisfied till he learnt that the volumes were in ashes; and\nto that state, to his marked relief, they were accordingly reduced some\nfew days before his death.\n\nThis anxiety of Smith\u2019s, who had justly confidence in his executors,\nhas frequently been entertained very reasonably indeed with regard\nto reminiscences, the spicy character of which often requires the\npublication to be long posthumous, but tempts the graceless to make\nit not so. Rochefoucauld\u2019s \u201cM\u00e9moires,\u201d which have, however, more of\nthe chronicle and less of the journal than is generally relished, were\ncertainly delayed, as the event turned out, long enough after his\ndeath, in appearing in any tolerable form. But it had been like not to\nbe so. While he was still living he found that at the shop of Widow\nBarthelin, relict of a printer of Rouen, his work had been secretly\nput to press by the orders of the Comte de Brienne. The Count had\nfurtively made a copy from the manuscript borrowed from Arnaud\nd\u2019Andilly, to whom Rochefoucauld had submitted it for the purposes of\ncorrection\u2014\u201cParticuli\u00e8rement pour la puret\u00e9 de la langue.\u201d Measures\nas furtive were necessary to recover it. The Duke accordingly pounced\non the printer, gave Widow Barthelin twenty-five pistoles, carried\noff the whole of the edition, and stored it in a garret of the H\u00f4tel\nde Liancourt at Paris. We doubt if it is generally known that this\nedition, wherein the widow had shown few signs of care, was entitled,\n\u201cRelation des guerres civiles de France, depuis ao\u00fbt 1649 jusqu\u2019\u00e0\nla fin de 1652.\u201d In curious contrast is the fact that sometimes a\nrelative destroys what the author has shown no vigilant scrupulousness\nin suppressing. It was perhaps esteemed by the \u201cvery devout lady of\nthe family of St. John,\u201d who was mother to the notable Rochester, on\nwhose death Bishop Burnet has so improvingly written, that the final\nscenes of her son made it unsuitable that any of his papers should be\nkept\u2014especially the history of the intrigues of the court of Charles\nII. reported by Bolingbroke to have been written by him in a series of\nletters to his friend Henry Saville.\n\nNor let it be supposed that this would have been so adverse to the\ndesires of Rochester himself. The late James Thompson, author of the\n\u201cCity of Dreadful Night,\u201d destroyed before his death all that he had\nwritten previous to 1857, though he has been very virulent against a\nsample king who of malice prepense with gross ingratitude thus treated\nthe donor of a priceless if imaginary gift:\u2014\n\n    A writer brought him truth;\n    And first he imprisoned the youth;\n    And then he bestowed a free pyre\n    That the works might have plenty of fire,\n    And also to cure the pain\n    Of the headache called thought in the brain.\n\nPierius Valerianus tells us that Antonius Marosticus, when held in high\nesteem and loved of all men, enjoying the dainties of life at the court\nof some Cardinal, and dallying with existence which he had rooted hopes\nwould henceforth be peaceful, was carried off within three days by\na sudden epidemic. The doleful deed, Pierius says, was made more\ndistressful by the fact that sanitary considerations required the\ncremation of all the dead man\u2019s books with the dead man\u2019s body. How far\nthe sense of tragedy may lie in this melancholy incident, the death\nof Shelley helps one to appreciate. His corpse was washed ashore near\nthe Via Reggio, four miles from that of his friend Williams, which lay\nclose to the tower of Migliarino, at the Bocca Lericcio. The attitude\nwas memorable. His right hand was clasped in his heart. Bent back and\nthrust away, as if in haste, was in a side pocket the last volume\nof the poet Keats. It had been lent by Leigh Hunt, who had told the\nborrower to keep it till he should return it by his own hands. This\nimpossible, and Hunt refusing to receive it through others, it was\nburnt with the body amid frankincense and myrrh.\n\nIt was fit that the pathetic in death should spring from a cause so\ntroublous in life. Again and again was Shelley wounded by the forced\nsuppression of his work. Doubtless merit is not extreme in the two-act\ntragedy of \u201c\u0152dipus Tyrannus, or Swellfoot the Tyrant.\u201d But its fate was\nas subtle and sure as that of \u0152dipus himself. Written abroad, it was\ntransmitted to England, printed and published anonymously, and stifled\nat the very dawn of its existence by the \u201cSociety for the Suppression\nof Vice,\u201d who threatened a prosecution upon it, if not immediately\nwithdrawn. The friend who had taken the pains of bringing it out did\nnot deem it worth the cost, to pocket and nerve, of a contest, and it\nwas laid aside\u2014only to be revived in Mrs. Shelley\u2019s second edition.\nIt is said, indeed, that but seven copies are extant, one of which\nMr. Buxton Forman, the industrious and intelligent editor to whom the\nbest students of Shelley feel themselves the most beholden, secured,\nby search through the vast stores of Mr. Lacy, the dramatic publisher\nof the Strand\u2014one of the very last plays in the very last boxes\u2014a\nmere paper pamphlet, devoid of a wrapper, carried away at the cost of a\nsix-pence, proving to be the treasure. And far was the \u0152dipus from\nbeing the sole cause of trouble in respect of the works of its author.\nPosthumous Poems of Shelley were suppressed on the application of Sir\nTimothy, his father. The Posthumous Letters, which excellent forgers\nhad contrived to manufacture from articles written after the decease\nof the poet, exercising an amount of ingenuity described as \u201cmost\nextraordinary,\u201d and receiving the reward of the labor of their hands\nfrom Sir Percy Shelley, or from Mr. Moxon, were called in on the\ndiscovery of the fraud. \u201cLaon and Cythna\u201d was cancelled to make way for\nthe \u201cRevolt of Islam.\u201d \u201cQueen Mab,\u201d which had been written when Shelley\nwas eighteen, though completed only when in his twenty-first year, was\nsurreptitiously published while its author was in Italy\u2014copies having\nbeen distributed among his friends\u2014and though adjudged by the Court\nof Chancery, from which an injunction was sought for restraint of this\nirregular edition, to be disentitled to privilege on the futile score\nof an immorality shocking to the British constitution, it and its notes\nwere, so late as 1840, the subject of prosecutions and convictions to\nall who openly, being men of fair fame, ventured to publish it, as Mr.\nMoxon experienced.\n\nThe poets, indeed, of Shelley\u2019s time were peculiarly unfortunate. It\nis a sound enough deduction of law that what is evil\u2014is filthy, or\nblasphemous, or scandalous\u2014cannot be for the benefit of the public\nto learn of, nor therefore an object of the law, which is built on\nthe needs of society, to extend its protection to\u2014a protection which\nhas in view the advantages of private individuals only as members of\nsociety. But in this refusal of the active bestowment of privilege\nthe guardian of public morals in an individual man, in no sense a\nrepresentative of his country\u2014a judge of the old Court of Chancery.\nNow in active suppression, in punishment for enticing the public to\nthings contaminating and none the less subtle because presented in\nintellectual form, there is indeed the benefit of the presence of a\njudge, but the issue is with a jury. And the unfortunate interval,\nor breach, through which public morals are so roughly assailable is\nmeasured (usually at least) by the _sum_ of the differences\nbetween a publication disentitled to privilege or worthy of punishment,\nand the judgment of an individual or the opinion of the country. In\nthis vast moral interval, to say nothing of the interval of time\nwhich rapidity in administration, on the one hand, and slowness in\nadministration on the other, scarcely ever fail to involve, there is an\nenticement to the indifferent part of the population, or to that bold\nand heroic part which dares to set up its private and painfully honest\njudgment against the judgment of a Chancery judge\u2014to trade upon the\nbruited knowledge of a suspected well of evil, unchecked by unpalatable\nastringency in consumption of the draught. With the narrowness of men\nlike Lords Eldon and Ellenborough, and the rebellious attitude held by\na nation consciously approaching to the dawn of an age of a freedom\nof thought greater because more nobly and wit-wisely sanctioned, this\nbreach was disastrously great, and beckoned the way to a flood of\nmischances directly or affectively extensive.\n\nNow, a highly curious result of the working of these doctrines was\nseen in cases in which\u2014not as with Shelley, nor as with Byron, who\nvainly sought in February 1822 to suppress the edition of \u201cCain\u201d which\nthe pirate, Benbow, had printed, and who in the same year saw his\n\u201cVision\u201d first refused by the publishers of the Row, then given to\nJohn Hunt, then placed by John and his brother in the first number of\nthe _Liberal_, and then made the subject of a true bill returned by a\nMiddlesex grand jury on an indictment preferred by the \u201cConstitutional\nAssociation\u201d\u2014in cases in which, I say, the authors, from change of\nopinion, were opposed to any publication of their earlier works. The\nmost prominent instance of this occurs, of course, in the \u201cWat Tyler\u201d\nof Laureate Southey. In the height of his pantisocratic schemes, and\nfull of Socialist feelings, Southey had written this dramatic poem,\nand placed the manuscript in the hands of his brother-in-law, Robert\nLovell; he took it to Mr. Ridgway, the London publisher. When Southey\nvisited the Metropolis shortly afterwards, the year was 1794, Mr.\nRidgway was in Newgate. Thither Southey went, and either found\nincarcerated in the same apartment with his publisher, or took with\nhim, the Rev. Mr. Winterbottom, a dissenting minister. It was agreed\nthat \u201cWat Tyler\u201d should be published anonymously. The piece, however,\nappears to have been forgotten, and wholly to have escaped the memory\nof both publisher and Southey. But it had crept\u2014so Cottle, Hone, and\nBrowne may best be reconciled\u2014into the hands of Mr. Winterbottom,\nwho taking it with him, when years had passed, while on a visit to\nfriends at Worcester, beguiled some dull hour by reading the piece for\nthe amusement of the company, who were well pleased to pamper their\ndislike to Southey by chuckling at his _ratting_ in political opinions.\nBut generosity clearly demanded that this pleasant spirit of carping\nshould have a sphere extended far beyond a Worcestershire company. So\nthought two of the guests, who, obtaining the manuscript, with great\ndevotion sacrificed the long hours of night by transcribing it, being\ncareful the while to preserve the privacy which attends the most highly\ncharitable actions. Through their hands the transcription reached the\npublisher, and no sooner had his edition appeared than Southey became\nnaturally anxious to lay the ghost of his former beliefs. For that\npurpose, with the advice of his friends, he applied for an injunction.\nLord Eldon refused to grant it, on the plea that \u201ca person cannot\nrecover damages upon a work which in its nature is calculated to do\ninjury to the public.\u201d The decision of the Court encouraged the vendors\nto redouble their efforts, and not fewer than 60,000 copies are said\nto have been sold during the excitement the case created. As for poor\nSouthey, he defended himself as best he could in the _Courier_, and\nunderwent the further suspense of seeing a prosecution urged against\nhim by turbulent spirits in the legislature\u2014Lord Brougham first, and\nMr. William Smith after. The ridicule was all the more increased by the\nfact that Southey had recently published in the _Quarterly Review_ an\narticle in most striking contrast. And it is noticeable that in _his_\nAmerican _Quarterly Review_ Dr. Orestes A. Brownson printed opinions\ndestructive of his early views, which had also been in sympathy with\nSocialistic and transcendental movements, as well as with Unitarianism,\nand threw cold water upon, and indeed endeavored in his own country\naltogether to suppress, the work by which in this country he is best\nknown, \u201cCharles Elwood; or, the Infidel Converted.\u201d\n\nCertainly few authors have had better justification for a change of\nopinion than Adrian Beverland. In a work quite unfit for general\nreading, which purported to be issued \u201cEleutheropoli, in Horto\nHesperidum, typis Adami, Ev\u00e6, Terr\u00e6 filii, 1678,\u201d he had maintained\nwith nasty nicety that view of original sin which Henri Corneille\nAgrippa in his \u201cDeclamatio de originali Peccato\u201d had nearly as\nundisguisedly maintained before him. For this performance he was cast\ninto prison at Leyden, and would have fared badly enough had he not\nfound means of escape. His work, however, was sufficiently thought\nof to provoke from Leonard Ryssenius a \u201cjusta detestatio libelli\nsceleratissimi,\u201d just as a previous work had called from Allard\nUchtman a \u201cVox clamantis in deserto, ad sacrorum ministros, adversus\nBeverlandum.\u201d Passing these by, Beverland himself was contented to\nwrite stinging libels against the Leyden magistrates and professors,\nand then to flee to London, where he engaged himself principally\nin collecting odious pictures. But after a time came a measure of\nrepentance, and though no excessive purity can be claimed for an\n\u201cAdmonition\u201d published by Bateman, of London, in 1697, yet the preface\nor \u201cadvertisement\u201d does certainly contain a strong condemnation of his\n\u201cPeccatum originale.\u201d Fifteen years after, he died in a state of deep\npoverty, a madman\u2014impressed with the horrible idea that he was pursued\nby two hundred men allied by oath to slay him.\n\nA state more interesting that either stanch advocacy or loud\ncondemnation of a position once relied on is that of hesitation. It\nis one peculiarly unlikely to express itself, because the tendency of\nhesitation is to refrain; or if expressing itself to arrest attention,\nbecause subtile or feeble qualifications refer their interest to the\nthemes they hedge and do not centre in themselves. But when a mind\nthrows itself with force into a posture of racked doubt, and bids\nus be aware that the struggle, not the issue, is of utter worth, or\nwhen with yet greater fervor of expectancy a revelation, we know not\nwhence, we know not whither, is awaited with every nerve full-strained,\nthe world more surely than by either other mood becomes a gallery\nrocked with hearkening spectators. I think there is something of this\nearnest hesitation in a career it is not difficult, at this distance\nof time, to futilize\u2014Lord Herbert of Cherbury\u2019s. There is a very\nhuman weakness in his self-debate upon the publication of the \u201cDe\nVeritate,\u201d but there is a very human need\u2014and, moreover, a need made\npersonal (as are all needs), though founded in philanthropy. Truly the\nmore sacred experience is\u2014unless it can reach to that intensity and\npresentness which thrills all who stand enclosed in the thin line of\nits horizon\u2014the more clearly it is desecrated by the common tread, and\nseems a thing to mock at. So is it with the scene which Herbert himself\ndescribes.\n\n        Being thus doubtful in my chamber, one fair day in\n      the summer, my casement being open towards the sun,\n      the sun shining clear, and no wind stirring, I took\n      my work, \u201cDe Veritate,\u201d in my hand, and kneeling on\n      my knees, devoutly said these words: \u201cO Thou eternal\n      God, Author of the light which now shines upon me,\n      and Giver of all inward illuminations, I do beseech\n      Thee, give me some sign from heaven; if not, I shall\n      suppress it.