{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_7305/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_7305","id":"gutenberg_7305","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7305","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Newman, Francis William, 1805-1897"],"text":"Produced by Anne Soulard, Charles Franks and the\nOnline Distributed Proofreading Team\n\n\n\n\nMEMOIR AND LETTERS OF FRANCIS W. NEWMAN\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: FROM A DAGUERREOTYPE OF 1851. PHOTO BY JOHN DAVIES,\nWESTON-SUPER-MARE\nFrontispiece]\n\n\n\n\nMEMOIR AND LETTERS OF FRANCIS W. NEWMAN\n\nBY\nI. GIBERNE SIEVEKING\n\n_outos ge axios estin epainesthai ostis an tois hetairois os teleion ti on\nprotithae to eu  neoterizein taen ton pollon katastasin_\n\n\n\nTHIS BOOK IS DEDICATED TO MY MOTHER\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n       TO THE READER WHO UNDERSTANDS.\n\n    I. FRANCIS NEWMAN'S ANCESTORS.\n\n   II. THE TWO BROTHERS--SCHOOL AND COLLEGE DAYS.\n\n  III. FRANCIS NEWMAN'S MISSIONARY JOURNEY TO THE EAST.\n\n   IV. HIS MARRIAGE: HIS MOTHER'S DEATH: HIS CLASSICAL TUTORSHIP AT\n       BRISTOL IN 1834.\n\n    V. FRIENDSHIP WITH DR. MARTINEAU.\n\n   VI. FRANCIS NEWMAN AS A TEACHER.\n\n  VII. LETTERS TO ONE OF HIS GREATEST FRIENDS, DR. NICHOLSON.\n\n VIII. LETTERS TO DR. NICHOLSON FROM NEWMAN DURING THE FOLLOWING YEARS:\n       1850 TO 1859.\n\n   IX. LETTERS TO DR. NICHOLSON: CONTINUED.\n\n    X. LETTERS WRITTEN TO MISS ANNA SWANWICK BETWEEN 1871 AND 1887.\n\n   XI. THE STORY OF TWO PATRIOTS.\n\n  XII. FOUR BARBARISMS OF CIVILIZATION.\n\n XIII. SOME LEGISLATIVE REFORMS SUGGESTED BY LECTURE AND ARTICLE\n\n  XIV. DECENTRALIZATION AND LAND REFORM\n\n   XV. VEGETARIANISM\n\n  XVI. NATIVE REPRESENTATION IN INDIAN GOVERNMENT\n\n XVII. VOTES FOR WOMEN\n\nXVIII. FRANCIS NEWMAN AND HIS RELIGION\n\n  XIX. LAST YEARS, CHARACTERISTICS, AND SOME LETTERS RELATING TO THE\n       \"EARLY LIFE OF THE CARDINAL\"\n\n   XX. TOULMIN SMITH: AUTHOR, ANTIQUARIAN STUDENT, AND POLITICAL REFORMER\n\n  XXI. LANDOWNERS AND WAGE RECEIVERS\n\n XXII. THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF EVERY STATE TO ENFORCE SOBRIETY ON ITS\n       CITIZENS\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS\n\n\nPHOTO OF FRANCIS NEWMAN\nFrom a Daguerreotype of 1851. Photo by Mr. John Davies, Weston-super-Mare.\n\nJOHN NEWMAN\nFather of Cardinal Newman and Francis Newman. From an old portrait. By\nkind permission of Mr. J. R. Mozley.\n\nSEALE'S COFFEE HOUSE, OXFORD\nNow demolished. Done from an old drawing in the year when Francis Newman\nand John Henry Newman stayed there with Blanco White.\n\nWORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD\nSpecially photographed for this Memoir.\n\nWORTON CHURCH, OXFORDSHIRE\nFrom an old print. By kind permission of Rev. W. H. Langhorne.\n\nHOLY TRINITY CHURCH, WEST END, OVER WORTON\nBy kind permission of Rev. W. H. Langhorne, present Rector of Worton.\n\nOVER WORTON RECTORY, OXFORDSHIRE\nBy kind permission of Rev. W. H. Langhorne, present Rector of  Worton.\n\nPHOTO FROM SKETCH OF THE NEWMAN FAMILY\nBy Maria Rosina Giberne. By kind permission of Mr. J. R. Mozley.\n\nMARIA ROSINA GIBERNE\nFrom a painting by herself.\n\nPHOTO OF LORD CONGLETON\nLeader of Syrian Missionary Journey. From his _Life_ by Groves.\n\nDR. CRONIN\nOne of those who went to Syria with Francis Newman in 1830. From a photo\nby Messrs. Webster, Clapham Common. By kind permission of Mrs. Cronin.\n\nPERSIAN LADY AND PERSIAN SMOKING, DATE 1827\nFrom _Persia_ in \"Modern Traveller\" series, 1830.\n\nMARIA KENNAWAY\nFrancis Newman's first wife. From a miniature. Photo by Messrs. Webster,\nClapham Common. By kind permission of Sir John Kennaway.\n\nDR. MARTINEAU\nFrom the painting by A. E. Elmslie.\n\nFRANCIS NEWMAN\nIn middle age. From photo by John Davies, Weston-super-Mare.\n\nPHOTO OF BRONZE BUST OF FRANCIS NEWMAN\nEmeritus Professor of London University. By Mrs. Georgina Bainsmith,\nsculptor, of St. Ives, Cornwall. The bust is now in University College,\nLondon.\n\nANOTHER VIEW OF THE BUST IN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE (OF FRANCIS NEWMAN), ON ITS\nPLINTH\nBy Mrs. Georgina Bainsmith, sculptor, of St. Ives, Cornwall. This\nreproduction is by Mr. J. C. Douglas, of St. Ives, Cornwall, and was\nphotographed from the clay before it was cast.\n\nDR. NICHOLSON\nFrom a photo taken at G\u00f6ttingen between 1855 and 1860. By kind permission\nof Miss Nicholson, Penrith.\n\nFACSIMILE OF LETTER FROM FRANCIS NEWMAN, DECEMBER, 1855\n20 WHITE ROCK PLACE, AND 1A CARLISLE PARADE, HASTINGS\nFrom photos taken in 1909 by Valentine Edgar Sieveking.\n\nANNA SWANWICK\nFrom a portrait painted by Miss V. Bruce.\n\nLOUIS KOSSUTH\n\nCERTIFICATE OF HUNGARIAN FUND\n\nFACSIMILE OF LETTER FROM KOSSUTH TO MESSRS. SIEVEKING, JANUARY, 1854\n\nTOULMIN SMITH\nEnlargement from a photo. By kind permission of Miss Toulmin Smith.\n\nCARDINAL NEWMAN\nFrom an oil painting by Miss Deane, of Bath. Photo by Messrs. Webster,\nClapham Common.\n\n\n\n\nTO THE READER WHO UNDERSTANDS\n\n\nMY DEAR READER,\n\nRightly understood, the two points of view, as regards Religion, of the\nbrothers, Cardinal Newman and Francis Newman, which most separated them,\nwould, together, have approached the realization of a great conception.\n\nFor the Cardinal, Authority was the _sine qu\u00e2 non_ without which there\ncould be no real faith. Authority was the pilot, without whose steering he\ncould not feel secure in his personal ship. But with Authority at the\nhelm, his fears dispersed, his doubts removed.\n\n     \"I was not ever thus.....\n  I loved to choose and see my path, but now\n  Lead Thou me on!\"\n\nOver Francis Newman, dogma and the authority of the Church had no sway. He\ndimly discerned a religion which should move forward with men's advance in\nknowledge. He imagined an unformalized inward revelation which should\nreveal new truths to those who passionately desired Truth above all\nthings. And when all is said, the union of Authority given in the past,\nwith the very real mental development which makes for spiritual progress\nin the present, is not antagonistic to a wise, strong breadth of view in\nthe conception of a perfect Church.\n\nBut in both points of view, carried to extremes, there are grave perils to\nthe man who thinks. And I find it impossible to avoid saying here that\nFrancis Newman did not realize this risk when he refused to \"ask for the\nold paths,\" and determined to \"see and choose his path\" alone and unaided.\nWe know what the endeavour to found a new church in Syria ended in. We\nknow how, later, he wrote, held back by no reverence for revealed\nreligion, no reverence for other men's belief in it. Many of his writings\ntherefore are painful reading. Though from very early boyhood he had been\nreally a keen seeker after true religion, an earnest student of the Holy\nScriptures, and a deep thinker, yet, very soon after he had reached young\nmanhood, it began to be realized by all who knew him that he was very\nevidently breaking away from all definite dogmatic faith. He was bent, so\nto speak, on inventing a new religion for himself.\n\nGradually every year made the spiritual breach wider between him and those\nwho held the Christian Faith. Soon he did not hesitate to say out, in very\nunguarded language, what he really thought of doctrines which he knew were\nprecious to them. Sometimes to-day, indeed, in reading his books, one\ncomes across some statement in letter, article, or lecture flung out\nalmost venomously; and one steps back mentally as if a spiritual hiss had\nwhipped the air from some inimical sentence which had suddenly lifted its\nheretical head from amongst an otherwise quiet group of words.\n\nAt the end of life it is said that he showed signs of some return to the\nearly faith of his boyhood. That he said, just before his death, to Rev.\nTemperley Grey, who was visiting him in his last illness, \"I feel Paul is\nless and less to me; and Christ is more and more.\"\n\nAnd those who knew that side of him which was splendid in its untiring\neffort for the betterment of mankind--for the righting of wrongs to women,\nand others unable to achieve it for themselves--cannot but hope that the\nfaith of earlier days was his once more, before he passed into the silence\nthat lies--as far as we are concerned in this world--at the back of Death.\n\nI remember being told once, that of Stanley it was said by someone who\nknew him well, that she had always felt that \"he believed more than he\nknew he did.\"\n\nAnd when one thinks how Francis Newman looked up in faith--even though it\nwas an absolutely undogmatic, formless faith--to a God who watched over\nmankind, one may hope that he too \"believed more than he knew he did.\"\n\nThis life is only a short chapter in our existence. Personality is in its\nessence immortal, though not unchanging in its presentment. Some of us\nhave many \"phases of faith\" even in this short existence. Some of us, like\nSt. Paul, only two. The first, fiery in its denunciations, and\npersecutions and uncompromising attitude towards all who differed from him\nas regards the Faith which afterwards, \"when the scales had fallen from\nhis eyes,\" he was to champion. The second, just as splendid in its\nenthusiasm for the doctrine he had formerly abused. Just as passionate in\nrighting the wrongs of the people, as once in his first phase of faith he\nhad been in enforcing persecution and injustice upon them. By now, Newman\nmay have gained _his_ second sight. Whatever was the shortsightedness of\nFrancis Newman's spiritual focus, there can be no manner of doubt that\n_he_ was an earnest seeker after Truth, though his methods of search were\nsorely to be regretted, in so far as doctrinal theory was concerned, as in\nhis judgments on his brother's career.\n\nAccording to his lights he lived his life. It was a life spent always in\nuntiring, unselfish effort for the good of his fellows. He was always in\nthe forefront of Social Reform, of social high principle and justice. He\nwas, at any rate, one with St. Paul--that champion of Christian Socialism\n--in his attitude towards that larger half of mankind whose wrongs need\nrighting. He, too, practically said by his life, \"Who is weak, and _I_ am\nnot weak? Who is afflicted, and I _burn_ not?\" to avenge the injustice.\n\nTo-day, if more of Francis Newman's social views were voiced again,\nEngland might take a glad step forward. For, undoubtedly, he _had_ a\nmessage to deliver. And, equally undoubtedly, he delivered it to his\ngeneration.\n\nThis message of Social Reform sounded in men's ears fifty years ago.\n\nIn his memoir it sounds again to-day.\n\nMy very hearty thanks are due to the following persons who have most\nkindly helped me in this \"Memoir,\" by lending me letters and photographs;\nby writing reminiscences, and giving information, etc.: Sir John Kennaway,\nBart., Sir Alfred Wills, Sir Edward Fry, Mr. William de Morgan, Father\nBacchus, Mr. Talfourd Ely, Mr. Winterbotham, the present Rector of Worton,\nMr. Norris Mathews, Mr. George Hare Leonard, Mr. George Pearson, Miss\nHumphreys, Miss Nicholson, Mrs. Heather (_n\u00e9e_ Wilson), Miss Bruce, Miss\nToulmin Smith, Miss Gertrude Martineau, Miss Elizabeth Pearson, Mrs.\nGeorgina Bainsmith, sculptor, Rev. Thomas Smith, Mrs. Kingsley Tarpey, Dr.\nMakalua, and many others.\n\nI. GIBERNE SIEVEKING.\n1 EXMOUTH PLACE, HASTINGS.\n\n\n\n\nMEMOIR AND LETTERS OF FRANCIS W. NEWMAN\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nHIS ANCESTORS\n\n\nOf all the influences which have most to do in the making of an\nindividual, heredity is perhaps the greatest. It is the crucible in which\nthe gold and dross of many generations of his ancestors are melted down\nand remixed in the man, who is, indeed, \"a part of all\" from whom he\nclaims descent.\n\nThere is no more engrossing study than to trace back through many a\ncentury of ancestors, the various--often conflicting--elements which go to\nmake up the character of someone whose life (without the clue given by the\nhistory of his forbears) is often a strange contradiction. Unable to\nunderstand some disability which spoils an otherwise fine personality, one\nlooks back and there is the explanation. One's finger rests on the _raison\nd'\u00eatre_ of this disability. Long since it had its birth, its inauguration,\nin the squeeze, so to speak, into that strange crucible, of the taint, the\nessence, of some ancestor's moral lapses, or of the effect of his moral,\nmental, or physical ill-health.\n\nDr. Maudsley says very definitely that the faults, the disabilities, of\nmen and women of to-day, are sometimes an undesirable inheritance. \"Mental\nderangement in one generation is sometimes the cause of an innate\ndeficiency, or absence of the moral sense in the succeeding generation.\"\n\nI remember once hearing a London doctor strongly emphasize the need for\nevery family to keep a careful, conscientious family record book, which\nfrom generation to generation should act as a _vade mecum_--showing what\nfailings must be fought at all costs, and what connections avoided, if we\nwould not perpetuate disease. Such a thing, if done universally, might\ncheck many national evils in our midst to-day.\n\nBut even with no definite aim of this kind, the study of a long chain of\nancestors of some great man cannot fail to be of special interest. And\nthose of the subject of this memoir contain among their number many\nhonourable names--names of those who have done real and unforgettable\nservice to their country.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFrancis Newman's father, John Newman, is said to have belonged to a family\nof small landed proprietors in Cambridgeshire, who originally came from\nHolland--the name having been formerly spelt \"Newmann.\" Thus it will be\nseen, as I shall shortly show, that Francis Newman had Dutch blood in his\nveins, both on his father's and mother's side.\n\n[Illustration: JOHN NEWMAN\nFATHER OF CARDINAL NEWMAN AND FRANCIS NEWMAN\nFROM AN OLD PORTRAIT. BY KIND PERMISSION OF MR. J. R. MOZLEY]\n\nJohn Newman was the only son of John Newman of Lombard Street, London, and\nof Elizabeth Good, his wife. The arms granted the family on 15th Feb.,\n1663-4, were _Or, fers dancettee between 3 hearts gules_. John Newman, the\nfather of Francis Newman, was partner in the banking house of Ramsbottom,\nNewman and Co. He married Jemima Fourdrinier, 29th Oct., 1799, at St.\nMary's, Lambeth. [Footnote: She died at Littlemore, Oxon, at the age of\nsixty-two.] In the portrait of him, which is shown in this memoir, there\nis a strong resemblance to his son Francis.\n\nBy this marriage there were seven children. John Henry (the future\nCardinal), was the eldest. He was born 21st Feb., 1801. Charles Robert was\nthe second son; and Francis William, the third son, was born 27th June,\n1805. Harriette Elizabeth was the eldest daughter, Jemima Charlotte the\nsecond, and Mary Sophia, who was born in 1809, only lived to the age of\nnineteen.\n\nFrancis Newman's ancestry, on his mother's side, is proved to have reached\nback as far as 1575; of this one can be reasonably certain. It was then,\nthat Henri Fourdrinier was born at Caen, in Normandy. He was made Admiral\nof France in later life, and crested Viscount. ARMS: _per bend argent and\nsable, two anchors, the upper one reversed, counterchanged._ His son was\nalso Henri Fourdrinier. Indeed, the name \"Henri\" seemed like some rare\njewel which was bequeathed from father to son in never-failing regularity,\nfor there was always a \"Henri\" among the Fourdriniers from 1575 until\n1766.\n\nIt was during the lifetime of this Henri Fourdrinier, the son of Admiral\nFourdrinier, that the family fled from France to Groningen, in Holland. In\nall probability this flitting took place during those endless civil wars\nwhich disturbed France at that time. Possibly at the time when the heavy\ntaxes imposed on the people made it almost impossible to live. The\n\"Fronde\" was ravaging the country too, in 1648, and for four years later.\nOf course it is possible that he did not leave France until 1685, when the\nRevocation of the Edict of Nantes took place. But at whatever date he\nactually went, his reasons for going were certainly no small ones. For\nmore than a hundred years the Huguenots--and the Fourdriniers were noted\nHuguenots--had found France more and more an impossible country to live\nin. Persecutions, massacres, torturings pursued them relentlessly.\nThousands of French Huguenots emigrated to England, Holland, and Germany.\nAnd great was the loss which their emigration caused to France. For they\nwere the most intelligent and hardworking part of the French population,\nso that when Louis XIV drove them away, he found out, only too surely, the\ntruth of the old proverb, that \"Curses come home to roost.\" Trade slowly\nbut surely forsook France. The emigrants taught their arts and\nmanufactures to the countries where they had taken refuge; and gradually\ntrade guided its ships in their direction, and changed their course from\nFrance to Holland and Germany.\n\nThe next entry [Footnote: I quote from a copy I had made from _Miscellanea\nGenealogica et Heraldica_, N.S. III, 385.--_Pedigree of Fourdrinier and\nGrolleau_, by Rev. Dr. Lee, Vicar of All Saints, Lambeth.] is dated from\nGroningen, and concerns the birth of Paul Fourdrinier, 20th Dec., 1698.\nNow in the _Dict. Nat. Biography_ there occurs the name of Peter\nFourdrinier, of whom no mention at all is made in the _Miscellanea\nGenealogica et Heraldica_, amongst the record of the other Fourdriniers.\nIt is therefore not very clear to what branch of the family he belonged.\nBut as far as I can make out, he and Paul Fourdrinier seem to have come to\nEngland about 1720. Certainly, in October, 1721, the latter's marriage\nwith Susanna Grolleau took place, as far as one can discover, in or near\nWandsworth. Susanna Grolleau died in 1766, and was buried at Wandsworth.\nHere, I think, a few words with regard to the Grolleau family seem to be\ncalled for.\n\nLouis Grolleau, early in the seventeenth century, lived at Caen; and later\nemigrated to Groningen. To me, everything seems to point to the fact that\nthe Fourdriniers and Grolleaus were in some way connected, either in\nfriendship or relationship. First, we find them resident at Caen: later,\nat Groningen; and then again, later on still, members of both families\nmarry at Wandsworth, and there both Paul Fourdrinier's wife and her\nsister, who married the son of a Captain Lloyd, are buried.\n\nThis Peter Fourdrinier mentioned by the _Dict. Nat. Biography_ seems to\nhave been pupil to Bernard Picart, at Amsterdam, for six years. By\nprofession he was an engraver of portraits and book illustrations. I\nbelieve there are portraits extant engraved by him of Cardinal Wolsey and\nBishop Tonstall, amongst others. There is certainly an engraving of his\ncalled _The Four Ages of Man_, after Laucret.\n\nSome authorities believe him to have been identical with the Pierre\nFourdrinier who married, in 1689, Marthe Theroude. But if this was the\ncase, then he was not the Peter Fourdrinier who accompanied Paul to\nEngland in 1720. Other authorities, again, attribute the engravings I have\njust mentioned as having been the work of Paul Fourdrinier. At any rate,\nit is certain that Paul Fourdrinier belonged to the parish of St.\nMartin's-in-the-Fields. He died in February, 1758, and was buried at\nWandsworth.\n\nHis son Henry--by now the English spelling of the name is adopted--was\nborn February, 1730. He married Jemima White, and died in 1799. Apparently\nnow for the first time the interest in the town of Wandsworth ceased, for\nthe records show that both Henry and his wife were buried in St. Mary\nWoolnoth. And now we come to the direct ancestors of Francis Newman, for\nHenry Fourdrinier and Jemima White, his wife, were the parents of Jemima,\nwho married at St. Mary's, Lambeth, in 1799, John Newman of the firm of\nRamsbottom, Newman & Co., and gave birth in 1801 to John Henry, the future\nCardinal, and in 1805 to the subject of this memoir, Francis William.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn _Civil Architecture_, by Chambers, it is mentioned that the plates were\nengraved by \"old Rooker, old Fourdrinier, and others,\" thus seeming to\nimply that there was more than one Fourdrinier then in England.\n\nPerhaps the most interesting of all the Fourdrinier family was the Henry\nFourdrinier, the eldest brother to the mother of Francis Newman. He was\nborn in 1766 at Burston Hall, Staffordshire, and lived until 1854. His\nfather was a paper-maker, and both he and his brother Sealey (born 1747,\nand married Harriett, daughter of James Pownall, of Wilmslow) gave up\ntheir time almost entirely to the invention of paper machinery. This\ninvention was finished in 18O7, [Footnote: _Dict. Nat. Biog._ Vol. XX.]\nand then misfortune fell upon them: the misfortune that so often descends\nlike the \"black bat night\" upon those who have spent all their money,\nthought, and labour on the effort to launch their self-designed ship upon\nthe uncertain sea of trade.\n\nThe Fourdrinier brothers had spent \u00a360,000 upon this venture, and the\nimmediate result of the finished invention was bankruptcy to the\nunfortunate inventors. Then, in 1814, the Emperor Alexander of Russia\npromised to pay them \u00a3700 per annum during the space of ten years if he\ncould use two of their paper-making machines. Of this sum they saw not a\npenny.\n\nIn 1840, Parliament voted the sum of \u00a37000 to the Fourdriniers as a tardy\nrecognition of the great service they had rendered their adopted country\nby their invention. The descendant of these gifted men showed no special\ntaste for invention along the lines taken by his ancestors, it is true;\nbut his brilliant intellect, no doubt, owed many of its qualities to their\ninventive force and power. Where they made paper and spent their whole\nenergies in inventing machines for making it quicker, Francis Newman wrote\non it--used it as a medium for spreading far and wide his own splendid\naims and purposes for the betterment of existing social conditions. Before\nall things, Newman was a Social Reformer. There was no possible doubt\nthat, as far as that question went, he left his country further forward on\nthe road to real progress as regarded conditions of life for her citizens,\nand higher, broader ideas of her duty to other nations. As far as all\nthese questions went he did not live in vain, for to-day we are learning\nthe wisdom of his views for justice for the oppressed and for \"the cause\nthat needs assistance.\"\n\nHe was essentially one of those rare men who _prefer_ to be on the weaker\nside, and whose sword is ever ready for its defence and championship.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE TWO BROTHERS--SCHOOL AND COLLEGE DAYS\n\n\nFrancis William Newman was born at 17 Southampton Street, Bloomsbury\nSquare, on 27th June, 1805. His father was a London banker. Rev. T.\nMozley, in his _Reminiscences of Oriel_, says he was partner in the firm\nof \"Ramsbottom, Newman, Ramsbottom & Co., 72 Lombard Street, which appears\nin the lists of London bankers from 1807 to 1816 inclusive.\" He tells us\nthat the family of \"Newman\" (or, as it was originally spelt, \"Newmann\")\nwas of Dutch extraction. The father of Francis Newman had great schemes\nfor making England \"independent of foreign timber by planking all our\nwaste lands.\"\n\nIn 1800 John Newman married Jemima Fourdrinier, and in the year 1801 John\nHenry, the future Cardinal, was born. The latter and the subject of our\nmemoir were in effect the two sheaves before whom all the rest bowed down.\nThere were four other children: Charles Robert, Harriette Elizabeth,\nJemima Charlotte, and Mary Sophia.\n\n[Illustration: SEALE'S COFFEE HOUSE, OXFORD\n(NOW DEMOLISHED)\nDone from an old drawing in the year when Francis Newman and John Henry\nNewman stayed there with Blanco White.]