\u201d I had no sooner spoken these words,\n      but a loud, though yet gentle noise, came from\n      heaven (for it was like nothing on earth), which did\n      so comfort and cheer me, that I took my petition\n      as granted, and that I had the sign I demanded;\n      whereupon also I resolved to print my book.\n\nAn aspect of mind combining both resolution and diffidence, which has\nlead to the obliteration of literary work, is reliance on a friend\u2019s\ncounsel. An amusing example of this is related in the ecclesiastical\nhistory of Nicephorus Callistus concerning Marsilius Ficinus. This\ngentleman had translated Plato into Latin, and came to his learned\nfriend Musurus Candiotus to know his opinion of it. Candiotus, after\nperusing some few leaves, perceived that it would not satisfy the\nexpectation of the learned, and was even of opinion that it was so\nslubbered over as to resemble the original (as Cicero the younger did\nhis father) in nothing but in name. He accordingly took up a sponge,\ndipped it in an ink-pot, and blotted out the first page. This done,\nhe turns to Ficinus. \u201cThou seest,\u201d quoth he \u201chow I have corrected the\nfirst page; if thou wilt, I will correct the rest in like sort.\u201d Now\nFicinus was fully as mild in temper as slender in scholarship. \u201cNo\nreason,\u201d says he, \u201cthat Plato should be disgraced through my default;\nrefine away.\u201d And according to his words was it done.\n\nIt would appear from Scaliger that even had not Ficinus commenced his\nout-sponged work afresh, literature would not have lamentably lost.\nFar, indeed, would this have been from true, had the influence of a\nfriend prevailed to wipe from among the works of Gray \u201cThe Progress of\nPoetry,\u201d and \u201cThe Bard.\u201d I will not deny of its setting the sentence in\nwhich Walpole communicates the likelihood of such a fate.\n\n        One quality I may safely arrogate to myself: I am\n      not _afraid to praise_. Many are such timid judges\n      of composition, that they hesitate to wait for the\n      public opinion. Show them a manuscript, though they\n      highly approve it in their hearts, they are afraid to\n      commit themselves by speaking out. Several excellent\n      works have perished from this cause; a writer of\n      real talents being often a mere sensitive plant with\n      regard to his own productions. Some cavils of Mason\n      (how inferior a poet and judge!) had almost induced\n      Gray to destroy his two beautiful and sublime odes.\n      We should not only praise, but hasten to praise.\n\nIn modern days the function of Mason is more generally filled by\nadverse public critics. The case of the late Edward Fitzgerald, who\nby an unfavorable review was induced to withdraw from circulation his\n\u201cSix Dramas of Calderon,\u201d and probably altogether to withhold from the\npublic his rendering of \u201cLa Vida es Sue\u00f1o,\u201d and \u201cEl M\u00e1gico Prodigioso,\u201d\nis until the present unhappily in point.\n\nMore melancholy still are those episodes of literary history which\npresent the wearied author consigning with forced smile and show of\nacquiescence\u2014\u201ccoactus volo\u201d\u2014the products of his craft to an untimely\nend. English history does not lack its instances of these heroic\nsouls in motley, these Herculeses with their distaffs. There is John\nSelden, and there is Reginald Pecock: let us bare the mishaps of these\nrepresentatives.\n\nIn the time of James I., the clergy were pleased to advance to\nthe utmost the doctrine of the divine right of tithes\u2014a divinity\nentailed in a pedigree of patriarchal ages, Jewish priesthood, and\nChristian priesthood. Upon so venerable a claim so cogently revived,\nlawyers yet looked with jealousy. For they saw in every claim by\ndivine right, where royal and sub-royal patrons were unconcerned, a\nlimitation of human rights, with their correlative human duties very\napt to be regulated by positive law. Selden, partaking of the legal\nspirit\u2014coincident this once with the historic\u2014produced his \u201cHistory\nof Tithes,\u201d a plain narrative, margented with copious authorities,\nwhich established abundantly the duty of paying tenths\u2014but established\non the distasteful ground of human authority. James, who patronised\ndivinity partly to show the ardor with which he in his one turn could\nvenerate, partly for the reflected strength wherewith it encircled\nhimself, partly from conceit and cowardice, and partly from better\nmotives, summoned the author to appear before him in December 1618, at\nhis palace at Theobalds. Introduced by Ben Jonson and Edward Hayward,\nSelden maintained the test of two conferences at Theobalds, and one at\nWhitehall with the monarch in person; but this in nowise prevented his\nbeing called, on January 28, 1618, before seven members of the High\nCommission Court in whose presence he was induced to make and sign this\ndeclaration.\n\n        My good Lords, I most humbly acknowledge the error\n      which I have committed in publishing \u201cThe History of\n      Tithes,\u201d and especially in that I have at all, by\n      showing any interpretation of Holy Scriptures, by\n      meddling with councils, fathers, or canons, or by\n      what else soever occurs in it, offered any occasion\n      of argument against any right of maintenance, _jure\n      divino_, of the minister of the Gospel; beseeching\n      your Lordships to receive this ingenuous and\n      humble acknowledgment, together with the unfeigned\n      protestation of my grief, for that through it I have\n      so incurred both his Majesty\u2019s and your Lordships\u2019\n      displeasure conceived against me in behalf of the\n      Church of England.\n\nBeside this forced submission, the authority which had exacted it\nprohibited the book. Further, Selden was forbidden to publish anything\nin his own defence, while public invitation\u2014pluckily used\u2014was given\nto any who should choose to attack either him or his history with all\nthe virulence of pocket and party polemics. Nor was this all, but\nSelden stooped at the bidding of the king to uphold opinions, no doubt\non three small points, which he had seemed to impugn in his greater\nwork. It is pleasant to add that he circulated among his friends in\nmanuscript answers to the attacks which were published against him.\n\nThe fall of Pecock was more abject, and less relieved. About 1449 he\nhad written\u2014not printed, of course\u2014\u201cThe Repressor.\u201d He had in design\nto defend the clergy from the aspersions, as he conceived them, of\nthe \u201cBible-man\u201d or Lollards. With this view he vindicated the use of\nimages, the going on pilgrimages, and the retention of the various\nranks of the hierarchy in their full directive authority. In 1450 he\nremained in sufficient esteem\u2014though indeed his treatise was not much\ncirculated for four or five years\u2014to be transferred to the see of\nChichester. From that time, however, his good fortune deserted him.\nThe Duke of York conceived it well to cover his strides towards the\ncrown, with the redress of grievances; and the disgrace of Pecock\u2019s\npatrons, the Duke of Suffolk and the Bishop of Norwich, together with\nthe personal dislike the king contracted towards him, made Chichester\na safe object of attack. While all things were thus working for the\ngood man\u2019s evil, the council met at Westminster in the autumn of 1457,\nwhence by general acclamation Pecock was expelled. He was cited to\nappear before Archbishop Bourchier on November 11, and the character of\nhis offence became more definitised. He had held cheap the authority\nof the old doctors, he had denied that the Apostles\u2019 Creed was made\nby the Apostles, and at the same time he had magnified the office of\nreason\u2014rather than singly of the Scriptures, or rather than singly\nof the Church\u2014as an ultimate test. Accordingly, to this citation he\nappeared, armed with nine of his books, into which it must be confessed\nwere introduced some newly conceived passages and some erasures. A\ncommittee of Bishops, to whom the matter was then referred, reported\nadversely; and after further disputation the archbishop offered Pecock\nhis choice of making a public abjuration of his errors, or of being\nfirst degraded, and then delivered over to the secular arm \u201cas the\nfood of fire, and fuel for the burning.\u201d He chose the abjuration: a\npreliminary confession was forthwith made, a written confession was\nadded at Lambeth on the 3rd of December, and on the next day, Sunday,\narrayed in his episcopal habit, in the presence of 20,000 persons,\nhe knelt at the feet of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of\nLondon, Rochester, Durham, and of his \u201cown pure and free will, and\nwithout any man\u2019s coercion or dread,\u201d made his recantation. In this\nhe had declared that he presumed of his own natural wit to prefer the\njudgment of reason before the Testaments and the authority of the\nChurch; had published many perilous doctrines and books containing\nenumerated heresies; and now considered himself grievously to have\nsinned and wickedly to have deceived the people of God, but returned to\nthe unity of the mother Holy Church and renounced both the rehearsed\nheresies and all other \u201cspices,\u201d or kinds of heresy, and exhorted all\nmen not to trust in his books, neither to keep or read them in any\nwise, but to bring them in haste to the Primate or his agents; in\nthat he publicly assented that his books should be deputed unto the\nfire, and openly be burnt as an example and terror to all others. The\nrecantation ended, a fire was kindled at the Cross. With his own hands\nPecock delivered three folios and eleven quartos of his own composition\nto the executioner, who took and threw them in the flames, while the\nBishop exclaimed aloud \u201cMy pride and presumption have brought upon me\nthese troubles and these reproaches.\u201d Little could he then think that\nin some future day England would, at public cost, republish the chief\nof the books his own lips had condemned.\n\nBut the punishment of Pecock did not end here. It was perhaps not much\nto him that the University of Oxford (which has consistently shown a\nspirit of illiberality, or at least a burning disposition, throughout\nits eras almost down to the present age) should in solemn procession,\nits Chancellor at its head, march to a place where four roads met\u2014the\nQuatre-voix or Carfax\u2014and there burn to ashes every copy of his works\non which hands could be laid. But, deprived of his bishopric, it was\nnecessary that directions should be given for his personal fare. These\ncame to the Abbot of Thorney, to whose Cambridgeshire Abbey the cleric\nwas sent. He was to live for ever in one closed chamber, so contrived\nthat he might hear Mass; to be attended by one sad man to make his\nbed; to be forbidden all books but a breviary, a mass-book, a psalter,\na legend, and a Bible; to be refused any thing to write with or on;\nbut to be allowed a sufficiency of food and fire. And in this dolorous\nstate there is all reason to suppose his closing days were spent.[74]\n\nIt is recorded of St. Briccius, that when a boy he saw the devil behind\nthe altar, noting the misdemeanors of people on a piece of parchment.\nThis seems to have stirred in him a desire for parchment that he in\nturn might write; but so firmly did the devil by his teeth stick to\nthe stolen goods, that on the achievement of mastery by his juvenile\nbut saintly competitor, the horny, wicked head was knocked against\nthe wall, at which painful juncture St. Martin, ever valorous, so\nconjured the devil that he caused him _willy nilly_ to blot out what\nhe had written. What then, one wonders, was the devil\u2019s code of which\nthe people\u2019s acts were breaches. What his diabolic, though discarded\nstandard? The prescience of St. Briccius or St. Martin would doubtless\nbe required to tell. But it is plain he too is fabled as possessed\nwith desire to bend the will of men in obedience to some crystallized\ntradition, some extraneous rule. And yet, what is this principle of\ntradition, this authority-binding, which in this form and that defeats\nequally Fanny Burney or Gray, Shelley, Southey, or Selden? It is\nsomething which, no matter what its ineptness to the circumstances\nof the present, cannot yield; which is made up of the circumstances\nof the past, and has in its whole as much as in every shred the\ninevitability of the past, which pushes by informed private judgment\nand reason\u2014perhaps on the wiser plea that, ourselves a product of\nthe past, the accumulated and sifted wisdom of that past, the residue\nof eclecticism on eclecticism, must be most appropriate to guide; or\nelse perhaps on the more foolish, that makes a creed osseous in one\ninfinitely remote exercise of one man\u2019s inspired thoughts. As if, in\nthe latter alternative, the very strength was not the very weakness of\nthe argument which reduces after all everything to single and perhaps\nsullied private judgment; and as if in the former the very strength was\nnot again the very weakness of the argument which cuts off arbitrarily\nas the last point of systematized knowledge (more often not at the\nlast) its own method of history. For does it not result that if it\nbe truly said, there is nothing new under the sun, there must in all\ncases be selection, and if selection be thus the real principle of\naction, why is some portion of accessible knowledge, some portion\neven of _received_ knowledge, to be cast without the bounds of usable\nmaterials, as though to prohibit us too perchance, from strengthening\nthat uniformity or preponderance in independent selections to which\ntradition owes its strength? Thirlwall may act as Pecock, and Beddoes\nas Fitzgerald\u2014but both the virtue of action and the virtue of\nrestraint are lost.\n\nHerodotus, if we may believe Blakesley and Professor Sayce, though the\n\u201cFather of History,\u201d by no means illustrates tradition at its best.\nDifferent, however, would it be, could we make up our minds, backed\nby the later authority of Canon Rawlinson to side in this perennial\ncontest with Henri Estienne. This scholar in preparing an edition\nof that ancient traveller took occasion to maintain that his author\nwas the reporter of things fabulous to an extent far less than was\ngenerally supposed. Hearing that of this defence, which was written\nin Latin, it was proposed to make a translation into French, he\ndetermined, as an old critic says, to become now a _traditore_, as he\nhad formerly early been a _traduttore_, and to render his own work.\nBut if this was his original purpose, he immediately lost sight of it.\nHe took up, in fact, his argument thus:\u2014From the unlikelihood of an\nevent it is unreasonable to conclude against it: Herodotus may have\nreported things true, in presenting unlikely tales, otherwise, we must\nbanish a prodigious amount of incontestable but absurd matter, though\nmuch of this character has occurred of late, especially in popery, as I\nproceed to instance in anecdotes which objectors may style apocryphal,\nfables they will call malicious, and chronicles they are certain to\nbrand as scandalous. Now, this was clearly of intolerable bearing.