\n\nJohn Henry and Francis went to a school at Ealing (of which Dr. Nicholas\nwas head-master), then, as Mr. Mozley says, considered the best\npreparatory school in the country. There were three hundred boys there at\nthat time, but none were so brilliant or showed so much talent as the two\nNewmans. One after the other they rose to the top of the school. Frank was\ncaptain in 1821. There was some talk of removing John Henry after he had\nspent some years there, but he himself begged to be allowed to remain a\nlittle longer. Miss Anne Mozley, in her _Life and Correspondence of John\nHenry Newman_, quotes Dr. Nicholas as having said, \"No boy had run through\nthe school from bottom to top as rapidly as John Newman.\" He was eight and\na half years at Ealing; yet during the whole of that time, it is reported\nthat his school-fellows declared they had hardly ever seen him play in any\ngame, though at that time games did not occupy the prominent place in the\ncurriculum of schools that now they do in our day.\n\nIt was not until his last half-year that one of the greatest spiritual\ninfluences of his life began. It was one of those seemingly curious\nchances which sometimes change a man's, or a woman's, whole outlook; and\nbeginning, as it seems at the time, quite casually, quite unconsciously,\nlead not only the one chiefly concerned, but others, far afield into\nabsolutely new environments.\n\nQuite, as it seems, by chance, the destiny of a lifetime approaches\nthrough the conventional door of everyday life--steals up, lays the hand\nthat none can resist on the handle of some door which opens of itself into\na new, a wider world. Before one is aware of it, perhaps, one's feet have\ncrossed the threshold into the Land of the New Outlook, and \"old things\nare passed away.\"\n\nIn August, 1816, John Henry Newman found himself at school, in a sense\nalone, because his special personal friends there had left, and thus he\nbegan to be thrown more and more under the influence of the Rev. Walter\nMayer (of Pembroke College, Oxford), who was one of the classical masters.\nLong religious talks with him had a great effect upon his mind, and he\nhimself traces much of his spiritual development to Mr. Mayer's point of\nview in religion. He was what is known as a \"high Calvinist.\" When school\nwas over for John Henry and Francis Newman, Mr. Mayer's influence was not\nlost, for both the brothers wrote to him, and stayed with him, when some\ntime later he became curate to the Rev. William Wilson at Worton.\n\nWhen his brother left school and went straight to Trinity College, Oxford\n(though only fifteen years of age), Frank remained on at Ealing for a\ntime; and then, when he was seventeen, went up to Oxford to join him, and\nbe with him through the Long Vacations in preparation for entering\nWorcester College in 1822. [Footnote: They lodged first at Scale's Coffee\nHouse in 1821, then at Palmer's, in Merton Lane, in 1822. Both now are\npulled down.] In Anne Mozley's volume there occur several entries\nregarding this time from J. H. Newman's letters. For instance, on 25th\nSept., \"Expecting to see Frank. I am in fact expecting to see you all. I\nshall require you to fill him full of all of you, that when he comes I may\nsqueeze and wring him out as some sponge.\"\n\nIt is necessary, before touching further on the college life of the two\nfamous brothers, to remember that early in life there was a strong\nspiritual antagonism between them as regarded their points of view--\nreligious, social, political, etc. And this notwithstanding the fact that\na very real affection for each other existed in both, which made the\ninevitable disputes in no sense unfriendly bouts, but only the exercise of\ntwo keen wits of very different calibre.\n\n[Illustration: WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD\nVIEW OF COLLEGE BUILDINGS FROM THE GARDENS]\n\n[Illustration: WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD\nFRONT QUADRANGLE]\n\nBoth had been trained in a home of strict Calvinism. Both had eminently\nreligious tendencies. Both, when the time came for judging for themselves,\nthrew aside the grim tenets which they had been taught as children to\nbelieve, and struck into absolutely different paths.\n\nThere is a very pathetic incident in their home life, which occurred just\nbefore Frank Newman went to college, which reveals to the thoughtful\nreader a world of information as to what was the attitude of thought in\nthat household.\n\nI quote from J. H. Newman's diary:--\n\n\"Sept. 30, 1821. Sunday. After dinner to-day I was suddenly called\ndownstairs to give an opinion whether I thought it a sin to write a letter\non Sunday. I found dear F---- had refused to copy one. A scene ensued more\npainful than any I have experienced.\" And adds, \"I have been sadly\ndeficient in ... patience, and filial obedience.\"\n\nI quote this chiefly to show that at sixteen Francis Newman [Footnote: In\nlater years Francis Newman declared that he had been \"converted\" in 1816,\nand again confirmed in religious conviction in 1819, from the influence of\nthe writings of Dr. Doddridge.] was certainly under the Calvinistic\ninfluence still, and that he was very dogged in upholding its rules and\nrestrictions. During the last months of the year 1822, the latter read\nwith his brother at Oxford, and from time to time, in his letters home, J.\nH. Newman mentions him [Footnote: _Letters and Correspondence of J. H.\nNewman_, by Anne Mozley.] as working and reading in preparation for\nentering Worcester College.\n\n\"Frank ... seems to have much improved.... I am convinced that he knows\nmuch of Greek as a language, in fact is a much better Greek scholar than\nI.... Again, he is a much better mathematician than I am. I mean, he reads\nmore mathematically, as Aristotle would say.\"\n\nIt is necessary here to mention a great blow which fell on the Newman\nfamily soon after John Henry Newman had gone to college. His father's bank\nfailed. There was no bankruptcy, and everyone was paid in full, but still\nit naturally proved a time of great family trial; for though his father\ntook the Alton brewery and tried to make his way in this new line, yet it\nwas not a successful venture. Happily, by this time, J. H. Newman was not\nonly able to maintain himself, but also to help his people. Rev. T. Mozley\nmentions that in 1823 Newman had been elected to a Fellowship at Oriel,\nadding that \"it was always a comfort to him that he had been able to give\nhis father\" (who did not live many years after the bankruptcy), \"this good\nnews at a time of great sorrow and embarrassment.\"\n\nIn 1826 Francis Newman took first-class honours in classics and\nmathematics, and gained a Fellowship in Balliol College. The college\nauthorities described his as one of the best \"Double Firsts\" ever known.\nAs, however, he felt conscientiously unable to sign the Thirty-nine\nArticles, he was obliged to resign his Fellowship, and could not take his\nM.A. degree.\n\nMany a man must have felt in his inmost self that a bona fide signing to\n_all_ of the Articles was a task beyond his mental reach. There are points\nin numbers 8, 17, 22, 25, for instance, which are difficult indeed to\nreconcile with the highest ideal of the Christian religion. One looks at\nthe reprinted introduction (1562) which prefaces them, and one sees that\n_it_ was traceable to that irreligious old sensualist, the father of Queen\nElizabeth. One sees that it dated back to the time when the Church in this\ncountry began to be more especially \"by _Law_ established,\" instead of \"by\nChrist established,\" as was the case in early ages of its formation. One\nsees, too, that part of the reasons for this preface being set forth was\nvery evidently the reiteration of the kingly assertion that \"We are\nSupreme Governor of the Church of England,\" although the ostensible reason\nwas because of the \"curious and unhappy differences\" which seemed, in His\nMajesty's opinion, to show the wisdom of decisive adjudication with\nrespect to those \"fond things vainly invented,\" for which some of his\nsubjects had so great an affection.\n\nFrancis Newman by the time he had reached the age of twenty-five, however,\nhad been finding out, more and more, that he could not receive most of the\nChurch dogmas. While his brother and he had been practically re-adapting\nto their needs and growing personal convictions the Calvinistic religion\n(some writers, I am aware, consider that to have been more Puritan than\nCalvinistic), given them by their mother in their childhood days, John\nHenry Newman had drawn ever closer to the authority of the Church, while\nFrancis found himself seceding more and more from her, and more and more\ndrifting into undogmatic religion. It will be remembered that there had\nbeen originally an idea that he should take Holy Orders. This, however,\nvery soon during his college life he found to be impracticable of\nattainment, owing to his own pronounced and undogmatic views.\n\nAt that time, Cardinal Newman has said, earnest religious feeling among\nthe undergraduates was decidedly rare. Only one in every five could be\ncalled religious-minded. So that the influence of these two young men,\nwhose very evident purpose was to attain some measure of spiritual truth,\nwas the more remarkable and powerful among their fellow students.\n\nIt was J. H. Newman, indeed, on one occasion who, on remonstrating with\nthose in authority, that the undergraduates should make their communions\nat certain stated intervals because of the fact that he himself had seen\nsome of them get intoxicated at the college \"breakfasts\" on the _very_ day\nafter the service--was met by the remark that even if such a thing _did_\nhappen, they would rather not know of it!\n\nNot far from Oxford there is a little village called Worton (or W_a_rton,\nas I see in old papers it used to be spelt), or rather there are two\nvillages--Over Worton and Nether Worton, or Upper Worton and Lower Worton.\nThey lie between Banbury and Woodstock, near Oxford. Mr. Bateman, in his\n_Life of Bishop Wilson_ (1860), says \"their united population, consisting\nof farmers and agricultural labourers, does not exceed two hundred.\" From\none village to the other is a distance of about three-quarters of a mile,\nor perhaps a little less by the field path. Mr. Bateman says that before\nBishop Wilson came, \"the church was much neglected, as a sporting curate\nused to race through the services so as to get through in as little time\nas possible.\"\n\nMr. Wilson revolutionized all this. He was accustomed to preach straight\nto \"his people.\" He seems, indeed, to have preached too \"straight\" for\nsome, for after some sermon he had given in an adjoining parish, a lady\nwho had \"sat under him\" said to her vicar, \"_Pray_ do not let Mr. Wilson\npreach here again. He alarms me so.\"\n\nI am indebted to the Rev. W. H. Langhorne, present Rector of Worton, for\nthe following information about the place. He tells me that the church is\nof the thirteenth or fourteenth century; Early decorated, but so altered\nby Derick in 1844 \"as almost to destroy its identity.\" The chalice in Over\nWorton Church has the date 1574 upon it. The rectory is about one hundred\nyears old. The low building attached to it on the left (in the photograph)\nwas added in 1823. The parish of the two Wortons has for years been a\nfamily living in the possession of the Wilsons, so an old friend, a\nrelation of Bishop Wilson, tells me. It was at Worton Church that John\nNewman preached his first sermon, 23rd June, 1825.\n\nRev. Walter Mayers went as curate, in 1823, to Rev. William Wilson, and\ntook charge of Worton parish. In the following year he met--and later\nmarried--my aunt Sarah Giberne. She and her sister had been staying with\nRev. and Mrs. William Wilson, and it was there that Mayers first made her\nacquaintance. Mr. Mayers asked Frank Newman, during the Long Vacation, to\ncome and help him in teaching the pupils who came to read with him at\nWorton. Newman was then nineteen. He had been four years longer at the\nEaling School, under the tuition of Walter Mayers, than his brother, who\nhad gone to Oxford, according to the notion prevalent at that time, at\nabout the age of fifteen or sixteen. Francis Newman says, consequently, \"I\nknew him (Mayers) much better than did my brother.... He allured me to his\nnew curacy, three miles from Deddington, Oxon, to help him in mathematics\nwith his pupils; first 1822, and again in 1823, after his marriage.