\nAnd according to Tollius, its upshot was that Estienne was burnt in\neffigy at Paris; though, having fled to the mountains of Auvergne,\nand being in the thick of winter, he was enabled to chuckle at his\njoke that he never was so cold as when he was being burnt, a joke the\nauthenticity of which late commentators might perhaps have less readily\nimpeached had they remembered that Antonio de Dominis had used it, as\nhe too for writing an unappreciated book was consumed in effigy at\nRome, while he lay shivering with the cold of a November at sea and a\nfugitive\u2019s fears at heart. Certain it is that at Geneva Estienne met\nwith repulse. For the archives of that state show that late in 1566, on\nhis first applying for a license to expose for sale his \u201cApologie pour\nHerodote,\u201d he was directed to amend \u201ccertains feulletz o\u00f9 il y a des\npropos vilains et parlans trop \u00e9videmment des princes en mal\u201d and that\nafter these amendments were duly made he deliberately encouraged the\nsuppression of his work, by taking advantage of an imperfect piratical\nedition, appearing at Lyons, to add without license the famous\n\u201cAvertissement\u201d with its tables or indexes, which drew down upon him\nimprisonment, followed quickly by enlargement coupled with conspicuous\ndeprivation of the Eucharist on one occasion\u2014if that be the meaning of\n\u201cpour punition, priv\u00e9 de la c\u00e8ne, pour une fois.\u201d\n\nWith consequences more radical, but with either far more boldness or\nfar less wit, Camille Desmoulins upwards of two centuries after courted\nthe suppression, not indeed of a book, but of life. It was full four\nyears since he had learnt that the parliament of Toulouse had hurried\nto the flames his \u201cLa Libre France,\u201d when entering the Jacobin Club,\njust two days after the publication of the fifth number of his _Vieux\nCordelier_, he heard the question being for the third time put, whether\nhe should be expelled. His presence quelling in no measure the rising\nanger, Robespierre, desirous to stay the wrath of the Jacobins by\nsacrificing the work to save the author, spoke. \u201cCamille,\u201d said he with\ndryness, and that air of patronage which the simulation of a tempered\npassion carries, \u201cis a spoilt child; he had a good disposition; bad\ncompany has led him astray.\u201d \u201cWe must,\u201d urged he, concluding, \u201cdeal\nvigorously with these numbers, which even Brissot would not have dared\nto acknowledge, but we must keep Desmoulins among us. I demand, for\nexample\u2019s sake, that these numbers be burnt before this society.\u201d But\nwith what surprise did the echo of this speech, proceeding clearly,\nand accompanied with indignant flash of eye, greet him\u2014\u201cBravo,\nRobespierre; but I will answer with Rousseau, _To burn is not to\nanswer_.\u201d Strange retort! Had pride so dulled perception, or surprise\nwith one stroke slain confidence in all? No wonder that not less the\nchange of time than the terms, the very measuredness of the answering\nwords bidding Camille learn that he was treated with indulgence, and\ndisclosing that his mode of justification would be held to show that\nthe worst import of his writings was designed, left in him a sense\nthat his present non-expulsion, even the restoration of the title of\n\u201cCordelier,\u201d had no security. The lull _was_ false, Desmoulins was lost.\n\nConcession to honest criticism was received with not more tact by\nRichelieu than by Desmoulins. It is true that in the Cardinal\u2019s case\nthe upshot, perilous as it seemed to one of the grand supports of\ndramatic literature, was merely ludicrous\u2014but it may also be true that\nthat was because the appeal was indeed through the intellect, but to\nthe passive, not the active powers of man. The Cardinal was dramatist,\nand had carried politics into comedy by making the characters called\nFrance, Spain, or names of other States develop the fortunes of\n\u201cEurope.\u201d Anxious to get the countenance of the Academy, which his\nenergies had lately organized, he sent the piece to them, that any\nerrors in the rules of the style or poetry might be corrected. The\nAcademy fulfilled their task, criticising so severely that scarcely a\nline was left unaltered. The Cardinal\u2014but I may as well adopt the tale\nas No\u00ebl d\u2019Argonne tells it.\n\n        The Cardinal, to whom it was brought back in this\n      condition, was so enraged, that he tore it on the\n      spot, and threw it in pieces into the hearth. This\n      was in summer, and fortunately there was no fire in\n      the hearth. The Cardinal went to bed; but he felt\n      the tenderness of a father for his dear Europe; he\n      regretted having used it so cruelly; and calling up\n      his secretary, he ordered him to collect with care\n      the papers from the chimney, and to go and look\n      whether he could find any paste in the house\u2014adding\n      that in all probability he would find some starch\n      with the women who took charge of his linen. The\n      secretary went to their apartment; and having found\n      what he wanted, he spent the greater part of the\n      night with the Cardinal in trying to paste together\n      the dismembered comedy. Next morning he had it\n      recopied in his presence, and changed almost every\n      one of the corrections of the Academy, affecting,\n      at the same time, to retain a few of the least\n      important. He sent it back to them the same day by\n      Boisrobert, and told them they would perceive how\n      much he had profited by their criticisms; but as\n      all men were liable to err, he had not thought it\n      necessary to follow them implicitly. The Academy, who\n      had learned the vexation of the Cardinal, took care\n      not to retouch the piece, and returned it to him with\n      their unanimous approbation.\n\nIt seems a pity that after so much care and tenderness the play should\nhave been produced along with \u201cThe Cid,\u201d and that the audience, less\nmanageable than the Academy, on the announcement that \u201cEurope\u201d would be\nrepeated the next day, murmured their wish for Corneille\u2019s piece. But\nthe influence he sought to throw upon the fortunes of the Cid there can\nbe no need to recount to Englishmen. Only it is clear that Richelieu\nwas more like Cicero than Virgil, the former of whom indeed affected\nto be desirous of burning some productions, but was easily diverted by\npleasant flattery; but the latter of whom, after having bestowed the\nlabor of twelve years on his immortal poem, was genuinely conscious of\nimperfections which so few beside himself could have perceived, that\nin his last moments he ordered it to be committed to the flames, a\nfate evaded only by disregard of his solemn testamentary injunction.\nIt is equally clear that Richelieu had not the plea of neglect and\nundeserved disfavor felt in its extreme by William Collins. For his\nodes, first published in 1747, crept slowly into notice, were spoken\nof indifferently by his acquaintance Dr. Johnson, and met with feeble\npraise from Gray. The while the author was sensible of their beauty,\nand so deeply felt the coldness with which they were received, that\nhe obtained from his publisher the unsold copies and burnt them with\nhis own hand. \u201cIf then his highly finished productions brought back\nbut disappointment,\u201d hypothesises Mr. Thomas Miller, \u201chow thankful he\nmust have felt that he had not committed himself further by sending\ninto the world such works as his own fine taste condemned! We believe\nthat when he had completed his \u201dOde on the Passions,\u201d he knew he had\nproduced a poem which ought to live forever, for we cannot conceive\nthat the mind which erected so imperishable a fabric could have a doubt\nof its durability.\u201d Alas! an immortality which sees no origin _in\npr\u00e6senti_\u2014how burdensome it is to bear.[75]\n\nIt was the conviction of \u201cMessieurs de Port Royal\u201d that in the denial\nof self was a tower of moral strength; and in this denial of self\nthey included a true abnegation of the glories of authorship. \u201cIf\nany work for God were well done,\u201d said St. Cyran, \u201cit was the Divine\nGrace which had effectually co-operated to its performance, and the\nhuman instrument was nothing, and less than nothing.\u201d With this there\nwas not one of his colleagues unwilling practically to show that he\nagreed\u2014Pascal least of all. What greater instance of literary modesty\ncan be alleged than the destruction by him of his treatise on geometry,\nupon his learning that Arnauld had prepared the volume given to the\nworld in 1667 as \u201cElements\u201d of that subject and his seeing its fitness\nfor the Port Royal schools? With most it would be much easier to apply\nthe system of Naugerius, who loving Catullus, but hating Martial, set\napart one day that every year he might sacrifice by fire a copy of the\nworks of one epigrammatist to the manes of the other. It is only fair\nto add that Naugerius, who died while on an embassy to Francis I. in\n1529, destroyed shortly before his death a history of his native city,\nVenice, carried forward from 1486, which he had himself compiled, and\nsubmitted to the same effective purging a considerable proportion of\nhis own poetic compositions.\n\nAt this point I conclude. I perceive indeed that there remains\nscattered through literature unused material of interest, and even\nthat motives to self-suppression of several entire classes have been\nhere unexemplified. But of this we might feel confident, that the more\nand more this subject were opened up, personal as it appears to the\nauthors themselves, the more and more would one be struck with the duty\nof the State, and no less than of the State of professed critics and\nof friends of the hearth, not only not to discourage the expressions\nof genius if even somewhat errant, but where there is the true\nappeal\u2014then, as Walpole says, to _hasten to praise_.\u2014_Gentleman\u2019s\nMagazine._\n\n\n\n\nHOW SHOULD WE DRESS?\n\nTHE NEW GERMAN THEORIES ON CLOTHING.\n\n\nBY DORA DE BLAQUI\u00c8RE.\n\nSome allusion has already been made to the medical theories respecting\nclothing that have emanated recently from a celebrated German\nprofessor, Dr. Gustav Jaeger, of the Royal Polytechnic School at\nStuttgart. His investigations into the subject commenced in the year\n1872, and appeared to have been fairly exhaustive in the way of\nscientific experiment and personal experience, with the result that\nDr. Jaeger considers he has discovered that the health of the world in\ngeneral is much prejudiced by the materials, as well as the forms, in\ngeneral use. In Germany his views seem to have met with very extensive\nacceptance; they have revolutionised the trade of Stuttgart, where Dr.\nJaeger practises his profession; and many of the leading men\u2014such as\nCount von Moltke and others\u2014have adopted his clothing; and it seems\nprobable that his principles will be applied to the German army, with\nthe view of promoting the health of the troops. In Italy the first\nphysicians have declared in favor of it, and so universally does the\ndemand appear to have arisen on the Continent, that the present writer\nfound Dr. Jaeger\u2019s garments commonly exposed for sale in Switzerland,\nat Berne, Lucerne, and Vevey, and other smaller towns.\n\nThe stall for Dr. Jaeger\u2019s clothing has formed an attraction at the\n\u201cHealtheries\u201d this season, and, by the formation of a limited company,\nwho have opened a dep\u00f4t in Fore Street for its sale, those who desire\nto look into the subject, and form their own opinions, will be able to\ndo so in England.\n\nDr. Jaeger\u2019s reform is not a difficult one, and consists of the\nfundamental doctrine that, as we are animals, we should wear\nanimal clothing. The physical \u201creasons why\u201d are\u2014first, that their\nnon-conducting qualities are a guarantee that the temperature of the\nbody shall be in a great measure preserved, while on the other hand the\nshape and arrangement of their constituent hairs provide for the escape\nof moisture by capillary attraction; and their adaptation to both these\nends is greater than that of any vegetable fabric.\n\nIn England we have for many years acted instinctively on these\nconditions, and we have adopted woollen, in the shape of flannel, for\nuse in cricket, boating, tennis, and in any athletic exercises likely\nto cause profuse perspiration, as being the safest covering to ensure\nus against cold and the sudden and dangerous chills which are likely to\nfollow overheating in a climate like ours. Our action has been the\nresult of observation and experience, which, however, according to Dr.\nJaeger, might have been carried still further and applied more widely\nstill. For this profuse perspiration is simply an intensification of\nthe daily action of the skin, which only ceases with life itself. If\nthis action be imperfect or repressed, fat and water accumulate in\nthe tissues, lowering their powers, and the flesh, which should feel\nelastic and firm, is flabby, causing many disorders in the general\neconomy of the body.\n\nBesides water and fat, the skin excretes carbonic acid, and the\ndifferent decomposed products of fat\u2014such as lactic, formic, and\nbutyric acids\u2014to which the sour odor of perspiration is due. Much\ncarbonic acid is dissolved in the perspiration, and escapes with it.\nThus, it is not difficult to see that the kind of covering which acts\nas the best conductor of moisture and its impurities, and at the same\ntime is a bad conductor of heat, and prevents its escape, is that which\nwe must adopt as the healthiest and the cleanest.\n\nThe power of absorption by vegetable life, of the poisonous emanations\nfrom animal life, is well known, and this process is not limited,\nit would appear, to living plants, but is continued by vegetable\nfibres\u2014such as linen and cotton\u2014with this difference, that the\nliving plant assimilates these emanations and the dead fibre does\nnot, but exhales them again when wetted or warmed. Thus our clothes,\nin consequence of their vegetable character, attract and retain these\nnoxious principles which should by rights be immediately thrown off.\nAnimal materials, such as wool, are made by nature\u2014according to Dr.\nJaeger\u2014to protect animal life, and will neither attract noxious\nemanations nor prevent their evaporation from the body. This is shown,\nhe observes, by the sense of smell and by the unpleasantness noticed in\ncotton and linen underclothing, linings, and apparel which have been\nlong worn.\n\nThere are many people to whom these considerations have a vital and\nespecial interest. Certain skins perspire much more freely than others.\nThis peculiarity occurs in persons of rheumatic and consumptive\ntendencies, even when quite free from actual disease. Women in middle\nage, also, and all in whom the circulatory system is weakened from any\ncause, have this tendency. But the people to whom, in addition, the\nJaeger system appeals the most are certainly those who are corpulent,\nor show any tendency to become so. And as this point will probably\ninterest many readers, I will give a brief notice of what Dr. Jaeger\nsays on the subject.\n\nTo be in what we English people call \u201cgood condition\u201d there must be a\ncorrect proportion of the most important bodily constituents\u2014viz.,\nalbumen, fat, and water. The first is the foundation of nerve, muscle,\nblood, etc., and in fact sustains the existence of the body. Relatively\nto albumen, water and fat may be viewed as auxiliaries, although they\nare indispensable in themselves. A proper condition of body requires\nthat these three constituents shall be present in certain proportions,\nwhile the richer the body is in albumen the sounder it will be, and\nthe fitter for work. On the other hand, any excess of fat or water\nwill lessen its energies, and its power of repelling the action of\ninfluences likely to promote disease.