\"\n\nIt was in connection with this marriage of Mr. Mayers to Sarah Giberne\nthat the two families of Newman and Giberne first became acquainted, and\nthat friendship began which lasted throughout their lives.\n\nSarah Giberne was the daughter of Mark Giberne, who, in partnership with\nMr. George Stainforth, was court wine merchant in 1750. He came of an old\nFrench family, descended from the noble Jean de Giberne, Sieur de\nGibert\u00e8ne, in the sixteenth century. The family owned two castles in the\ncountry of the Cevennes, which were destroyed by the Camisards. In the\nseventeenth century some of the family came over and settled in England,\nand it was from this branch of it that Gabriel de Giberne, secretary to\nSir Horace Mann, was descended, and from his son Mark--Sarah Giberne--who\nmarried Rev. Walter Mayers.\n\nI shall now give extracts from the diary of Mrs. Benjamin Pearson (_n\u00e9e_\nCharlotte Elizabeth Giberne), to which I have access through the kindness\nof my cousin, Mr. George Pearson. It was in the spring of 1823 that Sarah\nand Charlotte Giberne spent a week with John Whitmore and his wife, Maria,\nthe daughter of their father's partner, Mr. Stainforth (of the firm\n\"Stainforth & Giberne\"). Mrs. Pearson mentions that they both helped her\nand her sisters to a \"knowledge of the Scriptures and of the Christian\nlife.\"\n\n[Illustration: WORTON CHURCH, OXFORDSHIRE\nFROM AN OLD PRINT\nBY KIND PERMISSION OF REV. V. H. LANGHORNE]\n\n[Illustration: HOLY TRINITY, WEST END, OVER WORTON, MAY, 1905\nBY KIND PERMISSION OF REV. W. H. LANGHORNE, PRESENT RECTOR OF WORTON]\n\n\"We were introduced by Maria, Mrs. Whitmore, about June, 1823, to a good\nclergyman who had lately come to reside at Walthamstow, about two miles\nfrom our home\" (they were living at Wanstead), \"the Rev. William Wilson,\nwho received us into his friendship, and whose preaching we attended with\njoy and profit for several years.\n\n\"It was on Christmas Day of this year, I think, that we first heard the\nRev. Walter Mayers preach from Nahum i. 7 a most beautiful experimental\ndiscourse which impressed us very much. On making enquiry concerning him,\nwe found that he was Mr. Wilson's curate at Worton, in Oxfordshire, and\nthat he received pupils into his house. Later, their brother, Charles\nGiberne, was sent for a year to him. This led to Mr. Mayers being invited\nto dinner at our house. There he formed an attachment to Sarah, to whom he\nwas married the following year, 1824.\n\n\"In the midsummer holidays, 1825, I went to pay a visit to Walter and\nSarah, and it was then I first made acquaintance with John and Frank\nNewman. The latter was spending the Long Vacation with Mr. Mayers to\nassist him in teaching the young men, though he was only nineteen. Among\nthese pupils was Charles Baring, seventeen years old, afterwards Bishop of\n(the Palatinate see) Durham.\n\n\"John Newman walked over from Oxford to breakfast one morning: he was then\ntwenty-four, and a most interesting young man; but him I only saw then\nonce, whereas his brother (Frank) was our daily companion, and took great\npains in instructing Sarah (Mrs. Walter Mayers) and myself in Political\nEconomy. His talents and piety attracted my admiration, for I had never\nseen such young men before. They had both been pupils of Mr. Mayers at a\nlarge school at Ealing (in which he was a master), and were considered to\nbe converted in very early life.\"\n\nLater on is another entry:--\n\n\"In the midsummer holidays of 1825\" (John Henry Newman was ordained priest\non 29th May, 1825), \"I went to stay with Walter and Sarah Mayers, and then\nbegan my first acquaintance with John Henry Newman and his brother Frank.\nThe former having walked over from Oxford, seventeen miles, to breakfast,\nand repeating Milman's beautiful hymn from the _Martyr of Antioch_,\n'Brother, thou art gone before us.'\n\n\"He was just twenty-four, and his brother Frank, who came soon after to\nassist Walter Mayers with his pupils ... was only twenty, but as bright a\nspecimen of a young Oxford student as I had ever met with. They had both\nbeen considered converted in early youth, and so uncommon an event was it\nto me to meet with Christian young men\" (men, that is, whose religion was\ntheir motive power, and not only used in the conventional and cold\nformality then usual in the case of so many families in England), \"that my\nadmiration knew no bounds. Of course, I told my sister Maria ... all this,\nand she was quite prepared to appreciate in like manner, when she went to\nstay at Worton the following summer.\"\n\nWe come now to the time which, whether for happiness or regret, inevitably\nenters into the lives of most men on this earth--the time when they first\nmeet \"the Woman they Never Forget.\" It does not follow that they are able\nto marry her, but it _does_ follow that, meet whom they may later, no one\nwill ever oust from her place that first woman in their memories.\n\nFrancis Newman was only twenty-one when he first met her.\n\nMaria Rosina Giberne was a beautiful girl, possessing special charm of\nmanner. It was not long after his first meeting with her that Frank Newman\nfell passionately in love with her. Long talks on scientific and religious\nsubjects passed between them. But though he cared for her, evidently her\nfeeling for him was only that of friendship and interest, for when, later,\nhe asked her to marry him, she refused. He did not, however, take this for\nan absolutely final decision (as in effect it was), for five or six years\nlater, when he was on his missionary journey to Syria, and he wrote and\nbegged her to give him a different answer, she refused him again.\n\n[Illustration: OVER WORTON RECTORY, OXFORDSHIRE\nBY KIND PERMISSION OF REV. W. H. LANGHORNE, PRESENT RECTOR OF WORTON]\n\nThe extracts that follow are from her diary of the summer at Worton in\n1826--the year she first met the Newman brothers. The extracts are taken\nfrom an autobiography of hers, which was originally written in French for\nthe nuns of the \"Order of the Visitation\" convent at Autun, Sa\u00f4ne et\nLoire, to which she went, as professed nun, after her conversion to the\nRoman Church.\n\nThis is Maria Rosina Giberne's description of Worton (to which I have\naccess by the kindness of my cousin):--\n\n\"It was a delightful place; far from towns and quite country. There I\nspent my days as much as possible under the trees, or in the fields\nsketching the lovely views. My sister had told me that Mr. Francis Newman\nand a friend were coming to the village to spend the vacation. I did not\npay much attention, being preoccupied with this delicious solitude. In a\nwhile the two friends appeared, and I enjoyed hearing them talk, having a\ngreat respect for learned men, although far from being learned myself. I\nasked them questions and propounded religious difficulties which troubled\nme. I was struck with his (Frank Newman's) piety, which had nothing\naffected about it like the manner of some good people. We often talked\nwhilst I was sketching in the fields, and he explained to me many things\nin Holy Scripture that I had not understood. Before leaving the village he\nexpressed a wish that I could become acquainted with his sisters.... This\nidea pleased me much, and on returning home I gave our mother no peace\nuntil she gave me permission to invite two of his sisters to spend a\nfortnight with us.\n\n\"They accepted the invitation, and Mrs. Newman brought her three\ndaughters--Harriet, Jemima, and Mary. She left Harriet and Mary with us. I\nwas much taken at once with Mary, who was nice-looking, unaffected, and\nonly seventeen years of age. I was resolved to make friends with them,\notherwise should not have been greatly attracted by Harriet who had a way\nI could not understand, and who embarrassed me greatly by her knowledge of\nreligious matters, because I had thought that I might be able to lead\n_them_ to the good way, [Footnote: In some notes she expressly says this\nwas Frank Newman's suggestion primarily.] and behold, they seemed to know\nall beforehand, and often showed me that I was mistaken in my\nexplanations.... I remember the first thing I opposed with all my might\nwas the idea of a visible Church, and it was not till long afterwards,\nwhen I was staying with their mother in the country, that I took up this\nidea. It was, I think, in the winter of 1827 that I embraced this\ndoctrine.\n\n\"Then in the summer the Newman family stayed some months at Brighton.\nAfter John Newman's death the family had no settled home, but moved from\nplace to place. It happened that one of Maria Rosina's married sisters was\nalso at Brighton, and consequently it naturally followed that the two\nfamilies of Newman and Giberne met often.\n\n\"Naturally we called now and then to see Mrs. Newman, who invited us one\nday to spend the afternoon and evening, and then, for the first time, I\nbecame acquainted with Mr. Newman, now Father Newman. It was a great\npleasure, for I had heard so much about him, and I enjoyed seeing him\nthough he spoke very little to me, and paid me no compliments or special\nattentions like most young men of our acquaintance, who neglected the\nladies of their families. The delicate and repeated attention of Mr.\nNewman to his mother and sisters therefore aroused my admiration and\nrespect.\"\n\n[Illustration: SKETCH OF NEWMAN FAMILY BY MARIA ROSINA GIBERNE\nBY KIND PERMISSION OF MR. J. R. MOZLEY.\nAs one faces the picture, John Henry is sitting on Mrs. Newman's right;\nFrancis William to her left; Harriet to the right of John; Jemima below\nher mother.]\n\nTo my mind there speaks, in this last sentence, something unusual too as\nregards the writer, who, accustomed to the \"compliments and special\nattentions\" which other young men paid her, could yet appreciate and\nadmire these delicate thoughtfulnesses which _this_ young man, who saw so\nmuch further into the inner heart and meaning of things, loved to show to\nhis own mother and sisters instead of to other people's sisters, as was\nand is the ordinary way of most young men.\n\nIn some other MSS. by Maria Rosina, sent me from the Oratory, Birmingham,\n[Footnote: By the kindness of Father Bacchus.] there is a rather different\naccount, in which there is mention of Frank Newman having even then shown\na great tendency to free thought.\n\nShe adds: \"I had not a suspicion that there was any danger of his getting\nto care for me, for, firstly, he was two years younger than I was; and,\nsecondly, because I myself was occupied almost altogether with the thought\nof how to rid myself of the narrow religion which was becoming every day\nmore unbearable, and also because I had no other thought for him than for\nRobert.\" (Robert Murcott was a young man belonging to a family with whom\nher people were intimate, and who had always wished to marry her. He went\nout to India, and when he died left her all his money.)\n\nIn years to come, a great and lasting friendship began between her and\nCardinal Newman--a friendship which lasted unbroken to the end. When he\nwent to Rome for the red hat, he was too ill to call and see her at Autun\non his way home, but he had previously been to see her there.\n\nThe picture of the Newman family given here was drawn in chalks by her\nwhen she was a girl at a little cottage at Horspath (near Nuneham, in\n1829), at which the Newmans were staying. It had been offered them by Mr.\nDornford, Fellow, tutor, and proctor of Oriel, and afterwards rector of\nPlymtree.\n\nIn the book, to which allusion has before been made, by Rev. Thomas\nMozley, there is a description of Maria Rosina in later life. He says she\nwas \"tall, strong of build, majestic, with aquiline nose, well-formed\nmouth, dark penetrating eyes, and a luxuriance of glossy black hair. She\nwould command attention anywhere.... She was very early the warmest and\nmost appreciative of Newman's\" (John Henry Newman's) \"admirers.... Her\ngreat power lay in the portraits she did in chalks.... Besides many\nportraits of Newman himself ... she drew a portrait of old Mr.\nWilberforce....\"\n\nThe portrait of Maria Rosina in this volume was painted by herself in the\nspring of 1827, to send to her eldest brother, George Giberne (at Dhoolia,\nCandeish), afterwards Judge in the Bombay Presidency (East India Co.). On\nthe back of it her brother had written in pencil:--\n\n  \"Yes, here's a silent, thoughtful thing, and yet\n  Her soft blue eye beams Eloquence: her lips\n  Oh! who could teach his spirit to forget\n  Their deep expressiveness, that far eclipse\n  All that kind nature to this world hath given,\n  All we can see of Earth, or guess of Heaven.\"\n\n[Illustration: MARIA ROSINA GIBERNE\nFROM A PAINTING BY HERSELF]\n\nAt this time she had taken many portraits of her friends, and I have, in\nmy own possession, one of Miss Wigram, and one, in a riding-hat, of her\nsister Emily, both done in chalks, as is her picture of herself sent to\nher brother. Later on she went to Rome, where for twenty years she studied\nart and copied pictures \"for the use,\" Mr. Mozley says, \"of English\nchapels.\" Years after, when my aunt was in the convent of the Order of\nVisitation at Autun, she wrote an interesting letter to Cardinal Newman,\nwhich is given by Miss Anne Mozley in her _Letters and Correspondence of\nJohn Henry Newman_ alluding to the old days when their friendship, which\nhad never wavered during all the years which had gone by, was but just\nbeginning:--\n\n\"I do not want to talk of myself. I want to tell you of my entire sympathy\nwith you in what you say and feel about the anniversary of dear Mary's\"\n(the Cardinal's youngest sister) \"death.\" (She died 5th Jan., 1828.) \"This\nseason never comes round without my repassing in my heart of hearts all\nthe circumstances of those few days--my first visit to your dear\nfamily.... Who could ever have been acquainted with the soul and heart\nthat lent their expression to that face, and not love her? My sister Fanny\nand I arrived at your house on 3rd January, and sweet Mary, who had drawn\nfigures under my advice when she was staying with us at Wanstead, leant\nover me at a table in the drawing-room, and in that sweet voice said, 'I\nam so glad you are come; I hope you will help me in my drawing.'\"\n\nThe next day she was taken ill at dinner, and on the ensuing evening--\ndead.\n\nShe goes on to say: \"Do you recollect that you and I are the only\nsurvivors of that event?\"\n\nBut to go back to the end of the college life of the subject of this\nmemoir. In the year 1828, Frank Newman was working amongst the poor at\nLittlemore, near Oxford. His brother [Footnote: _Reminiscences of Oriel_,\nby Rev. T. Mozley.] at that time was vicar of S. Mary's, the University\nChurch, and as the hamlet of Littlemore had then no church, [Footnote: A\nchurch was built there later by Newman. In Ingram's _Memorials of Oxford_,\n1838, it is said that in former days Littlemore was beautifully wooded,\nand that in Saxon times there was a convent (of which there still remain\nsome ruins) which was called by the Saxon name of the \"Mynchery,\" and\nwhich belonged to the nuns of the Benedictine Order, and the church which\nAlfred built on the site of the University Church of to-day, was known as\nearly as the Conquest as \"Our Lady of Littlemore.\"] he attended to the\nspiritual needs of the people there. Indeed, he considered it his duty to\ngo there every day; and Francis worked also constantly with him in\nteaching the villagers. Some little time later, his mother and sisters\ncame to live at Horspath, in Iffley village, close to Oxford. They, too,\nassisted in parochial matters, taught in the schools, visited the sick,\nand generally helped the brothers.\n\nBy this time John Henry Newman's sermons were attracting great attention\nin Oxford, and whenever he preached his University sermons, he had a\ncrowded congregation of undergraduates. The college authorities, however,\ndid not approve of his popularity with the undergraduates, and in Canon\nCarter's _Life and Letters of Archdeacon Hutchings_, there is a note\nshowing this:--\"I went to Christ Church in 1827.... Newman was at Oriel,\nand for the last two years of my time Vicar of S. Mary's. But it was the\nobject of the college authorities to prevent our going to hear him preach,\nand the chapel services were so arranged as to make it impossible.\"\n\nIn 1829 Dr. Pusey was Professor of Hebrew and Canon of Christ Church, and\nas he had been for some years the close friend of Frank Newman's brothers,\nit was inevitable that the former should see a great deal of him at that\ntime. He was delighted with Pusey's first books; but it was for the\n\"pietism and rationalism\" which he found in them, more than for any hint\nof the spirit of Churchmanship which distinguished his other works so\nmuch. J. H. Newman had been a tutor at Oriel College since 1826. Oriel\nCollege, Rev. Thomas Mozley tells us, was then \"held to be in the very\nfront of academic progress ... with a Provost\" (Edward Hawkins) \"who owed\nhis election largely to Newman.\" Newman, Robert Wilberforce, and Froude\nwere close friends. Dr. Hawkins had a strong influence over John Newman.\nIndeed, he had won love and respect from almost everyone; \"he spoke\nincisively, and what he said remained in the memory\"--so much a part of\nhis own strong convictions and thought did it seem to be.\n\nYet Francis Newman was as convincing in his _writings_, at any rate, as\nhis better-known brother, who, as some thought, \"overshadowed\" him in the\neyes of the world to a large extent. A friend of mine, writing to me a\nshort time since, said that a statement had been made recently, by some\none entitled to judge of the matter, that Francis was the \"greater of the\ntwo brothers.\"\n\nBe this as it may, certainly both were pioneers \"in a world movement of\nreconstruction.\" Both were prophets in a sense. Both were mental Samsons--\ngiants among the crowd of those who never see a yard beyond their own\nnarrow scope of vision. Both were inspired movers of the crusade of\npurity, of new and original points of view, and of reformation in the old.\n\nIt is true neither could work with the other shoulder to shoulder. _But\nthey worked._ And it is possible to have a great brotherly affection\nnotwithstanding strong antagonism of views which render combined work\nimpossible.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nHIS MISSIONARY JOURNEY TO THE EAST\n\n\nIn 1826 Francis Newman gained, as it is said, with no special effort, one\nof the best Double Firsts in classics and mathematics ever known. He had a\nFellowship in Balliol College, was Emeritus Professor later, and\nconsidered to be one of the most promising, brilliant men at his\nUniversity. Many thought his intellect superior to that of his better-\nknown brother. Many thought also, later on, that, as I have said, all his\nlife he was more or less overshadowed by the fame of that elder brother.\n\nFrancis Newman never took his M.A. degree, and for this reason: he felt he\ncould not conscientiously sign the Thirty-nine Articles, in which all had\nto profess belief. He could not reconcile this signing with his inner\nconvictions. Rather than do violence to them he preferred being without\nthe degree. No one could say of him that all his life long he did else\nthan bear his convictions boldly emblazoned on his shield. There could\nnever be any doubt of what he thought. He could not beat about the bush in\nhis beliefs--he would not keep them secret--he did not care for\nunpopularity in the least. His great aim was to fight--at whatever odds--\nfor whatever he felt by dogged conviction. He was often wrong; but never\ncowardly, never philandering, never vacillating. \"I am anti-everything,\"\nas he said humorously of himself. And so he was. He _was_, in a sense,\n\"anti-everything,\" and though, sometimes through the training of previous\nenvironments, sometimes through other reasons, he was \"anti\" things that\nwere right and of good report, he was never against social reform--never\nagainst \"the cause that needs assistance\"; never against the oppressed\nwherever and whenever they crossed his path. Newman thus gave up his\nBalliol Fellowship, and with it--more or less--his chances of a brilliant\nworldly career.\n\nBriefly stated, these are the chief events of the years that followed the\ntaking of the Double First at Oxford. In 1827 he met Maria Rosina Giberne,\nwho was to strongly influence his life for the next six years. In 1828 he\nwas working with his brother at Littlemore; in 1829, I imagine, he met and\nfelt strongly in sympathy with some of those with whom, later, the\nmissionary journey to Syria was planned--Lord Congleton, Mr. Groves, Dr.\nCronin, and others.\n\nPeople have said that Newman gave up all worldly hopes of fame for the\nsake of this missionary venture. It may be that that is true in part. But,\nfor myself, I cannot help seeing too that there may very well have been\nother powerful reasons which also influenced him in the matter. It was\nabout this time that he asked my aunt, Maria Rosina Giberne, to whom he\nwas passionately attached, to marry him, and was refused. I think it very\nprobable that this may have been a strong reason why he wished to break up\nthe old life and go for change abroad.\n\nOriginally there had been some idea that Francis Newman should take Holy\nOrders, as well as his brother. This is evidenced by a poem by the latter.\nLater, contrary tides swung the former from the mooring of the Anglican\nChurch. He could not sign her Thirty-nine Articles; he could not agree\nwith many of her doctrines. He drifted more and more away from her. Then\nhe fell in with Lord Congleton (then Mr. Parnell) and Mr. A. N. Groves--\nboth deeply religious men, though neither of them Churchmen.\n\nLord Congleton [Footnote: _Memoir of Lord Congleton_, by Henry Groves.]\nhad been given no definite religious training in his youth, though his\nmother taught him to say daily prayers. Then, when a young man, he felt a\ndeep dissatisfaction with this vague religious teaching he had received,\nand he began to read more and more in the New Testament, until at length\nhe became a Christian by sheer conviction. He felt his conversion as a\nrevelation.\n\nMr. Groves, who was a well-known dentist in Devonshire, felt about the\nsame time a great stirring towards missionary work. He offered his\nservices to the Church Missionary Society. He often stayed in Dublin with\nLord Congleton. In 1828, when they were walking together, one of those\nstrange mystical approaches of soul to kindred soul took place.\n\n\"This, I doubt not, is the mind of God concerning us, that we should come\ntogether not waiting on any pulpit or minister, but trusting that the Lord\nwould edify us together by ministering as He pleased.\" Lord Congleton\nadds: \"At the moment he spoke these words I was assured my soul had got\nthe right idea, and that moment (I remember it as if it were but\nyesterday) was the birth-place of my mind as a 'brother.'\"\n\nHe mentions here Edward Cronin (who in 1830 formed one of the missionary\nparty with which Frank Newman was associated), at that time an\nIndependent, \"but his mind was at the same time under a like influence, as\nI may say of us all.\"\n\n[Illustration: PHOTO OF LORD CONGLETON\n(LEADER OF SYRIAN MISSIONARY JOURNEY)\nFROM HIS \"LIFE\" BY GROVES]\n\nI should perhaps say here (I have the information from the _Memoir of Lord\nCongleton_ before mentioned), that the special truths by which Lord\nCongleton, Mr. Groves, and Dr. Cronin were led then, were: \"The oneness of\nthe Church of God, involving a fellowship large enough to embrace all\nsaints, and narrow enough to exclude the world. The completeness and\nsufficiency of the written Word in all matters of faith, and preeminently\nin things affecting our Church life and walk--the speedy pre-millennial\nadvent of the Lord Jesus.