\n\nOf the evils of the increase of fat most people who suffer from it are\nonly too conscious. But besides the more visible ones, they are usually\npoor-blooded, and consequently lacking in vital energy, while the fat\ndiminishes the necessary space for the circulation of the blood and the\nrespiratory organs. The first of these evils shows itself in flushing\nof the face when the circulation is quickened by exertion, and in the\ndifficulty felt in the return of the blood from the lower parts of the\nbody to the heart, which causes lassitude in the legs, and a tendency\nto varicose veins; while, if the circulation of water in the system\nbe also impeded, dropsical swellings in the legs will ensue. The\nlimitation of space due to fat hinders also the free play of the lungs,\nand the obese are disabled from exceptional exertion which necessitates\nfuller breathing than usual.\n\nThus every one wishing to preserve health and working capacity, must\nkeep strict watch on the deposit of fat going on in the body; and all\nsuch symptoms must be taken as evincing a wrong system of living;\nand in order to stay its further accumulation and get rid of what is\nsuperfluous, recourse must be had to augmented action of the skin.\n\nThe increased percentage of water and fat in the system renders it also\nmore liable to disease, more sensitive to cold, and disposed to chest\naffections in the winter. In addition, the working powers of the mind\nare sensibly lessened. Dr. Jaeger has discovered that their presence\nin excess can be tested by the specific gravity and the rapidity of\nthe nervous action: and he has constructed an air-tight chamber where\nexperiments may be conducted on the former, and a stop-watch tests the\nrapidity of the latter.\n\nNot less interesting is Dr. Jaeger\u2019s theory of the source of the\nemotions, which he places in the albumen in the bodily tissues,\nemanating in the form of subtile essences, which are opposed to each\nother in the effect they produce, and which may be distinguished\nas \u201csalutary\u201d and \u201cnoxious.\u201d As a rule, the sanitary principle is\nfragrant, the noxious tainted and offensive. The odor may be most\nreadily perceived in the hair of the head, and is more evident in the\nadult than the child. If the subject of the test be in a cheerful mood,\nthe scent will be agreeable and sweet; but if sorrowful, depressed, or\nin pain, the scent will be disagreeable. This odor may be noticed in\nthe anguish of fever, under the influence of terror, and exhales from\nthe mouth and nose, and, as Dr. Jaeger has proved by experiment, from\nthe brain as well.\n\nThese things Dr. Jaeger considers that the experience of many readers\nwill confirm, and that they have great practical importance in\nconnection with his system. The German names given to these odorous\nsubstances are _Lust und Unlust Stoffe_, substances of pleasure and\ndislike. The former are thought by the Doctor to be the healing powers\nof the body, which heighten all the vital actions and its powers of\nresistance against contagion of all kinds. Sheep\u2019s wool in particular\nattracts these substances of pleasure, while the plant fibre favors\nthe accumulation of the substances of dislike, with all their evil\nconsequences. This last fact, which the German scientific medical world\nconsiders Dr. Jaeger has proved, is supposed to be of the greatest\nimportance, as showing how to raise the resistibility of the human body\nagainst contagious disease. The observations made extend to diphtheria,\ncholera, typhus, smallpox, measles, whooping-cough, and influenza.\n\nI have endeavored thus far to divest the subject, as far as possible,\nof scientific matter, so that the principle may be easily understood by\nthose who have made no previous study of these or any kindred subjects,\nrelating to the hygiene and sanitary management of the body. I will now\nturn to the more practical considerations of the materials and shapes\nof the clothing recommended.\n\nDr. Jaeger advocates the use of nothing but wool, both for clothing and\nalso for the bed and bedding. No half-measures will answer; even the\nlinings of coats and dresses must be of wool, and men\u2019s collars, and\neven women\u2019s stay-laces, must be of the same. The material which, after\nmuch consideration, he has selected, is what is called \u201cstockingette\nweb,\u201d which is merely woollen yarn woven in an elastic manner, like\njerseys and stockings, and the woollen and merino under-shirts and\ndrawers, now in common use. The somewhat clumsy name \u201cstockingette\u201d\nowes its origin to the fact that there was no technical name for that\nkind of elastic weaving which is applied to stockings, and which was\ncalled into existence as a \u201cpiece\u201d material by the fashion of wearing\njerseys, three or four years ago. Dr. Jaeger considers this weaving\nporous and supple and more durable than flannel; while they feel more\ncomfortable on the skin, and areless liable to shrink than flannel,\nwhen in the hands of the washerwomen.\n\nNo admixture of vegetable fibre should be admitted, and the practice\nof wearing a woollen shirt under a cotton or linen one, Dr. Jaeger\nconsiders enervating and weakening. Clothing should fit quite tightly\nto the skin, so as to allow of the least possible movement of air\nbetween it and the body; the second great rule being that it should\nbe twice as thick along the middle line of the trunk, from the neck\ndownwards, as at the sides or back. Another point for consideration\nis the number of garments to be worn one over the other. On this\nquestion Dr. Jaeger is of opinion that the clothing for men and boys\nshould simply consist of a woollen shirt, woollen socks or stockings,\ncloth trousers fitting as closely as may be, and a cloth coat. The\ncoat sleeves and linings should be of woollen, and these, as well as\nthe trouser legs, when the latter do not fit tightly, must be closed\nagainst upward draughts by webbings sewn into them, and fitting tightly\nround the arms and ankles. No drawers are required, no waistcoat, and\nno overcoat; not even in the winter time, except when driving. Men\u2019s\ncoats must fit tightly up to the neck, and compactly to the figure,\nand all others must be laid aside as unsanitary. The coat must also be\ndouble-breasted, and like all the rest of the materials recommended,\nmust be undyed, of the natural color, or treated with uninjurious\nfast dyes. The same rule applies to the trousers, which must fasten so\nas to continue the middle line of extra warmth. This rule has special\napplication to those who desire to melt away superfluous fat, or those\nwho are subject to disorders of the stomach or digestive organs.\n\nThe feet are to be covered with woollen socks, with a special division\nfor each toe; or else one for the great toe, while the upper part of\nthe boot must be of felt, and the lower part of felt or porous leather;\nthe boot being kept thoroughly porous, so that the feet may be as\ncleanly and pure as the hands. The usual starched linen collar is\nsubstituted by one made of unstiffened white cashmere, or one of the\nwool in its natural hue. These collars can be obtained in every shape\nand style, stand up and turn-downs, and they are considered as the most\ncomfortable that could possibly be devised, as well as preventions of\nthroat disorders. The hat should be of felt, and no linings of leather\nnor linen are admissible. Instead of these a strip of felt should\nbe used, or else the hat should be quite without lining, like a\nTurkish fez. The shellac used in stiffening hats is said to have an\ninjurious effect, and those who are bald or threatened with baldness,\nor those who suffer from headaches, are especially advised to try the\nunstiffened sanitary hat and its woollen lining.\n\nThe clothing recommended for women is not very different, so far\nas shirts and drawers are concerned, to that advised for men. The\nnight-dresses are the same, except a slight trimming of lace at the\nneck. The union, or \u201ccombination\u201d garment, a pair of woollen stays,\na petticoat of knitted undyed wool, and another, if desired of woven\nstockingette, constitute all the clothing needed, in addition to\nthe outward dress, made of pure wool also, high to the neck, and\nhaving a double lining over the chest, as advised in the case of\nmen. The lace collars for use are also of woollen yak lace, and the\npocket-handkerchief is of fine cashmere, either white or of a handsome\ndark red. This last, Dr. Jaeger declares, is a very effective agent in\nthe cure of the colds and catarrhs of winter.\n\nAgainst such \u201ccherished finery\u201d as silk dresses, white starched\npetticoats, linen stays, cotton and silk stockings, and white or\ncolored cotton starched dresses, Dr. Jaeger protests; and says he\nfears he shall be considered a disturber of the peace of households,\nwhen he remembers the delight women take in interminable washings and\nstarchings. But he takes courage, seeing that his own wife has not only\nbecome used to the new order of things, but declares she would not\nwillingly revert to the _statu quo ante_, and that women, if possible,\nneed the advantages offered by woollen clothing more than men.\n\nThe last of Dr. Jaeger\u2019s plans I shall consider is the substitution of\nwoollen materials for linen and cotton in our beds. The bed itself must\nbe free from vegetable fibre, the mattress filled with hair or wool,\nand the covering of both should be woollen; for this reason feathers of\ncourse cannot be used, although they are all an animal substance. The\nlinen or cotton sheets are replaced by sheets made of the finest white\ncashmere, or, if preferred, by woollen blankets or camel-hair rugs; and\na special form of dress, having a hood, is given, to enable the wearer\nto sleep with the window open without fear of taking cold. This last\nhe regards as an important part of the sanitary rules of his system.\nThe covering meant for travellers to sleep in has also a hood, and\nthe skirt is long enough to contain two square pockets for the feet.\nCovered in this way, the traveller may defy damp beds, and all the\ngeneral discomfort of foreign hotels.\n\nIn reward for our adoption of his \u201cnormal\u201d system of clothing, Dr.\nJaeger promises us\u2014not indeed complete immunity from disease, but\nhealth equal to the animal creation that spend their lives in an\nartificial state. We shall have flesh thoroughly hardened, and\ntendencies to corpulence will be reduced. In a word, the physical and\nmental working powers will show a great and general improvement, the\nnervous action will be accelerated, and the body will have resumed its\n\u201cnormal,\u201d or true condition.\n\nOf course, so thorough an innovation so completely in contradiction\nto received ideas, to vast trade interests, and to the opinions of\nthe world in general, will be much discussed and strenuously opposed.\nDr. Jaeger says that he has been reproached with \u201criding an excellent\ntheory to death;\u201d but his only ruling principle through life has been\nto \u201cexamine everything, and retain the best;\u201d and this is the principle\nwe recommend the public to apply in the honest testing of his new\nsystem.\u2014_Good Words._\n\n\n\n\nTHE MAN IN BLUE.\n\n\nBY R. DAVEY.\n\nI am a professor of music, and was born so long ago as the last\ncentury, at Salsberg, in Germany. My father was a merchant of that\ncity; _fanatico per la musica_, as the Italians say, music mad. Knowing\nthat each of his children would inherit a fair fortune, he permitted us\nto somewhat neglect our other studies, so that we might dedicate more\ntime to his beloved science. My two sisters played remarkably well on\nthe spinet, and sang finely. Karl, my only brother, was the flautist\nof the family, and I devoted myself to the violin. At sixteen years of\nage I believed myself an adept on this difficult instrument. My violin\nwas my constant companion. Nothing gave me more pleasure than to take\nmy dear \u201cFortunato,\u201d for so I called it, into the woods, and there, by\nthe murmuring brook, beneath the rustling trees, improvise new airs and\nvary old ones, to my heart\u2019s content.\n\nSo greatly did my father delight in displaying the talents of his\nchildren, that he organized every Thursday afternoon an amateur\nconcert, at which at least a quarter of the town assisted\u2014to listen\nto, admire, or criticise, about as much music as could possibly be\ncrowded into a three hours\u2019 performance. One fine Thursday afternoon\nin autumn, just as the first of our pieces was concluded, a very\nsingular-looking individual entered the concert-room. He was as thin\nand pale as an unearthly apparition, and entirely dressed in shabby\ngarments of light blue corduroy. His well-worn knee-breeches were\nblue, his jacket was blue, his vest was blue, and the huge cravat that\nfastened his great flapping shirt-collar was also blue. His face was\nthe most melancholy in expression it is possible to imagine. He had a\nbig, hooked nose, thin lantern jaws, and the only redeeming feature\nwhich he possessed, his dark and intelligent eyes, were hidden by a\npair of goggle spectacles. His hair was bright red and uncut, and his\nbeard seemed as if it had never been trimmed since it first began to\ngrow.\n\nHe did not attempt to apologize for his intrusion into our company,\nbut without looking to the right or to the left made straight for\na vacant seat, and taking it, prepared to listen to the music with\nmarked attention. It was my turn to play, but I was so confused, so\nutterly by the appearance of this strange personage, that when I\nstruck my violin with the bow my hand trembled so much that I could\nnot produce a sound. I tried again and again, and was about to give\nit up in despair when the Man in Blue rose from his seat and came\ndirectly to me. \u201cYoung man,\u201d said he, \u201cyou have a more difficult\ninstrument there than you think; hand it to me, I will play in your\nstead.\u201d I mechanically gave him \u201cFortunato.\u201d Presently he began.\nNever in all my life had I before heard such playing. The instrument\nseemed to have within its wooden frame a divine soul, capable of\nexpressing every possible emotion\u2014joy, grief, passionate agony, and\ntriumphant jubilee. We were all amazed and delighted, and at the\ntermination of his concerto such a burst of enthusiastic applause\ngreeted the singular performer that he seemed quite overcome and\nconfused. However, he bowed his acknowledgments, though in the most\ngrotesque fashion.\n\nIt happened that we were on the eve of a grand annual musical festival,\nat which some of the greatest musicians of Germany had declared their\nintention of being present. My father, naturally concluding that our\nguest was some celebrated maestro, who had arrived incognito, hastened\nto thank him for the favor he had conferred upon us, and also to offer\nhim the hospitality of his house during his stay in our town. The Man\nin Blue at first refused, then hesitated, and finally accepted my\nfather\u2019s pressing invitation.\n\nFor one week we surrounded him with every attention, and he, by his\ngentle manners and genius, soon won our affection and respect. But all\nour attempts to find out who he was and whence he came proved vain; he\ntook no notice of our discreet hints, and not one of us dared to ask\nthe question point-blank. He set himself to work to teach me a great\nmany things about the violin of which I was previously ignorant, and to\nthis curious man I owe many of my greatest triumphs. \u201cMy son,\u201d he would\nsay, \u201clove music; music is the food of the soul\u2014the only possession we\nhave on earth which we shall retain in Heaven.\u201d\n\nIf a stranger happened to pay us a visit, our new friend would\nimmediately take refuge in the garden. He liked to be alone with Karl,\nmyself, and his violin. One day a merchant named Krebbs arrived on\nbusiness which he had to transact with my father, and as he entered he\nstumbled against the Man in Blue, who was making good his escape. The\npoor violinist, on perceiving merchant Krebbs, became as pale as death,\ntottered to a seat in the garden, and covered with confusion, hid his\nface in his hands.\n\n\u201cWell, I am sure,\u201d said Krebbs to my father, \u201cyou are an odd man to\ntake in that creature. Why, I thought he was in prison, or drowned, or\nrun over.\u201d\n\n\u201cYou know him then?\u201d asked my father, with ill-disguised curiosity.\n\n\u201cKnow him\u2014of course I do. Why, his name is B\u00e8ze; he is a carpenter\nby trade. But, bless you, he\u2019s as mad as a March hare. Some time\nago our church-organ was struck by lightning. B\u00e8ze came forward at\nonce, and proposed to mend it, provided the parish furnished him the\nmaterials. As he was known for a good musician and a clever workman,\nour cur\u00e9 granted his request. To work went he; night and day he labored\nfor at least six weeks. At last the organ was mended, B\u00e8ze struck a\nchord or so, and it appeared better than ever. The day arrived for\nthe first public hearing of the renovated instrument; the mayor\u2014all\nthe village, in short, was present; and B\u00e8ze himself did not fail to\nappear, attired as usual in blue. Blue is his color. He made some vow\nor other, years ago, to the Virgin, never to wear any other but her\ncolors\u2014blue and white. I tell you he is crazy. But to return to the\norgan. When our old organist began to play upon it, not a sound would\nit produce\u2014except when he pulled the new stop out. Off went the organ,\n_whoo whee_, and then it set to squeaking and whistling like mad. The\ngirls began to laugh, the mayor to swear, and the cur\u00e9 grew furious.\nB\u00e8ze is a fool\u2014B\u00e8ze is an idiot\u2014he has ruined the organ! cried every\none, and soon amid the derision of the congregation, your friend left\nthe church. Strange to say, since that day we have never again seen the\ncreature; but our organ is completely spoilt, and remains dumb.\u201d\n\nThus spoke merchant Krebbs. I would hear no more, but hurried out to\nconsole my poor friend. I found him beneath an apple-tree, sitting\nall forlorn, his face turned towards the sinking sun. \u201cAh! my young\nfriend,\u201d he said, \u201cdo you see yon little cloud which obscures the\nsplendor of the sun? So the words of a foolish man may tarnish the fame\nof a genius.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut,\u201d I replied, \u201csee, the little cloud has vanished already, and the\nlight of the sun is but the brighter for the contrast.\u201d\n\nHe smiled. \u201cThe cloud that hangs over my tarnished name will have to\npass away soon, or it will be too late. That organ which I constructed\nhas a soul within it. All my life I have labored to know how to lodge\nmy ideal of music within the compass of a single instrument. I have\ndone this. The soul is there. But I know not how to play upon the\norgan, and they, in their blind rage, will not allow me to explain to\nthem. Oh, if I could, before I die, but find Sebastian Bach! He would\ncall to life the soul of music that lies sleeping in my organ, and\nprove to the world that B\u00e8ze is neither mad nor an impostor.\u201d\n\nMy father took no notice of what merchant Krebbs had said, and when he\njoined us in the garden he entreated B\u00e8ze to play for him in the open\nair. The Man in Blue played for us a number of national and simple\nmelodies in such a pathetic manner that several times I saw tears in\nmy father\u2019s eyes; at last he said, as the musician finished, \u201cFriend,\nthough your organ is a failure, your violin is truly heavenly. Stay\nwith me yet a while.\u201d\n\n\u201cMy organ is not a failure; it is the triumph of my life.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut no one can play on it.\u201d\n\n\u201cOne day some one will, and then\u2014\u2014\u201d\n\n\u201cWell, we will say no more about it. Come, the supper is ready.\u201d And he\nled the way in.\n\nThe next morning the Man in Blue was gone. We were sorry for his\ndisappearance; but soon forgot all about it in our anxiety over the\nfestival which was near at hand. Gl\u00fcck had promised to come, and we\nwere anxious to know with whom he would stay. Then Bach arrived, and\nsoon came Graun\u2014illustrious Graun\u2014whose nobility of mind inspired his\nlovely melodies, and with him those inseparable geniuses, F\u00fcrch and\nHass. And Hamburg sent us Gasman and Teliman. Those who have never even\nheard the name of these great composers are yet familiar with their\nmelodies. Many of the popular tunes now so much admired I have heard in\nmy youth fresh from the minds of their original composers, free from\nthe twirls and shakes clumsily added to them to disguise their true\norigin.\n\nThese illustrious persons were as simple and unostentatious in manners\nas it is possible to be. They assembled in the Hall of St. Cecilia, and\nI had the privilege of assisting at their rehearsals. I often passed\nhours listening to their long discourses on harmony, on keys, scales,\nand chords. One night Gl\u00fcck played, for the first time, a portion of\nhis \u201cIphigenia;\u201d and on another, Bach enchanted us by a performance of\nhis delightful preludes. Bach, somehow or other, took a fancy to me. He\nhad observed the marked attention with which I listened to the remarks\nof the different composers, and to their music. He asked me my name,\nand who my father was; and I in answer, growing bold, not only related\nall that concerned myself, but also the story of my Friend in Blue.\n\n\u201cAn organ that no one can play upon!\u201d exclaimed this great composer;\n\u201cwell, that is singular.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut I am sure you can.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy?\u201d\n\n\u201cBecause I am certain that the man that made the organ is a great\nmusician, although he cannot play upon it himself. He plays upon the\nviolin.\u201d\n\n\u201cAs well as I do?\u201d asked Graun.\n\nI hesitated, and hung my head: I did not dare say \u201cyes,\u201d and yet I\nwould not say \u201cno\u201d.\n\n\u201cSpeak up, my boy; say the truth always, and shame the devil.\u201d\n\n\u201cHe plays better than you, sir, I think; but then he plays out in the\nwoods, and music sounds better there than in a close room.\u201d\n\n\u201cTrue, it does.\u201d\n\n\u201cMy masters,\u201d said I at last, after some hesitation, \u201cwill any one of\nyou, in your charity, try the organ\u2014the village is not distant\u2014and\nthus justify the poor man?\u201d\n\n\u201cI will myself,\u201d answered Bach, \u201con Sunday. But say nothing about it to\nany one. Only to your friend, if you can find him, in order to induce\nhim to be present in the church on that morning.\u201d\n\nWith heartfelt thanks I gave the illustrious composer my promise to\nobey in every particular his injunctions.\n\nOn leaving the St. Cecilia Hall that evening (it was Friday) almost the\nfirst person I met was, to my surprise, the Man in Blue. Hidden in the\ncourtyard of the Hall, he had been listening to the music, and was in\na state of nervous enthusiasm which quite alarmed me. I hesitated to\ninform him what Bach intended to do, but at last I did so; he received\nthe news in a manner that I little expected. He made no demonstration\nof joy, but followed me in silence until we were in a lonely part of\nthe town\u2014a little square in the centre of which grew three or four old\ntrees. Here he paused, and sinking on his knees, prayed earnestly. The\nmoon shone down upon his uplifted face, and it seemed almost beautiful,\nso great was the expression it bore of devotion and intellect. When he\nhad finished his prayer he embraced me in silence, and we parted.\n\nSunday arrived, and at an early hour I started for the church of the\nvillage. As I traversed the little field in front of it, I beheld\nadvancing from the opposite side several of the professors, and\namongst them Bach. By-and-by, as it got noised about that some of the\ncelebrities were in the church, it filled to excess. Presently, Bach\nmounted the organ-loft. How my heart beat! Mass began. At the \u201cKyrie,\u201d\nfor the first time, the instrument gave forth sounds, but sounds of\nsuch heavenly sweetness that the congregation was thrilled as if by the\nmusic of the angels. As the Mass advanced the more marvellous became\nthe harmony. The \u201cAgnus\u201d was so plaintive that I saw tears in the eyes\nof Gl\u00fcck, who stood by me; and the \u201cSanctus\u201d sounded so triumphantly\nthat it required but little imagination to believe that the cherubim\nand seraphim were present singing their jubilant song of praise:\n\n\u201cHoly, holy, is the Lord God of Sabaoth.\u201d\n\nAnd the Man in Blue, where was he?\n\nBy the altar, with his face turned towards his organ. His whole\ncountenance was radiant, his eyes were bright, and a look ecstatic and\nserene passed over his features. But how ethereal he looked!\n\nWhen Mass was over the congregation passed round the porch to see the\ngreat composers. \u201cLong live Bach!\u201d \u201cHail to Gl\u00fcck!\u201d they cried as they\nrecognized these popular men.\n\nBut Bach held aloof. \u201cLead me,\u201d he said, \u201cto that man of genius who has\nso wonderfully improved the king of instruments.\u201d\n\n\u201cMaster,\u201d I answered, \u201che is in the church.\u201d And we re-entered the\nsacred edifice together, followed by Graun. I led them to the Man in\nBlue. But what a change had come over him! The pallor of death was on\nhis brow; he had sunk back on a bench, and when he perceived us vainly\nstrove to rise. \u201cAh! excuse me, my masters. I receive you very badly;\nbut I am not well\u2014the joy has killed me. I am dying, gentlemen, of\njoy.\u201d\n\nThey raised him between them. I ran for the priest, and to the doors,\nwhich I shut to prevent the entrance of any intruders.\n\n\u201cMaster, whilst I confess, play to me,\u201d he said to Bach.\n\nBach, seeing that mortal aid was useless, left us, and went up to\nthe organ. Solemnly he played. He played, as he afterwards said, as\nhe never played before or since. The priest arrived, and Graun and I\nknelt down whilst the Man in Blue received the last Sacraments. This\npious act accomplished, we went nearer to him. He took my hand, and\nGraun rested the head of B\u00e8ze upon his breast. Solemnly the music stole\nthrough the silent church; solemnly the sunlight streamed through the\nstained windows, and the Angel of Death stood within the temple of God.\n\n\u201cI am very happy,\u201d murmured the dying man, \u201csince Bach plays to me on\nmy organ, and Graun permits me to rest upon his bosom.\u201d\n\nTo me he said, \u201cGod bless thee, my child\u2014tell them I was not mad, nor\nan impostor. My organ had a soul.\u201d\n\nGraun stooped and kissed his pale brow, and with an exquisite look of\ngratitude the Man in Blue died, and the Angel of Death winged his way\nto heaven, bearing the poor carpenter\u2019s soul to God.\u2014_Merry England._\n\n\n\n\nLITERARY NOTICES.\n\n\n      TRUE, AND OTHER STORIES. By George Parsons Lathrop.\n        New York: _Funk & Wagnalls_.\n\n      NOBLE BLOOD. A Novel. By Julian Hawthorne,\n        author of \u201cSebastian Strome,\u201d \u201cGarth,\u201d \u201cBressant,\u201d etc.\n        New York: _D. Appleton & Co._\n\n      PRINCE SARONI\u2019S WIFE AND THE PEARL-SHELL NECKLACE.\n        By Julian Hawthorne. New York: _Funk & Wagnalls_.\n\n      DR. GRATTAN. A Novel. By William A. Hammond,\n        author of \u201cLal.\u201d New York: _D. Appleton & Co._\n\n      THE OLD-FASHIONED FAIRY BOOK. By Mrs. Burton Harrison.\n        Illustrated by Rosina Emmet.\n        New York: _Charles Scribner\u2019s Sons_.\n\n      KATHERINE. A Novel. By Susa B. Vance.\n        Philadelphia: _J. B. Lippincott & Co._\n\n      WHITE FEATHERS. By G. I. Cervus.\n        Philadelphia: _J. B. Lippincott & Co._\n\nMr. Lathrop, whose little collection of stories heads this list of\nrecent fiction, is a young American author who is well and favorably\nknown as a writer of subtlety and penetration in the delineation\nof character, as well as marked by a notable picturesqueness of\npresentation. The volume before us, though by no means representative\nof his best, has much of his characteristic quality, both on its\nserious and comic sides. \u201cTrue\u201d is a tale of North Carolina life, the\nscene being laid, for the most part, near Pamlico Sound. It has the\nmerit of being thoroughly an American story, though the basis for the\nplot is laid in the separation of two English lovers in the early days\nof American colonization, the lady going with her father to the new\nworld, her lover being at the last moment forced to remain in England,\nnever again to rejoin his sweetheart. From this separation and the\nchance meeting, after two hundred years, of a descendant of the young\nEnglishman with representatives of his sweetheart\u2019s line, Mr. Lathrop\nweaves a tale of uncommon interest, and of much dramatic power. He\nhas struck perhaps the richest vein of romance that American history\naffords, and the literary skill, and yet simplicity, with which he\nimproves his opportunity, are worthy of high commendation. The other\nstories in the volume, \u201cMajor Barrington\u2019s Marriage,\u201d \u201cBad Peppers,\u201d\n\u201cThe Three Bridges,\u201d and \u201cIn Each Other\u2019s Shoes,\u201d are good, each in its\nown way, and afford a pleasant variety of excellent reading.\n\nMr. Julian Hawthorne\u2019s story of \u201cNoble Blood\u201d is a pleasant yet subtile\nand quaint story, the scene of which is laid in Ireland. A young artist\nbecomes acquainted with a very beautiful woman whose ambition is to\nlink her own with noble blood. The hero of the story, who loves his new\nfriend, who, though of Irish birth and family, is descended from an\nItalian merchant, discovers through a singular chain of circumstances\nthat the lady is the descendant of the noblest blood in Venice, her\nso-called merchant forefather having been a great Venetian noble, who\nwas compelled to fly from his own land to escape the consequences of an\nact of mad revenge. This strange revelation satisfies Miss Cadogna\u2019s\ndesire for noble blood, and she contents herself with her plain lover.\nOut of this simple yet quaint and dramatic material Mr. Hawthorne has\nwoven a singularly interesting little romance, in which the graver\nelements are touched up by little flashes and strokes of humor. It is\na piece of good literary work and will add to the author\u2019s reputation,\nthough it is by no means up to the author\u2019s best level.\n\nAs good as the foregoing novel is there is much stronger and subtler\nwork in \u201cPrince Saroni\u2019s Wife\u201d and the \u201cPearl-Shell Necklace,\u201d two\nshort stories that well illustrate Mr. Hawthorne\u2019s peculiar power.\nEach is of a tragical cast, and the latter especially has at times a\ndramatic intensity that becomes almost painful. Mr. Hawthorne, as did\nhis father, embodies his most tragical conceptions in such simple and\ndirect language, that the spell wrought upon the reader does not pass\nwith the reading, but remains long after the book has been laid aside.\nThere is a psychological value, too, in Mr. Hawthorne\u2019s work, which\nrewards a close study of his characters. One feels that he is not a\nmere story-teller, but, as well, an acute analyzer and a close student\nof human nature in some of its most perplexing phases. \u201cPrince Saroni\u2019s\nWife\u201d is the tale of an Italian prince, and \u201cThe Pearl-Shell Necklace\u201d\nis a story of American life. Both of them are well worth the reading,\nand told with a clear-cut strength and directness which mark the writer\nas a literary artist as well as a man of genius.