\"\n\nAll three of the men just named had made surrender of all that the world\nhad to offer them, Lord Congleton giving the whole of his fortune to\nmissionary work. It was he who provided most of the things needed for the\njourney.\n\nIn 1830 (September) the following party left Dublin:--Lord Congleton (whom\nin future it will be simpler to call by his family name of Mr. Parnell, as\nNewman thus mentions him in his diary, the _Personal Narrative_, which he\nkept throughout this journey to the East); Mr. Cronin; his mother Mrs.\nCronin, and her daughter Nancy Cronin (to whom Lord Congleton was\nengaged); and Francis Newman. There was also a Mr. Hamilton, but later on\nhe found the work not suited to him, and returned to England. [Footnote:\nMr. Groves had already gone as a missionary to Bagdad in 1829, and they\nwere to join him later.]\n\nMr. Henry Groves says in the _Memoir_ that the travellers started with an\nenormous quantity of luggage. They had practically a small library of\nbooks, a lithographic press in two heavy boxes (for printing tracts,\netc.), and a large medicine chest, which was Mr. Cronin's property (he was\na doctor). When one thinks how the more one travels, even in these\ntravelling-made-easy days, the more one wishes to abridge one's\nrequirements and whittle down one's wants, it is not difficult to\nunderstand that in 1830 the difficulties of the rough travelling were\nlargely increased by these foods for the mind and for the stomach which\ntravelled in the wake of the little party, nor how they were hampered by\nthese conditions.\n\nI now quote from Francis Newman's _Personal Narrative_ (published 1856),\nwhich is one of the most interesting of travel books, and very graphically\nwritten in the form of letters to his friends at home. [Footnote: Newman\nand Lord Congleton were both at this time about twenty-three years of\nage.]\n\n\"River Garonne,\nAt Anchor in Steamboat,\n_23rd Sept._, 1830.\n\n\"We sailed finely on Saturday from Dublin, while sheltered by the Irish\ncoast; but in the evening we tasted the Atlantic with a south-wester,\nwhich proved a bitter dose. For nearly fifty hours we tossed, with very\nslow progress, until all our bones were bruised, etc., etc.... I have\nnever seen anything like the sea on the French coast.\n\n\"The Bay of Biscay fulfilled all its proverbial roughness: the whole sea\nwas dells and knolls. It was terrible to see the pilot jump aboard while\nhis boat was alternately tossed above our deck; he was caught by the\nsailors in their arms.... The custom-house officers have detained the ship\nso long that we are left here by the tide.... The officers were very\ncivil. They were all amazed at the number of our packages\" (as well they\nmight be!)... \"The prospect of our porterages is frightful. Think of us at\nthe top of a hotel and an army of porters carrying up the height of three\nstories many hundredweights of trunks, chests, hampers, bags, baskets, to\nstow into our bedrooms _for the night!_ And this misery is to be repeated\neverywhere....\n\n\"I talk French clumsily, yet get on somehow.... My French having been\nchiefly mathematical, I do not know the names of many common things....\"\n\nAt Toulouse in October:--\"I am already a Frenchman. If you doubt it, learn\nthat I take wine or raisins for breakfast, and never speak to a peasant\nwithout raising my hat.... This _vin ordinaire_ is not 'bad,' in the sense\nof intoxicating, but in another way. However, if it supplies the place of\ntea, it is vain to rail at it.\"\n\nThe next entry is while they were staying at Marseilles on 13th October,\nand concerns the cheapness of the provisions.\n\n\"All provisions appear within reach of the poorest. I have been in some\nvery low eating-houses here, and perceive apparently poor people breakfast\non meat. Nothing seems dear but milk and butter; we get none but goats'\nmilk here.... The finest purple grapes are here 1d. or 3/4d. a pound, and\nas much bread as I can eat for 1-1/2d.... I had a provoking accident at\nB\u00e9ziers. On our leaving the barge, the carman drove off without securing\nour boxes--he was in a violent passion against some girl porters (a\ndomestic institution of B\u00e9ziers).... I roared out, 'Arr\u00eatez! Arri\u00e8re! Vous\nn'avez pas attach\u00e9 la corde!' But in vain; and in an instant down came\nfrom the very top the little medicine chest given me by M----. It fell on\nits corner, which saved the glass bottles; but every dovetailing is\nbroken, the hinges wrenched off, the panels split.\"\n\nOf course the travelling is chiefly by diligence and canal boat, and for\nEnglish ladies very often terribly rough and trying. But Mrs. and Miss\nCronin had resolved to face discomforts, etc., equally with their\ncompanions, and would have no little ameliorations in the way of comforts\nfor themselves.\n\nOne great danger, too, occurred, from which they were only rescued by the\npromptitude of Newman and Mr. Parnell (as throughout the diary Newman\nalludes to Lord Congleton). Once, in travelling by canal near Marseilles,\nNewman found the level of the canal-boat was \"dangerously high, from the\narches. Once we had a narrow escape. There was a sudden cry of '_A bas_!'\nWe turned and saw we were rapidly nearing an arch which would knock off\nour heads. The horses kept at a short canter. Old Mrs. C. was sitting\nquietly on deck, wholly absorbed, and never dreaming that the sailors\ncould be calling to her. Miss C. was sitting on a box, fast asleep.\nSeveral of us rushed at once towards them, and pulled them off their seats\non to the deck. Literally they fell upon me in a heap, and we just passed\nsafe under the arch. Mrs. C.'s bonnet and my hat got smashed.\"\n\nHere comes a touch of what later on in life was to be the subject of his\nkeenest thought--the subject of statesmanship, the chief aim of which\nshould be _the people:_ how to make the land sufficient for the people,\nhow to make the people sufficient for the land--a counsel of perfection\nfar removed from the party spirit of politicians, who then, as now, did\nnot recognize that principles and a sacred sense of responsibility for\ntheir country should be their motive power.\n\n\"We are delayed here\" (Marseilles) \"for a ship. We are likely to go to\nCyprus. The vintage was going while we were _en route_ hither. I was\ninterested to see men walking bare-legged, stained purple nearly to the\nknee, _with treading the wine vat_. I then understood the Scripture\nmetaphor.... The men seemed to have been wading in blood.... I should\ndeprecate a whole district being dependent for its livelihood on the sale\nof wine.... for as _some_ seasons are sure to be fatal to the crop, the\nfailure, when it comes, is universal.... To make each component part--I\nmean each _local_ part--of society self-supporting, and self-relieving\neven in times of calamity, ought, I think, to be the aim of every\nstatesman.\"\n\nAs regards sight-seeing for sight-seeing's sake, it was _nil_. And for a\nreason which seemed not to allow for any of the travellers having\ndiscretion, \"We make it a tacit rule never to go ten yards to see\nanything; for if once we became sight-seers it is impossible to draw the\nline. So in fact I see nothing but what I cannot help seeing.\"\n\nThe next diary-tic letter is not until 14th January of the next year\n(1831), when the party had arrived at Aleppo.\n\nFrank Newman had been studying Greek and talking it with a master, and\nduring the voyage from Marseilles landed for three days at Larnica. On the\nship was an old Greek, and he used to go and talk with him to practise his\nGreek.\n\n\"You may be amused to hear his judgment of my Greek dialect; he called it\n'very beautiful and very funny'; that is, no doubt, because I am apt to\nmix up too much of the old Greek, which seems grandiloquent on trifling\nsubjects....\n\n\"Walking in the street at Larnica, I met a person whom I did not know,\nwho, to my extreme surprise, fell on my neck and kissed both cheeks quite\naffectionately, I had not recognized my dirty acquaintance in this clean,\nwell-dressed gentleman, probably fresh from the bath.\"\n\nMany were the difficulties Newman and his friends had to encounter in\nhiring a vessel to sail to Ladak\u00eea [Footnote: Laodicea of Syria.] on the\nopposite coast. At last a bargain was struck with a Turkish ship for five\npounds. But the ship had battled already against the contretemps of too\nmany voyages. She could no longer beat against the wind as once she used\nto do. Four times they set sail, and four times had to put back again into\nport. The captain had only an old French map \"marked with crosses at\ncertain places, the cross meaning _porto_, as the captain explained.\" He\nneeded help, however, from his passengers to be quite sure which was\nwhich! In this ship they lived with discomfort for a whole month. Still,\nall of the friends kept well. The distance from Ladak\u00eea to Aleppo is about\n120 English miles. And this journey added to discomfort, hardship, and to\nhardship--lack of food for the mission party. It necessitated travelling\nthree miles into the hills, and when a lofty bleak plain was reached, the\nmuleteers made it clear that they were to spend the night there.\n\n\"We heaped our rudest boxes to make a wall, and on the lee side prepared a\nsleeping-place, stretching over it some oilskins.... We had a small supply\nof food in baskets.... All night the rain fell in torrents.... Our whole\nfloor was swamped; we had to sit on carpet bags and let them get wet.\nClothes, bedding, bags, baskets, were drenched, and we had to mount in the\nmorning in the midst of rain.... The roads were river-beds.... After\nriding eleven hours without dismounting (the beasts never leave their\nwalking pace).... We had fasted the whole day, yet none of us suffered;\nnot even old Mrs. Cronin, for whom I greatly feared.\"\n\nI should add here that Francis Newman was strongly in favour of women\nriding astride instead of on the Early-Victorian side-saddle, which\nnecessitates a woman riding in an artificial, twisted position. Still, at\nthe period at which he is writing, Early-Victorian ideas about the fitness\nof things were so much _de rigueur_ that Mrs. Cronin, when forced to ride\nastride, was terribly disturbed.\n\n\"'Ach, Edward,' said she to her son, 'I expected they would persecute and\nmurdher us, but I never thought to ride across a mule!'... Three times did\nher mule come down with her, poor lady, and all three in dangerous places.\n\n\"None of the rest suffered so many falls, nor, I think, any of the laden\nbeasts. Her son was in terrible distress at every fall, for he was\ncarrying his infant in his arms ... and he could not put the child down in\nthe mud without danger to it.\"\n\nIndeed, it must have been a very distressful journey for all, and not\nleast for the poor little infant missionary! People may wonder what was\nthe necessity of taking this last at all. [Footnote: Dr. Cronin and his\nwife were both engaged to come out to Mr. Groves. Then she died, and as he\nfelt bound to fulfil his promise and did not like to leave the baby, he\nbrought it too.] An old clergyman, however, once said to me, \"I would\nrather take an infant in arms with me, than go all by myself on a journey\nabroad.\"\n\nAt last Aleppo was reached. In his letter, on 10th February to his mother,\nNewman says how long their stay there would be is quite uncertain. He \"is\ntaking daily lessons in Arabic, and speaking French.\"\n\n\"I am afraid you will not think the better of me when I tell you that I am\nbecome a smoker; and this though I had so great a dislike to it in\nEngland. I do not mean that I am always smoking--certainly not; but I have\nbought two pipes and amber mouthpieces, and all the apparatus; which shows\nthat I am in earnest. When a man in college smoked cigars in his room, and\nwe (the Balliol fellows) generally condemned it, I remember, in reply to\nmy remark that a man who smoked made himself a nuisance, one of them said,\n'It would not do to generalize; for in Germany the man who _objects_ to\nsmoking is the nuisance.' ... If anyone calls on me I must offer him a\npipe and smoke one myself; and, conversely, when I call on anyone, I must\nnot refuse the pipe.... The pipe fills up gaps of time, and 'breaks the\nice' like an Englishman's remarks on the weather....