\n\nDr. Hammond\u2019s second novel, \u201cDr. Grattan,\u201d is not equal to his first\nin power, freshness, and dramatic sense, qualities which partly\nredeemed the crudeness and extravagance of the latter book. \u201cLal\u201d was\nin many ways a notable work, and though the work of a prentice hand\nin the art of novel-writing, had plenty of strength and vigor in it.\nIn \u201cDr. Grattan\u201d one must confess to a feeling of disappointment, as\nthe story is a trifle dull, and none of the characters have any of the\n_vraisemblance_ of flesh and blood, except a few of the village loafers\nand loungers, who haunt the village store of the Adirondack town, where\nthe scene of the story is placed. Dr. Grattan, the hero of the book, is\na middle aged country physician, who has one fair daughter, and who is\npictured to us as a noble specimen of a man, in his physical, mental,\nand moral attributes. Mr. Lamar and his daughter Louise are personages\nof a singular cast. The father is a monomaniac, though a gentleman and\na millionaire, and the daughter a superb and glorious woman, endowed\nwith all the noblest qualities of her sex. The main animus of the book\nis apparently to show that a middle-aged country physician may have a\njustifiable taste for novel-writing, to while away the intervals of\nmedical practice; and that he, if well-preserved and good-looking, even\nif encumbered with a pretty daughter herself marriageable, may win the\nsuperb and glorious woman before mentioned for a second wife. Both of\nthese points the author establishes to his own satisfaction. There is\nenough material to make a very good story, but we do not think Dr.\nHammond handles it with as much skill and deftness as might be woven\ninto it. The style is slipshod and careless, and such as one might\nfancy would be the instinctive method of an author who had rattled off\nthe matter at race-horse speed very much as a woman would reel off a\nskein of worsted. One or two unpleasant faults are specially noticeable\nin a minor way. One among them may be mentioned as a disposition to\nsneer at novelists, who, whatever their faults of conception as to the\nfunction of the novelist, rank deservedly high as master-artists in\nstyle and finish of method. The questionable taste of such criticism,\nunder the circumstances, is very much such as would call forth\ncondemnation for Howells or James if they had the audacity to practice\nmedicine to the infinite peril of their fellow-beings, and then\nsatirize a skilful and experienced physician whose ability was widely\nrecognized. _Ne sutor ultra crepidem_, or, if he will insist, let not\nthe shoemaker use his last to measure the art of Apelles or Praxiteles.\n\nMrs. Burton Harrison\u2019s \u201cOld-Fashioned Fairy Book\u201d is a collection\nof fresh and charming fairy stories and middle-age myths happily\nadapted to the taste and comprehension of young people. This lady has\ndiscovered in the various examples of literary work, she has given the\npublic, fine artistic taste and facility. The present little volume\nis a charming present for lads and lassies, and the stories told are\nnot such as the youngster finds in the ordinary book of fairy stories.\nThey are derived from out-of-the way sources, and though some of them\nare rather grim for young people, they are on the whole sufficiently\nhealthy and cheerful for their purpose. The chief recommendation of\nthese selections is that they do not belong to the class of hackneyed\nand conventional tales mostly utilized for fairy book-making. The\nillustrations by Miss Rosina Emmet are spirited; graceful and\nappropriate.\n\nThe last two novels mentioned in our list may be dismissed with a few\nwords as belonging to the eminently proper and virtuous school of\nfiction, which demands that there shall be a certain fixed proportion\nof such haranguing as would be ordinarily heard in a Sunday-school,\nwhatever other elements may be introduced to meet the tastes of the\nnovel-reading class. The excellent moral advice so freely scattered\nthroughout these novels we cordially commend as worthy to be pondered\nand inwardly digested, but probably the average novel-reader would wish\nfor it in a different place. Yet there are novels and novels, just as\nthere are people and people, and it may be that there is a public for\njust such productions as the above. It is with unqualified pleasure\nthat we commend these two volumes, \u201cWhite Feathers\u201d and \u201cKatherine,\u201d as\nquite gorgeous specimens of bookbinding and cover designing in a cheap\nfashion.\n\n      EGYPT AND BABYLON. FROM SACRED AND PROFANE SOURCES.\n        By George Rawlinson, M.A.,\n        Camden Professor of Ancient History, Oxford.\n        New York: _Charles Scribner\u2019s Sons_.\n\nThis contribution to ancient history is a useful companion to Prof.\nSayce\u2019s \u201cAncient Empires of the East,\u201d recently published by the same\nhouse. It is the work of one of the most noted of English scholars, and\nhe has brought all the latest researches to bear on the study of the\ntwo great empires of Egypt and Babylonia, with whom the Jewish people\nhad most to do. The method of Prof. Rawlinson is to make the Biblical\nreferences to these two mighty nations the text or foundation of his\nstudies; and then to turn on the somewhat obscure and contradictory\naccounts of the Sacred Records the fulness of light brought out of\narch\u00e6ological and linguistic research. The result is very happy, and\nthe Biblical student of the Old Testament will find in this book a\nguide of the greatest value in clearly grasping the accounts of the\nBiblical writers.\n\n\n      THE HUNDRED GREATEST MEN:\n        PORTRAITS OF THE HUNDRED GREATEST MEN IN HISTORY,\n        REPRODUCED FROM FINE AND RARE STEEL-ENGRAVINGS,\n        WITH GENERAL INTRODUCTION BY RALPH WALDO EMERSON;\n        AND TO BOOK I. BY MATTHEW ARNOLD; TO BOOK II. BY H.\n        TAINE; TO BOOK III. BY PROF. MAX M\u00dcLLER AND ERNEST\n        RENAN; TO BOOK IV. BY PRESIDENT NOAH PORTER; TO\n        BOOK V. BY VERY REV. DEAN STANLEY; TO BOOK VI. BY\n        PROF. H. HELMHOLTZ; TO BOOK VII. BY J. A. FROUDE;\n        AND TO BOOK VIII. BY PROF. JOHN FISKE.\n        New York: _D. Appleton & Co._\n\nThe editor of this collection of pen portraits of the hundred\ngreatest men, informs us that the project is one side of an attempt\nto view the history of the world as natural history. In this way he\nconceives biography as the physiology of history just as arch\u00e6ology\nis its anatomy. With this thought in mind Dr. William Wood has been\nfor fifteen years a collector of engraved portraits and antiquities\nregarding them as historic documents. Out of this mass of material\nhe has given us the illustrations of the book, which consist of the\nportraits of the great men, the primates of their race, while to\nillustrate the portraits we have short, and, it need hardly be said,\nmeagre accounts of the men themselves, with a brief tabulation of\ntheir work, and a condensed estimate of their place in the world\u2019s\nprogress. The principal literary value of the book, we think, is to\nbe found in the prefaces or introductions to each department, with\nthe general introduction by Ralph Waldo Emerson. All of these are\nwritten in a scholarly and able style, and will be read with as much\nor even more interest than the biographical sketches themselves.\nAfter all, we fancy the value of the work to most readers will be\naccepted as pertaining to the portraits, which are reproduced in\na very artistic manner from old and rare engravings. These are of\ngreat interest. In the biographical statements nothing but the barest\noutline, not quite as much, in fact, as may be found in our best\ncyclop\u00e6dias, is attempted. The book is very handsomely printed and\nmanufactured, and is one of the best specimens of book-making which\nwe have recently seen.\n\n\n      EVE\u2019S DAUGHTERS; OR, COMMON-SENSE FOR MAID, WIFE AND MOTHER.\n        By Marian Harland, author of \u201cCommon-Sense in the Household.\u201d\n        New York: _Charles Scribner\u2019s Sons_.\n\nThe author of this book is widely known, and her words respected in a\nline of subjects peculiarly affecting the interests of her own sex. In\nthe new volume under notice she talks familiarly to her sex about those\nmatters where women need sound counsel more than elsewhere. It is in\nthe relations of wife and mother that her advice is the most urgent and\nimportant. At a time when there is growing up among women of the better\nclass such a cruelly perverse view of the duties and responsibility of\ntheir own sex, especially in relation to marriage and child-bearing,\nthe words of a wise, earnest and thoughtful woman are peculiarly\nneeded. Miss Harland speaks plainly, yet delicately, on such subjects,\nand if her injunctions could be widely heeded the world would be better\noff. It is a work to be specially and cordially recommended to young\nwomen everywhere.\n\n\n      A REVIEW OF THE HOLY BIBLE, CONTAINING THE OLD\n        AND NEW TESTAMENTS. By Edward B. Latch.\n        Philadelphia: _J. B. Lippincott & Co._\n\nThe author of this book, for we suppose he can be called an author who\nrearranges and classifies the text of the Bible with a view to bringing\nout better the inner meaning and purpose of the text, we are led to\njudge is not a theologian by profession. But this does not commend his\nwork any the less. The unprofessional enthusiast, believing either that\nhe has some inner illumination, or convinced that he is working on the\nlines of a finer and higher logic than is given to other men, is well\njustified in encroaching on a field which by ordinary consent is given\nup to professional scholars. Mr. Latch is evidently profoundly sure\nthat he has found esoteric meanings in the great Biblical cryptogram,\nwhich reveal themselves clearly once the clew is given. The clew in\nthis case is a study of the Bible, taking the interpretations of St.\nPaul as a starting-point and assuming a number of bases, according to\nwhich these interpretations are classed. The whole attempt is curious\nand interesting, and is likely to prove edifying to students of the\nSacred Scriptures. Mr. Latch works out a curious historic psychology in\nthe sacred records, and his comments and glosses are highly ingenious\nif not convincing. Of one thing we are sure. The author is convinced\nthat his mission is to make the purpose of the Bible clearer, more\nconsecutive and conclusive for the theology worked out of it by that\ngreat codifier and lawgiver of Christian theology, St. Paul. This\nmodern coadjutor of the great apostle is saturated with the Pauline\ntheology, and yet some of his views are fresh and original, though\nnever at variance with those of his master, from whom he drinks at\nthe fountainhead. The quaint and ingenious interpretations which we\nfind scattered through these pages will repay reading, even when we\nthink his glosses forced and eccentric. To find a man in this age of\nthe world, after the raging of eighteen hundred years of exhaustive\nreligious and dogmatic controversy, who fancies that he has something\nnew and startling to say on the problems propounded in the Bible, is a\nrefreshing fact which should not go without brief comment.\n\n\n      THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL SCIENCE, THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL.\n        By Noah Porter, D.D., LL.D., President of Yale College.\n        New York: _Charles Scribner\u2019s Sons_.\n\nThe remarkable President of Yale College, whose name is treasured\nup in the hearts of thousands of the alumni of Yale as one of the\nwisest, most genial, and lovable of the many distinguished instructors\nassociated with the history of the college, gives us in this study of\nethics the ripe and mellowed fruit of his thought and work. For many\nyears President Porter was the professor of mental and moral philosophy\nbefore he assumed the headship of the college. The substance of the\nbook before us was originally given in the shape of lectures before\nthe senior classes. We are told that the book is not designed for\na scientific treatise, but to meet the wants of those students and\nreaders who, though somewhat mature in their philosophical thinking and\ndisciplined in their mental habits, still require expanded definitions\nand abundant illustrations involving more or less of repetition.\nDr. Porter has in his own line of investigation great clearness of\nstatement, and the power, perhaps growing out of the needs of the\nclass-room, of familiarizing and simplifying abstruse reasonings.\nWe find this strikingly illustrated in the book before us. It is\nmasterly in its lucidity of reasoning, and in its applications often so\npractical as to make us feel that the object of the author is not\nmerely to lay bare the scientific theory of ethics, but to bring\nits principles home to the heart and sympathy of his readers. As a\ndialectical exposition the cut-and-dried philosopher who revels in the\nabstract formulas of Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer and others may find\noccasion to criticise Dr. Porter\u2019s methods. But to the general reader\nthe speculations of Dr. Porter will prove none the less interesting\nbecause he brings them down to the sympathies and interests of men.\n\n\n\n\nFOREIGN LITERARY NOTES.\n\n\nDr. Stratmann, the compiler of the excellent \u201cDictionary of the Old\nEnglish Language,\u201d has died at Cologne at the age of sixty-two.\n\n\nThe engagement is announced of Mr. G. E. Buckle, the editor of the\n_Times_, to Miss Alice Payn, the third daughter of the distinguished\nnovelist and editor of the _Cornhill Magazine_.\n\n\nThere is the unusual number of three vacancies at this moment in the\nranks of the French \u201cImmortals.\u201d Two of the seats, however, are as\ngood as filled by M. Joseph Bertrand and M. Victor Duruy. For the\nthird there are several candidates, of whom M. Ludovic Hal\u00e9vy is first\nfavorite. It was believed that M. Alphonse Daudet was standing, but he\nhas authorized the _Figaro_ to say that he never has offered himself,\nand never will offer himself to the Academy.\n\n\nA new novel by Georg Ebers, upon which he has been at work for two\nyears, is to be published at Christmas. The subject is taken from the\nlast struggles of Paganism against Christendom, and the scene is laid\nin Egypt.\n\n\nThe new and enlarged edition (the third) of Hermann Grimm\u2019s \u201cEssays,\u201d\nincludes articles on Lord Byron and Leigh Hunt, Frederick the Great and\nMacaulay, and Ralph Waldo Emerson.\n\n\nHenrik Ibsen\u2019s \u201cVildanden\u201d to which all Scandinavia has been looking\nforward for months past, proves on the whole a disappointment to his\nadmirers. It is a five-act social satire, full of strong scenes and\npregnant sayings, and containing at least two masterly characters; but\nthere is no shirking the fact that as a drama it is ill-digested and\nformless. Nor is the apologue of \u201cThe Wild Duck,\u201d from which it takes\nits name, by any means so luminous or of such general application as\nis commonly the case with this great satirist\u2019s inventions. It will\ncertainly not add to the fame of the author of \u201cA Doll\u2019s House\u201d and\n\u201cGhosts.\u201d Bj\u00f6rnsen, too, in his new novel, \u201cDet Flager,\u201d is not at his\nbest. It is an earnest and well-meant protest against false delicacy\nin education; but unfortunately it proves its author to be distinctly\ndeficient in true delicacy. The youngest of the three great Norwegian\npoets, Alexander Kielland, has not yet issued his promised novel\n\u201cFortuna,\u201d but it is to be hoped that he may redeem the credit of a\nseason which has as yet proved by no means the _annus mirabilis_ that\nwas anticipated.