\n\n\"Now I am in for it, I will make you perfect in the theory of smoking. We\nhave here three sorts of pipes, of which I use but one, viz. the long\nstraight pipe. It is generally a cherry stick, and reaches from the mouth\nto the ground as you sit on a low sofa. The bowl is supported in a tin\nframe on the ground to catch the ashes; and you smoke in it _t\u00f4ot\u00f4on_,\nwhich means common dry tobacco.... Ladies, as far as I know, do not smoke\nthe straight pipe, though I have seen Mussulman females, evidently of\nhumble rank, with the long pipe and its smoking bowl protruding from under\ntheir long veil as they walked. The second sort is called _Narg\u00eeli_ ...\nsome pronounce it Narjili.... Narg\u00eeli means a cocoa-nut, which is used in\nthis apparatus to hold the water through which the smoke passes.\nVertically out of the cocoa-nut rises a pipe which ends in a long bowl\nholding the _Tambac_, which is a second species of tobacco having broadish\nyellow leaves worked up with wet. It needs a piece of red-hot coal laid\nupon it, and left there, to kindle it. Slanting out of the cocoa-nut\nproceeds upwards a second tube, a mere cane, which ends in the smoker's\nmouth. He grasps the vertical tube in his left fist, and, if sitting,\nrests the cocoa-nut on his knee. This is the way my hostess smokes--an\nelegant Levantine lady.... I cannot smoke through water; I find it demands\ntoo much work for my lungs. The third sort is the _Hooka_, a word which, I\nbelieve, means the very long flexible tube which is here substituted for\nthe cane, while a glass vessel, standing on the ground, does duty for the\ncocoa-nut. The principle of the smoking ... are the same as in the\nNargili.... Unless it be overdone, I think the exercise from early youth\nmust enlarge the capacity and power of the lungs.... When people have not\na second pipe to offer you, they hand the pipe from their own mouth, and\nto wipe the mouthpiece before you suck it would be an insult.\"\n\nNewman says that the Turks are supposed to have a great tenderness for\nanimals. There is a popular saying, which he quotes, \"A Turk cares more\nfor the life of a cat than of a man.\" The following curious scene was\nwitnessed by him in a town on his way to Aleppo:--\n\n\"A goat was to be killed, and we had some chance of a bit if one of us\nwould seize a part of the animal before it was dead. _There_ stood the\nvictim and its priest.\n\n\"In front was a row of cats, sitting up with all the gravity of Egyptian\ngods, or like the regiment of cats which were the van of Cambyses against\nEgypt. On the other side a regiment of dogs. When the scarlet flood\nspouted on to the ground the dogs took their portion of it. I know not\nwhat etiquette or what hint from the sacrificer suddenly dispersed them:\nthen the cats came in due order and took _their_ portion.... Peace was\nwonderfully kept between dogs and cats; but when it came to dividing the\noffal, the cats had plenty of screaming, and, I rather think, some\nfighting. The number of these wild cats here is a real nuisance.\"\n\nIn May we get another insight into the carrying out of Newman's precept to\nhimself, always to \"live in Rome as the Romans.\"\n\n\"I believe you know it was always our idea that we must put on native\nhabits wherever we went, so far at least as to encounter no needless\nfriction. I had not then considered how seriously such change may after a\ntime affect one's own character, and the thought sometimes crosses the\nmind anxiously.\n\n\"We smoke. Well. I say to myself, 'I must try not to be wedded to this\npractice: I hope to leave it off the moment it proves inexpedient.'.... I\nhave taken to the Syrian gown and slippers; to walk actively in these is\narduous and, I suppose, very singular. Here is a question: May not my\nbodily habit change with it? and may not that affect my mind?... The gown\nis ridiculously feminine, beyond what I had been aware; not merely in\nlength and amplitude, but above the girdle it is puffed out into two\n_bosoms_, which are used as pockets\" (no doubt the _sinus_ of the Romans).\n\"... Some things which in company we do as seldom as possible, such as to\nblow the nose, or (worse still) to spit, seem to be utterly forbidden\nhere.... The natives are reserved in the use of a pocket-handkerchief as\nthe most fastidious English lady.... I believe Xenophon praises the\nPersians for never spitting in company.\" (Would that our own working\nclasses could, in this respect, be more Persian in their habits!) \"Are not\nall Eastern manners probably a plant of very ancient growth?\" Then, on\nreligion: \"I did not understand till lately how unintelligible to people\nhere is a religion which is not external and almost obtrusive. We are\ncertainly thought much better of, because, two of our party having pretty\ngood voices, we commonly sing praises in daily worship.... To pray\nstanding, or, as I should rather say, lying flat, at the corners of the\nstreets is not ostentation here: for so many do it that it has no pre-\neminence.... I always looked to see a missionary church formed in these\ncountries; but I did not foresee what I now discern, that it would not be\nrecognized as Christians at all, but be esteemed a mere Anglicism, not by\npapists merely, but by Moslems too. I do not know, after all, whether that\ncould be ever a _permanent_ obstacle. I believe not; for it is not the\nname, but the goodness of Christianity that must prevail. However, the now\ncurrent idea here is, that the English are very good men, but have _no_\nreligion--which means, as I said, no exterior; and in so far _our_\nexterior inspires something of respect.... I had resolved to read the\nKoran through--not in the original, but in a translation--that I might get\nsome insight into the Mussulman mind.... But I confess to you I have\nbroken sheer down in the attempt, ... the book makes no impression on my\nmind. I cannot find where I left off when I recur to it. That so tedious\nand shallow a work can meet such praises gives me a lower and lower idea\nof the power of mind in these nations. I now think that the Arabs are\ncaptivated by the tinkle and epigrammatic point of an old and sacred\ndialect, while Turks and Persians take its literary beauty as a religious\nfact to be believed, not to be felt. How wonderful is the power of\ntradition!\"\n\nIn July, Newman and his party were still at Aleppo. By now they had become\nwell accustomed to the native foods, but had at last come to the\nconclusion that the meat (mutton) was certainly not good; unfortunately it\nformed a large proportion of the stews. One dish consisted of rice,\ndressed with butter and salt This is called \"Pil\u00e1u\" (pronounced \"ow\"), and\napparently is the same as that common in Russia to-day, which is\n_delicious_.\n\n\"This pil\u00e1u is, fundamentally, rice dressed with butter and salt: the rice\nis thrown into boiling water, and is boiled for twenty minutes only. This\nis the highest luxury of the Bedouins. We saw a company of them dine on\nit. They scraped the hot outside of the rice with the tips of their\nfingers, squeezed it into a ball in their hand, and shot the ball into\ntheir mouth. The dexterity of this, so as not to burn their fingers, miss\ntheir mouths, nor drop about their garments, is astonishing.... Carrots\nwith lemon or sour milk make delicious fritters....\"\n\nIt was during this month that the news came to them from Bagdad that Mr.\nGroves (who, it will be remembered, had been there for some time,\nexpecting them later to join him) had just lost his wife from plague; that\nshe had been the only one who had caught the disease. Newman himself,\nabout this time, had a sharp attack of fever. Dr. Cronin was much alarmed\nabout him; indeed, he believed him to be dying, and leeched his temples\nand bled his right arm. Then he tried calomel, and he said that he had\nresolved on opening his temporal artery if his pulse had kept as rapid as\nat first it was.\n\n[Illustration: DR. CRONIN\nONE OF THOSE WHO WENT TO SYRIA WITH FRANCIS NEWMAN IN 1830\nBY KIND PERMISSION OF MRS. CRONIN\nPHOTO BY MESSRS. WEBSTER, CLAPHAM COMMON]\n\nIn Aleppo, he tells us in one of his letters home, \"madmen are looked on\nas sacred characters... there are no madhouses in the land.... Certainly\nin England the results of turning all the mad loose would be awful.\n\n\"But when one sees the entire satisfaction there is here with so ugly and\nrevolting a state of things, and the inability people have to conceive the\ninconvenience of it... I am driven to speculate.... Is insanity\nexcessively rare here, so that outrages, if they do occur, are naturally\nvery few? or is the insanity... always of the imbecile kind? Or is\ninsanity, at its worst, mollified by the respectful treatment which it\nmeets, as vicious horses by kindness?\n\n\"... Here is a people without lunatic asylums. Well, their lunatics are\nfew or harmless; what a comfortable coincidence! If insanity among _us_ is\ncaused by strong passions in one class and by intoxication in another,\nwhile the Turkish populations are nearly free from both... it implies a\nhigher average morality.... Add to this there are no abandoned women\nhere.\"\n\nFive months after the first attack of fever Newman was taken ill of a far\nworse one, which gave a great shock to his nervous system. He was in real\ndanger of losing his life this time, possibly because, Dr. Cronin being\nabsent, there was no one to treat him. He suffered, too, greatly from\ncontinual sleeplessness. When he was recovering, Dr. Cronin, who by now\nhad returned, ordered horse exercise for him, and Mr. Parnell very\ngenerously bought a horse for him.\n\nIn December, 1831, Mr. and Mrs. Parnell [Footnote: Mr. Parnell meant to\nhave been married to Miss Cronin at Bordeaux, but this was found to be\nimpossible, so he was obliged to wait till they reached Aleppo, where the\nceremony took place in the early part of the year 1831.] went to Ladak\u00eea\nto help Mr. Hamilton, whose health had more or less broken down, secure a\nvessel to take him to France _en route_ for England. He determined to see\nhim safely on board. Mrs. Parnell also insisted on coming with her\nhusband. But the travelling was rough, and she had had a bad fall from her\nass, and besides had been ill and had no doctor at hand.\n\nMr. Hamilton went away in the ship, but Mrs. Parnell became more and more\nweak, until at last she died. Immediately on hearing of her death. Dr.\nCronin set out, full of sorrow at the loss of his sister, to see if he\ncould be of any help to Mr. Parnell. Newman writes:--\n\n\"The brother and mother here are so deeply afflicted, that I ask: What\ndoes the noble-hearted bridegroom suffer, but so lately a bridegroom?\n\n\"I am astounded at the reverse. Two months back she was hanging over my\npillow weeping and kissing me as a dying man; now am I in youthful vigour,\nand she is in her grave.\n\n\"What a meek and quiet spirit was she, active to laboriousness, though\nrefined in person. Affectionate she was, very dear to me also, but\nunspeakable is the loss to others. This is the third wife taken from those\nwhom I desired as comrades: one died in Dublin, one in Bagdad, now one in\nLadak\u00eea....\n\n\"No _blame_ against Mr. P. ought to be mixed with sympathy for this\nmelancholy event. His wife's brother, on medical grounds, saw no objection\nto the journey.... Few English ladies are in body so well adapted as she\nwas to bear the inconveniences, the long weariness, or the dangerous\nexposures of Turkish travel.\"\n\nAt last the time was come for the journey to Bagdad. Francis Newman and\nhis friends went with their own horses, and with European saddles and\nstirrups.