\n\n\n\n\nMISCELLANY.\n\n\nWOMEN AS CASHIERS.\u2014The movement in favor of employing women\nin all kinds of work that was formerly done by men only is one that\nshould be carried on with caution; for women and girls have sometimes\nbeen put into situations for which their sex is unfit\u2014the Government\nclerkships in America for instance\u2014and the result has been a reaction\nagainst their employment in capacities where they are really useful.\nBut of all the posts to which women\u2019s aptitudes are the least open to\nquestion, that of cashier must be cited first. Women are excellent\nmoney-keepers. While male cashiers form a grievously large percentage\namong the prisoners brought to trial for embezzlement, women and girls\nbeing seldom exposed to the same temptations as men in the matter of\ndissipation, betting, gambling, or speculation, have very rarely been\nknown to misappropriate moneys entrusted to them. An honest woman\nis very honest; \u201can honest man is too often,\u201d as Lord Palmerston\nbitterly said, \u201cone who has never been tempted.\u201d A man once applied\nto an Italian banker for a cashiership, and was asked to state his\nqualifications. \u201cI have been ten years in prison,\u201d he said, \u201cand so\nshall not mind being locked up in a room by myself, and having my\npockets searched when I go out and come in.\u201d The banker admired his\nimpudence, took him at his word and used to say that he made a splendid\ncashier. We are not affirming that antecedents like this rogue\u2019s are\nrequired to fit a man for a post of trust; but we do maintain that it\nis very difficult to find a thoroughly trustworthy male cashier, even\namong applicants provided with a mass of testimonials; whereas careful,\nhonest, and well-educated women, in whom full confidence can be placed,\nexist in great numbers.\u2014_Graphic._\n\nTHE HOUSE OF LORDS: CAN IT BE REFORMED?\u2014We look to a second\nChamber to improve the work of the first, not simply to foil it. We\ndo not expect to have to do the work over again, as has been the case\nwith nearly every measure submitted to the ordeal of passing the House\nof Lords. Why is this? How comes it to happen with a House in which,\nwithout doubt, there are men of acknowledged capacity\u2014men fully coming\nup to the idea of what an assembly of notables should be\u2014there is this\nconstantly recurring, mischievous meddling? How is it that beneficent\nlegislation has almost invariably had to be wrung from them, and that\nan inordinate waste of time, coupled with an utterly unnecessary and\nirritating friction, has been the result? An answer to these questions\nis to be found in the fact that the members of the House of Lords feel\nthemselves entitled to legislate according to their own sweet will, and\nwithout reference to the wishes or wants of the people of this country.\nThey look upon all political and social questions from the point of\nview of their own order\u2014an order which at the best must be regarded\nas exclusive and privileged. This tendency is a perfectly natural one,\nand they are to be no more blamed for exhibiting it than any other\nclass, whether rich or poor, professional or commercial, for looking at\nmatters from their own point of view. We must condemn the system which\nnot only enables the Lords to do this, but gives effect to their views\nby according to them privileges for which practically the country gets\nno return. We have no right to expect a Peer to place himself outside\nhis surroundings: we have a right to demand that the needs of the many\nshall be preferred to the interests of the few. Observe the tendency\nof those interests, and note one result, at least, which is in itself\nproductive of ill. The tendency among the Peers towards the principles\nof Conservatism increases every year. Even Peers who in the House of\nCommons were apparently sound Liberals rarely maintained their strictly\nLiberal attitude; and where the original possessor of the title proves\ntrue to his early faith, it is rarely that his successor walks in\nhis steps. The consequence is that the Conservative majority in the\nHouse of Lords has for many years gone on steadily increasing, and the\naddition of fresh recruits does little to stem the tide; one result\nof which is that a Liberal Ministry comes into power very heavily\nhandicapped; it has this hostile majority always to contend with,\nand has to shape its measures, not so much with an eye to the wants\nof the people, as to the possibility of mollifying this majority. It\nfurther throws the burden of legislative work on the House of Commons\nunduly, because a Liberal Ministry knows full well that it will\nrequire the force of a large majority in the Lower House to induce\nthe Upper House even to consider its measures. Much of the difficulty\nexperienced in the House of Commons, by the Government as well as by\nprivate Members, in getting their measures passed, is due to that\nHouse being overworked; the reason of this being that the other House\ndoes not get its fair share of work, owing to its attitude towards\nall Liberal legislation. I am far from saying that Conservatives, or\nConservative Peers, have no sympathy with their fellow-countrymen.\nBut their feeling towards the masses is that of desiring to act for\nthem rather than of wishing to get them to act for themselves; in\nother words they show a tendency to maintain the power of beneficial\nlegislation in their own hands, and not to entrust it to those who are\nlikely to feel its effects the most. It is this want of confidence\nrather than a lack of sympathy which is so unfortunate. It makes the\nPeers anxious to retain power in their own interests; and thus their\naction in the House of Lords is taken without the slightest sense of\nresponsibility, or without the slightest pretence of representing the\nviews and wishes of the people at large. What, then, is the remedy for\nall this? Clearly, to make the second Chamber truly a representative\none\u2014representative of the great interests of the people, of the State,\nof the empire.\u2014_British Quarterly._\n\n\nA REVOLVING LIBRARY.\u2014The idea of applying the principle of\nrevolution to simplify religious duties seems to have originated in the\nfeeling that since only the learned could acquire merit by continually\nreciting portions of Buddha\u2019s works, the ignorant and hard working were\nrather unfairly weighted in life\u2019s heavenward race. Thus it came to be\naccounted sufficient that a man should turn over each of the numerous\nrolled manuscripts containing the precious precepts, and considering\nthe multitude of these voluminous writings, the substitution of this\nsimple process must have been very consolatory. Max M\u00fcller has told us\nhow the original documents of the Buddhist canon were first found\nin the monasteries of Nepaul, and soon afterwards further documents\nwere discovered in Thibet and Mongolia, the Thibetan canon consisting\nof two collections, together comprising 333 volumes folio. Another\ncollection of the Wisdom of Buddha was brought from Ceylon, covering\n14,000 palm leaves, and written partly in Singalese and partly in\nBurmese characters. Nice light reading! From turning over these\nmanuscripts by hand, to the simple process of arranging them in a huge\ncylindrical bookcase, and turning that bodily, was a very simple and\ningenious transition; and _thus the first circulating library came into\nexistence_!\u2014_Contemporary Review._\n\n\nA CHILD\u2019S METAPHORS.\u2014The early use of names by children\nseems to illustrate the play of fancy almost as much as the activity\nof thought. In sooth, have not thought and imagination this in common,\nthat they both combine elements of experience in new ways, and both\ntrace out the similarities of things? The poet\u2019s simile is not so\nfar removed from the scientific discoverer\u2019s new idea. Goethe the\npoet readily became Goethe the morphologist, detecting analogies in\nstructures which to the common eye were utterly unlike. The sweet\nattractiveness of baby-speech is due in no small measure to its highly\npictorial and metaphorical character. Like the primitive language\nof the race, that of the child is continually used as a vehicle for\npoetical comparison. The child and the poet have this in common, that\ntheir minds are not fettered by all the associations and habits of\nmind which lead us prosaic persons to separate things by absolutely\ninsuperable barriers. In their case imagination darts swiftly, like\na dragon-fly, from object to object, ever discovering beneath a\nsurface-dissimilarity some unobtrusive likeness. A child is apt to\npuzzle its elders by these swift movements of its mind. It requires a\ncertain poetic element in a parent to follow the lead of the daring\nchild-fancy, and it is probable that many a fine perception of analogy\nby children has been quite thrown away on the dull and prejudiced minds\nof their seniors. To give an example of this metaphorical use of words\nby the child: C. when eighteen months old was one day watching his\nsister as she dipped her crust into her tea. He was evidently surprised\nby the rare sight, and after looking a moment or two, exclaimed \u201cBa!\u201d\n(bath), laughing with delight, and trying, as was his wont when deeply\ninterested in a spectacle, to push his mother\u2019s face round so that\nshe too might admire it. The boy delighted in such figurative use of\nwords, now employing them as genuine similes, as when he said of a dog\npanting after a run, \u201cDat bow-wow like puff-puff\u201d and of the first real\nship he saw sailing, \u201cDat ship go majory daw\u201d (_i.e._ like marjory-daw\nin the nursery rhyme). Like many a poet he has had his recurring or\nstanding metaphors. Thus, as we have seen, \u201cship\u201d was the figurative\nexpression for all objects having a pyramidal form. A pretty example\nof his love of metaphor was his habit of calling the needle in a small\ncompass of his father\u2019s \u201cbir\u201d (bird). It needs a baby-mind to detect\nthe faint resemblance to the bird form and the bird movement here. The\nsame tendency of the child-mind to view things metaphorically or by\nthe aid of analogies to what is already familiar, shows itself in the\nhabit of personifying natural objects. It has been said by a living\nphilosopher that children do not attribute life, thought, and purpose\nto inanimate things; but observation of their use of words is, I think,\ndecidedly against this view. C. had a way from a very early date of\nlooking at natural objects as though by their actions they specially\naimed at affecting his well-being. Thus he would show all the signs of\nkingly displeasure when his serenity of mind was disturbed by noises.\nWhen, for example, he was taken to the seaside (about when twenty\nmonths old), he greatly disappointed his parent, expectant of childish\nwonder in his eyes by merely muttering \u201cWater make noise.\u201d Again, he\nhappened one day in the last week of his second year to be in the\ngarden with his father while it was thundering. On hearing the sound he\nsaid with an evident tone of annoyance, \u201cTonna m\u00e2 Ninghi noi,\u201d _i.e._\nthunder makes noise for C., and he instantly added, \u201cNotty tonna!\u201d\n(naughty thunder). He was falling into that habit of mind against\nwhich philosophers have often warned us, making man the measure of\nthe universe. The idea that the solemn roar of thunder was specially\ndesigned to disturb the peace of mind of so diminutive a person seems\nno doubt absurd enough; yet how many of us are altogether free from\nthe same narrow, vain, egoistic way of looking out into the vast and\nboundless cosmos?\u2014_English Illustrated Magazine._\n\nHAS ENGLAND A SCHOOL OF MUSICAL COMPOSITION?\u2014We suppose the\nquestion must be answered in the affirmative; but with the knowledgment\nthat the insularity of England reduces the idea to a minimum. Our\ninsular position is a natural obstacle to the complete development\nof our music. We pursue music with all activity, but that of itself\nis but the physique, as it were, of vitality. It is an evident truth\nthat, besides that the artistic and intellectual development of this\ngreat human art necessitates a wide area for its growth, its vital or\nemotional being demands a more southern country than England. Central\nEurope is the seat of music\u2019s history. Our aspirations, intelligent\nactivity, and association with the Continent, lead to our reflecting\nthe workmanship of southern art in our serious compositions; this is\nnot a struggle, as that to find vitality, but an achievement. This\nstage of imitation greatly characterizes modern English music effort.\nEven Arthur Sullivan, our modern land Dibdin, shows the intellectual\nside of his genius in imitation. The great mass of our modern melody\nis too conscious of structure to be true, too sentimental to be real.\nThese are relative descriptions, but the whole condition of English\nmusic is relative. The musical faculty\u2014the spontaneous creation of\nmusic is national\u2014is natural, yet is not equally developed. Individual\ninstances of its truthful, vital, genuine (whatever expression\nsignifies relationship to southern developments) existence in our\nhistory are so rare and isolated, that we might surely wonder how\nthey came to be, and the influence of their example on us has had\nproportionately small consequences. But the typical English activity\nand work\u2014which is quite another thing\u2014goes on. We may certainly\nallow a national style of English Church music in the past, but must\nremember that religion was its _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_\u2014a wider development of\nmusic was absent. Thus, in asking ourselves if we have or have not a\nschool of English music\u2014taking \u201cschool\u201d to mean the mould of music\u2019s\nexpression determined by the circumstances and men of the time\u2014we must\nacknowledge that, though we doubtless have something of the sort, it is\nonly in the slightest degree perceptible.\u2014_Musical Opinion._\n\n\nBOOTY IN WAR.\u2014Charles, as soon as he had finished conquering\nLorraine, gathered his host at Besan\u00e7on, and marched to Granson on the\nNeuch\u00e2tel Lake. Here a garrison of 500 Swiss was betrayed to him; he\nhanged or drowned every man of them, including the monks who came as\nchaplains. Justly enraged, the Federation gathered its whole strength,\nand with 24,000 men fell upon Charles unawares and defeated him\nutterly. The booty was something fabulous; Burgundy, taking taxes from\nall the rich Netherland towns, was then the richest Power in Europe.\nThe spoil was valued at a quarter of a million. You may calculate what\nthat would be worth now. The big diamonds\u2014one is now in the Pope\u2019s\ntiara, another was long the glory of the French regalia\u2014were among\nthe valuables. The Duke\u2019s throne was valued at 11,000 gulden; all his\nplate, his silver bedstead, his wonderfully illuminated prayer-book,\nwere taken, besides 1,000,000 gulden in his treasure chest, 10,000\nhorses, and a proportionate quantity of all kinds of stores. No wonder\nthe Swiss never recovered Granson; there were long and bitter quarrels\nabout the division of the booty, and the coming in of so much wealth\namongst a simple people demoralised them sadly, and led the way to\ntheir becoming the chief mercenaries of Europe.\u2014_Good Words._\n\n\nSIR HENRY BESSEMER.\u2014Among his early contrivances may be\nnoted a method by which basso-relievos were copied on cardboard, and\nalso a machine for producing bronze-dust at a low price. Knowing well\nthe inefficiency of the Patent Laws, Bessemer was careful to conduct\nhis operations as secretly as possible, and the manufacture of gold\nbronze powder is still invested with much of the mystery of medi\u00e6val\nalchemy. After inventing a system for improving the Government stamps\non deeds and other documents, so as to render forgery impossible,\nsaving the country several millions (for which he received no reward\nor acknowledgment whatever from the Government), he submitted to the\nauthorities at Woolwich a novel form of projectile. On its rejection\nin England he exhibited it to the emperors of France and Austria, who\nacknowledged its value, and gave the inventor every assistance for its\nimprovement. It was incidentally remarked, however, that some stronger\nmetal than any then in use would be necessary for the construction of\nthe guns, to enable them to resist so heavy a charge. It is said that\nthis remark first led Bessemer to turn his attention to the improvement\nof the method of smelting iron. He established and maintained at his\nown expense a foundry in the north of London, where he continued for\nseveral years to expend nearly the whole of his private fortune. At\nlength, in 1856, at the Cheltenham meeting of the British Association,\nthe scientific world was startled, and almost a panic created at\nBirmingham, by the announcement of the discovery of the process, since\nknown as the Bessemer process, which was to effect a revolution in\nthe metal industry. The invention, however, remained incomplete till\nthe year 1859, when it first began to be adopted by the Sheffield and\nBirmingham manufacturers. Recent improvements\u2014more particularly the\nGilchrist-Thomas process\u2014have since greatly increased its value and\nremoved, or at least diminished, its earlier defects. Bessemer steel\nis now used for every purpose in \u201chardware,\u201d and has almost entirely\nsupplanted wrought iron. For rails it has proved invaluable. Then its\nextreme tenacity and toughness render it most suitable for the purposes\nof ship-building and boiler construction. It has been adopted by Krupp\nin Prussia, and Elpstrand in Sweden, for the manufacture of their\ncelebrated ordnance; and even Sir William Armstrong, in designing his\ncoiled steel guns, resorted to the Bessemer metal. Mr. W. D. Allen,\nof Sheffield, who was the first to adopt the process practically and\ncommercially, declared recently that he had made every conceivable\narticle with the metal, from an intermediate crank shaft to a corkscrew\nor table-knife. In 1878 a Commission of the Admiralty adopted Bessemer\nsteel as the most serviceable material for anchors. The inventions of\nSir Henry Bessemer are embodied in no less than 114 patents, and the\ndrawings of these alone, all from his own pencil, fill seven volumes.\nSome of these refer to the casting of printing types, and various\nimprovements in the management of a type foundry; to railway brakes; to\nthe improved manufacture of glass; the silvering of glass; to improved\napparatus in sugar refining; and to producing ornamental surfaces on\nleather and textile fabrics. In 1875 he invented the _Bessemer_ saloon\nsteamer for preventing sea-sickness. A company was formed, he himself\nsubscribing \u00a325,000 towards the capital, but unfortunately it failed.\nThe institute of Civil Engineers was the first body to recognise\nthe merits of Mr. Bessemer\u2019s work, and in 1858 conferred upon him\nthe Telford gold medal. The interposition of the British Government\nprevented him receiving from the Emperor Napoleon III. the Grand Cross\nof the Legion of Honor. From the Emperor of Austria he received the\nCross of a Knight Commander of Francis Joseph. In 1871, he was elected\nPresident of the Iron and Steel Institute, and in the following year\nwas awarded the Albert Gold Medal by the Society of Arts. In 1879 he\nwas elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, and a few months afterwards\nwas knighted at Windsor.\u2014_Science._\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Notes:\n  Underscores \u201c_\u201d before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_\n    in the original text.\n  The carat character \u201c^\u201d is used to designate a superscript.\n  Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals.\n  Old or antiquated spellings have been preserved.\n  Typographical errors have been silently corrected but other variations\n    in spelling and punctuation remain unaltered.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] The best summary of the benefits which the Christian religion has\nhistorically wrought for mankind is, I think, to be found in that\neloquent book \u201cGesta Christi,\u201d by the great American philanthropist,\nMr. Charles Brace.\n\nThe author has made no attempt to delineate the shadowy side of the\nglowing picture, the evils of superstition and persecution wherewith\nmen have marred those benefits.\n\n[2] He says: \u201cThe leading doctrines of theology are noble and\nglorious;\u201d and he acknowledges that people who were able to accept them\nare \u201cennobled by their creed.\u201d They are \u201ccarried above and beyond the\npetty side of life; and if the virtue of propositions depended, not\nupon the evidence by which they may be supported, but their intrinsic\nbeauty and utility, they might vindicate their creed against all\nothers\u201d (p. 917). To some of us the notion of \u201cnoble and glorious\u201d\n_fictions_ is difficult to accept. The highest thought of our poor\nminds, whatever it be, has surely _as such_ some presumption in favor\nof its truth.\n\n[3] \u201cAgnostic Morality,\u201d CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, June, 1883.\n\n[4] British tonnage increased from 4,272,962 in 1850 to 5,710,968 in\n1860; American tonnage from 3,485,266 in 1850 to 5,297,177 in 1860.\nOn the 30th of June, 1883, twenty years after the civil war, American\ntonnage stood at 4,235,487!\n\n[5] \u201cThe poet doubtless here refers to his Priory of St.\nCosme-en-l\u2019Isle; of which, Duperron, in his funeral oration on Ronsard,\nhas said: \u2018This Priory is placed in a very agreeable situation on the\nbanks of the river Loire, surrounded by thickets, streams, and all\nthe natural beauties which embellish Touraine, of which it is, as it\nwere, the eye and the charm.\u2019 Ronsard, in fact, returned thither to\ndie.\u201d\u2014Sainte-Beuve, \u2018Po\u00e9sie Fran\u00e7aise au XVI^e. Si\u00e8cle\u2019 (Paris, 1869),\np. 307.\n\n[6] I give a brief sketch of this in my book, \u201cLa Prusse et l\u2019Autriche\ndepuis Sadowa,\u201d vol. i., p. 265.\n\n[7] \u201cIt is absolutely necessary for Dalmatia to become connected\nwith Bosnia. As a Montenegrin guide one day remarked to Miss Muir\nMackenzie, \u2018Dalmatia without Bosnia, is like a face without a head,\nand Bosnia without Dalmatia is a head without a face.\u2019 There being no\ncommunication between the Dalmatian ports and the inland villages,\nthe former with their fine names are but unimportant little towns\nstripped of all their former splendor. For instance, Ragusa, formerly\nan independent Republic, has a population of 6,000 inhabitants; Zara\n9,000; Zebeniko 6,000; and Cattaro, situated in the most lovely bay in\nEurope, and with a natural basin sufficiently spacious to accommodate\nthe navy of all Europe, has but 2,078 inhabitants. In several of\nthese impoverished cities, beggars have taken up their abode in the\nancient palaces of the princes of commerce, and the lion of St. Mark\noverlooks these buildings falling into ruins. This coast, which has\nthe misfortune to adjoin a Turkish province, will never regain its\nformer position until good roads and railways have been constructed\nbetween its splendid ports and the fertile inland territory, whose\nproductiveness is at present essentially hampered by the vilest\nimaginable administration.\u201d\u2014_La Prusse et l\u2019Autriche depuis Sadowa_,\nii. p. 151. 1868.\n\n[8] Lives of the Archbishops, iii, 76.\n\n[9] Camden\u2019s Britannia.\n\n[10] Church History, Book IV. I.\n\n[11] Ibid., Book III. century xiii.\n\n[12] Causa Dei\u2014the title of Bradwardine\u2019s great work.\n\n[13] A Catalogue of the Bishops of England, by Francis Godwin, now\nBishop of Landaff: 1615.\n\n[14] Cotton\u2019s Abridgment of Records, p. 102, quoted by Lewis, in his\nLife of Wycliffe, p. 19.\n\n[15] See Milman\u2019s Latin Christianity, Book XIII. chap. vi, and the\ndocument itself as given in the Appendix (No. 30) to the Life of\nWycliffe, by Lewis.\n\n[16] See Lewis\u2019s Life of Wycliffe, p. 55, and Foxe\u2019s Acts and\nMonuments, vol. i. p. 584.\n\n[17] The date of this meeting has not been determined with certainty.\n\n[18] Fuller\u2018s Church History, Book IV. cent. xiv.\n\n[19] Milton\u2018s Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing.\n\n[20] Milman\u2018s Latin Christianity, Book XIII. chap. iv.\n\n[21] See the Document itself in Lewis\u2018s Life of Wycliffe, pp. 59-67.\n\n[22] Shirley\u2018s Introduction to Fasciculi Zizaniorum, p. 49.\n\n[23] Wycliffe\u2018s Place in History, by Professor Burrows, p. 101.\n\n[24] Trialogus, iv. cap. ii., Oxford, p. 248.\n\n[25] See these as given by Lewis\u2014Conclusiones J. Wiclefi de Sacramento\nAltaris, Appendix No. 19, p. 318, ed. 1820.\n\n[26] Confessio Magistri Johannes Wycclyff. See Appendix No. 21 in\nLewis. Of this confession the concluding words are\u2014\u201cCredo, quod\nfinaliter veritas vincet eos.\u201d\n\n[27] Lechler\u2018s John Wycliffe and his Precursors, vol. ii. p. 193.\n\n[28] Latin Christianity, Book XIII. chap. vi.\n\n[29] \u201cHow Servants and Lords shall keep their degrees.\u201d See Lewis, pp.\n224, 225.\n\n[30] Godwin\u2019s Catalogue of the Bishops of England, 1615.\n\n[31] Cromp became some time after this a zealous preacher of the\ndoctrines maintained by Wycliffe.\n\n[32] See Milman. See also the Petition itself in Select English Works\nof John Wycliffe, vol. iii. edited by Thomas Arnold.\n\n[33] Godwin\u2019s Catalogue of the Bishops of England.\n\n[34] Fuller\u2019s Church History, Book IV. cent. xiv.\n\n[35] Wycliffe\u2019s Latin Works, edited for the Wycliffe Society by Dr.\nBuddensieg, vol. ii. pp. 555, 556.\n\n[36] Introduction to Fasc. Zizan., p. 44.\n\n[37] In so far as the printing of this work is concerned, the reproach\nof England was wiped off by the Clarendon Press in 1869; but it was a\nGerman, Dr. Lechler, who edited this great work, the \u201cTrialogus.\u201d\n\n[38] Shirley, Introduction to Fasc. Zizan., p. 47.\n\n[39] Shirley\u2019s Catalogue of the Original Works of John Wycliffe.\nPreface, p. 6, Oxford: 1865.\n\n[40] Milman\u2019s Latin Christianity, Book XIII. chap. vi.\n\n[41] Illustrium Majoris Britanni\u00e6 Scriptorum Summarium in Quasdam\nCenturias Divisum.\n\n[42] Select English Works of John Wycliffe. Introduction, vol. iii.\n\n[43] This is the first of \u201cthe most rare and refined works\u201d that\ncollectively make \u2018The Ph\u0153nix Nest,\u2019 published in 1593. Reprinted in\nvol. ii. of \u2018Heliconia,\u2019 edited by T. Park, 1815. The preface bears a\nmarked resemblance to the famous epilogue to 2 Henry IV.\n\n[44] Shirley: Preface to a Catalogue of the Original Works of John\nWycliffe. The \u201cTrialogus\u201d must have been written, some have it, between\n1382 and 1384. This is shown by Vaughan and Lechler.\n\n[45] Knighton, quoted by Dr. Buddensieg.\n\n[46] The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, with the\nApocryphal Books, in the earliest English versions, made from the Latin\nVulgate, by John Wycliffe and his followers. Edited by the Rev. Josiah\nForshall and Sir Frederick Madden. In four volumes. Oxford\u2014at the\nUniversity Press: 1850.\n\n[47] Bar. iii. 20. The last words are \u201cin place of them. The young...\u201d\nrendered in the Geneva version\u2014\u201cOther men are come up in their steads.\nWhen they were young they saw the light.\u201d\n\n[48] Forshall and Madden\u2019s edition of Wycliffe\u2019s Bible. Preface,\npp. 17, 18.\n\n[49] Godwin\u2019s Catalogue of the Bishops of England.\n\n[50] Fuller, Book IV. cent. xv.\n\n[51] Wycliffe and Hus. From the German of Dr. Johann Loserth, Professor\nof History at the University of Czernowitz. 1884.\n\n[52] Luther\u2019s Preface to the Letters of Hus.\n\n[53] See Epilogue to Henry IV. Part II.\n\n[54] Hallam\u2019s Constitutional History of England, chap. ii. 57, 58,\n6th ed.\n\n[55] Knox\u2019s History of the Reformation in Scotland, being volume first\nof his Works, collected and edited by David Laing. Edinburgh, 1846.\n\n[56] Shirley\u2019s Introduction to Fasc. Zizan., pp. 45, 46.\n\n[57] Speed\u2019s Chronicle, p. 672\u2014ed. 1632.\n\n[58] Preface to A Catalogue of the Original Works of John Wycliffe:\n1865.\n\n[59] M\u2019Crie\u2019s Life of John Knox, Period I.\n\n[60] Milton, Paradise Lost, Book VI.\n\n[61] _A True Account of the Rye House Plot_, by Thomas Sprat, Bishop of\nRochester, 1685.\n\n[62] _State papers, Charles II._, June 1683\u2014\u201cA Particular Account of\nthe Situation of the Rye House.\u201d\n\n[63] _Rye House Papers._ Examination of Robert West of the Middle\nTemple. A special collection among the State Papers. It may be\nremembered that when this collection was examined an original treatise\nof Milton was discovered among the documents\u2014a find which led to\nMacaulay\u2019s essay on Milton.\n\n[64] _Rye House Papers._ Examination of Josiah Keeling and Robert West.\n\n[65] Ibid.\n\n[66] _Rye House Papers._ Examination of Josiah Keeling and Robert West.\n\n[67] Ibid.\n\n[68] _Rye House Papers._ Examination of Josiah Keeling and Robert West.\n\n[69] Ibid. Examination of Thomas Shepherd.\n\n[70] Rye House Papers. Examination of Robert West and Josiah Keeling.\n\n[71] _Rye House Papers._ Examination of Robert West and Zachary Bourn.\n\n[72] _Rye House Papers._ Examination of Lord Howard, Alexander Gordon,\nand Robert West.\n\n[73] _Rye House Papers._ Examination of Col. Romsey and Robert West.\n\n[74] He was in fact a \u201crecluse\u201d in the ancient and proper sense of\nthe term. For in the Bishop\u2019s time it still remained customary, after\nan imposing ceremony, literally to seal and shut up by the hands of\na bishop those\u2014men or women\u2014who elected to be recluses, in a small\nchamber built for the purpose close to the wall of some church with\nan opening inwards that the immured tenant might hear the service and\nreceive necessary subsistence. We are told, for example, by St. Foix\nthat Agnes de Rochier, the beautiful daughter of a rich tradesman,\ncommenced such a life at the church of St. Opportune, in Paris, on the\n5th of October, 1403, and though then of only eighteen years, lived in\nthis hermetic state till the ripe enough age of eighty.\n\n[75] It was observed by Scott of Amwell, a critic of the verbal school,\nbut not without his soundness, and junior to Collins by nine years,\nthat the Oriental Eclogues, which appeared in 1742, were \u201calways\npossessed of considerable reputation,\u201d till Johnson \u201chaving hinted\nthat Collins, once in conversation with a friend, happened to term\nthem his _Irish_ Eclogues, those who form opinions not from their own\nreason or their own feelings, but from the hints of others,\u201d caught the\nhint and circulated it. \u201cThat Collins,\u201d he adds, \u201cever supposed his\neclogues destitute of merit there is no reason to believe; but it is\nvery probable, when his judgment was improved by experience, he might\ndiscover and be hurt by their faults, among which may possibly be found\nsome few instances of inconsistence or absurdity.\u201d","title":"Eclectic Magazine of Foreign Literature, Science, and Art, February 1885","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":106203}