\n\n\"The native broad travelling saddle overlaps the animal's sides like a\ntable, and tilts both ways. To get up at the side without help is a feat\nalmost impossible. Many a time Mr. Parnell got off to search after some\narticle of food or convenience for old Mrs. Cronin. To get up again, his\nmost successful way was to make a run from behind and _divaricate_ on to\nthe horse's tail, like a boy playing at leap-frog; but the beast was\nalways frightened, and bolted before he was well on. You will imagine the\nrest!... but we were all equally ludicrous, and indeed it is quite a\nserious inconvenience.\"\n\nThe next entry mentions the return of Mr. Parnell. He told them that Mr.\nHamilton seemed absolutely unable to learn a foreign language, and this\nundermined his spirits and health, and made him a depressing companion.\n\nOn 25th April Newman and his friends started from Aleppo. They had not\nanticipated such serious difficulties as befell them during this journey.\nIn the first place, they were not aware of the habits of the camel (at all\nevents, his habits in the spring of the year). They found to their\nconsternation that they work from two or three in the morning and travel\ntill ten. Many people, not natives, had assured them that camels never\ntravel by night, so they were the more unprepared for this unwelcome fact.\nThe night travelling might not have mattered for younger people, but on\nold Mrs. Cronin the discomfort fell heavily. She had to be \"forced out of\nher bed at one o'clock in the midst of the sharp cold of the night, and\nthen have to ride when she ought to sleep. The effect of it on her (for\nshe did not sleep by day) frightened us so much that at last we bought the\ndrivers over to our hours.... The caravanserai at Aintab is so\ndisagreeable a place for Mrs. Cronin that we enquired for a private house,\nand... we have hired one at the absurd price of three-halfpence sterling!\nIt has a large grassy yard, very convenient for our horses, We have now\nonly four, with the ass....\"\n\nHowever, they were not long at Aintab, for they were summoned before the\nGovernor and accused of selling four Turkish Testaments. Then, being\nunable to deny having done so, the Governor said, \"You must leave Aintab\nimmediately.\" He provided camels, and they had perforce to go, as they had\nbeen so dictatorially bidden. But this was not all. A mob of fanatics\nbeset them, followed them out into the country, and then pelted them with\nstones--first with small ones, but later with bigger ones, which could\neasily have stunned anyone who was hit by them. Presently a man galloped\nup and tried to seize Newman's horse's bridle, but he beat him off with an\numbrella. Some of the crowd called out that the Governor had ordered them\nto be killed.\n\nBy the time Newman returned to his party Mr. Cronin was lying on the\nground, and his mother declared that her son was dying. He had been set\nupon by men who had come to attack them, and beaten with fists, clubs, and\nstones. They tried their best to kill him. However, to Newman's intense\nsurprise he was not hurt inwardly, only weak from exhaustion and pain.\nThis was an almost unhoped-for comfort, and it was even found that he\ncould continue his journey before evening. By this time the crowd had\nentirely dispersed, for an official had been sent by the Governor, and\neventually he was able to quiet the people and send them off. Many of the\ntravellers' possessions were lost, many stolen, but, at any rate, though\ndiscomforts and dangers undreamt of had been theirs, at least they were\nnone of them seriously hurt; and that in itself was a thing for which they\nfelt infinitely thankful. At last the Euphrates was reached.\n\n\"We saw it first in splendid contrast to a chalk desert, the most odious\nplace through which I have travelled. We had soft chalk crumbling under\nfoot, into which the beasts sank over their fetlocks or deeper.... When we\nsurmounted the last chalk hills the green valley of the Euphrates burst\nupon us.\n\n\"It runs in a lowland excavation, bounded by opposite lines of high\nhills.... This valley was rich in the extreme, with trees scattered in it\nlike England; but the sides of the hills were well wooded.... The river is\nvery turbid, as if with white clay; it is unnaturally sweet, does not\ntaste gritty, and is painfully cold. We presume this is from the melting\nof snow water.... The river is deep, rapid, smooth, and (I judge) as broad\nas the Thames at Blackfriars....\"\n\nHe thus describes the raft they were having made to take them down the\nriver to Bagdad:--\"Rough branches of trees of most irregular shape and\nquite small are strung together crosswise by ties of rope, and under them\nare fastened a sort of flooring of goat-skins blown up like bladders....\nOn these is fixed a deck of planks. These rafts carry enormous weights and\ndraw very little water.\"\n\nIn the _Memoir of Lord Congleton_ the end of this journey is thus told:--\n\"They reached Bagdad on 27th June, and were met by Mr. Groves, who had for\nso many months been anxiously waiting for their arrival, after sufferings\nneither few nor light on both sides. It is hard to realize what such a\nmeeting would be after two such years of toil and suffering as the past\nhad been.\"\n\n\nSECOND PART--BAGDAD\n\nNo sooner had the missionary party at length settled down at Bagdad than\nmore trouble fell upon them. Mrs. Cronin, who had suffered almost more\nfrom the troubles, discomforts, and dangers of the journey than perhaps\nher friends guessed, grew worse and worse. She told Mr. Groves \"that she\nwas come hither to die,\" and it proved to be true; for only a few days\nafter her arrival she died, to the deep distress of her son. So already,\nbesides the unceasing discomforts, dangers, and disasters which had\nbefallen the missionaries, there had been the cost of these three lives--\nLord Congleton's wife, Mrs. Groves, and now old Mrs. Cronin, worn out by\nthe terrible weariness of their journeyings under such rough conditions.\n\nThere is one thing which has struck me very forcibly as regards Frank\nNewman's _Personal Narrative_, and it is this: Throughout the whole book\nthere is no mention of actual missionary work--the aim and object of this\njourney into Syria. There are, it is true, allusions to their own private\nprayer-meetings (of course they were hardly what one generally understands\nby the word \"private,\" but still they could not be termed public) and to\nthe distribution of New Testaments, but no actual _teaching_ is mentioned.\nNor does Newman write his own views on the subject. The diary-letters are\nchiefly filled with descriptions of the \"perils of the way\"--it is more or\nless secular. To me this has always seemed strange, for there was no doubt\nthat he was, with the others, filled with a very real religious Christian\nzeal _then_, although later his views unhappily underwent great change and\nalteration, until a few years before his death, when his earlier faith was\nrestored. But this fact remains: but for one's own previous knowledge of\nthe aim of this journey, one would hardly recognize the _Narrative_ as a\nmissionary's diary at all.\n\nIn the _Memoir of Lord Congleton_ there is far more missionary spirit; but\nstill, even there, there is but very little detailed information as to\nmission work. During their stay at Bagdad Lord Congleton and Mr. Groves\ndid indeed \"develop plans for missionary work\" which it was hoped would\nsoon prove successful. The former bought a large house in the midst of the\ncity for mission purposes. At first they thought of working among the\n\"Armenian and Roman Catholic Christian population,\" and also \"among the\nJews,\" but they found the Mohammedans in Bagdad \"peculiarly bigoted.\" And\nthey owned to themselves later that \"Bagdad had proved a failure in a\nmissionary point of view.\" Mr. Groves, who wrote the _Memoir of Lord\nCongleton_, indeed owns that, \"To many who look at life superficially,\nthese years may seem lost; but He who often leads us 'about' (Deut. xxxii.\n10) ... has purposes of which neither the one led, and still less the\nlookers-on, have any conception.... Thus to some these years of toil and\nsorrow _will_ appear a mistake.\"\n\nIt is impossible to doubt the earnest faith and missionary zeal of these\nfew who had come out to \"do the Lord's work\" in the East. But to many\nChurchmen it will be difficult to reconcile the words of Mr. Groves, that\n\"the Coming of Christ, the powers of the Holy Ghost, were truths being\nbrought before the _Church of God_\" when it is remembered that they had\npractically severed themselves from the _visible_ body of Christ's Church\non earth, and were themselves (without Divine authority as delivered once\nto the Apostles) celebrating each Sunday in their house the Lord's Supper.\n\nConstant mention is made in the _Memoir_ of the open persecution which the\nmission party suffered in Bagdad, and of \"the impossibility of access to\nthe people.\" There were a few converts to Christianity made, but only a\nfew; and the disappointments were many and grievous.\n\nThen, too, their party was lessened by the departure of Frank Newman and\nMr. Kitto for England. No reason is to be traced for this decision of\nNewman's, and it is not easy to understand what it could have been. It\nhappened during the spring months of the year 1833, and shortly after his\nsecond proposal to Maria Rosina Giberne and her second refusal. He had\nwritten begging her come out to Bagdad, marry him, and work with them\nthere. No doubt her refusal was a bitter disappointment to him, and\npossibly he wished to go back to England (he said in his diary he did not\nknow how long he might stay there), and try if he could not persuade her\npersonally. But if he thought this, he was again disappointed, for his\nmeeting with her (as I see from some papers written by my aunt and kindly\nsupplied me from the Oratory, Birmingham), was of no more avail than\nbefore. She mentions having met him shortly after his return, and it is\nevident that it was a meeting not devoid of awkwardness on her part and\ndisappointment on his.\n\nTo go back to the letters from Bagdad, after this digression, Newman gives\na very graphic account of the rafts used for travelling on the river from\nMoosul.\n\n[Illustrations: PERSIAN LADY AND PERSIAN SMOKING\nDATE, 1827\nFROM PERSIA IN \"MODERN TRAVELLER\" SERIES\nBY JOSIAH CONDER (pub. 1830)]\n\n\"The rafts used for descending the river consist of a rude deck fastened\nto a flooring of blown-up goatskins.... They are used for swimming\nbladders as in the ancient world. They serve for barrels to carry\nwater.... The skins are also used in the bazaars ... for butter, treacle,\nhoney, etc.... The raft is not rowed, except barely to keep it in the\nstream. It keeps twisting round and round, like a stone in the air;... but\n... you have all the freshness and life of a vast streaming river and all\nthe tranquillity of a mere pond.... One day, a man who wished to go down\nthe river on our raft swam to us on a goatskin.... As a Thames wherry to a\nThames steamer, so is a goatskin to a raft.... It has no prow nor\nstern.... If driven ashore it may burst many of the skins, some of which\nindeed from time to time need to be blown and tied afresh.... The oars are\nenormous, as in English barges. In our small raft two men at a time\nrowed.... I cannot tell you now of Mr. Groves's plans. I have a great deal\nto learn. The political state of this city, from within and without, is\nthe very reverse of satisfactory.\" Then there follows a sentence which\nseems to imply that Mr. Groves was expecting too much from his \"_monthly_\nvisits\" to the Arabs in the way of moral results. Also there follows a\ndelightful account of the native doctor's methods of dealing with his\npatients. He \"contracts to _cure_ the patient ... for a definite sum,\nwhich is paid to him at once. If the patient thinks the price too high,\nthe doctor lets him get worse; and when he applies anew, of course raises\nhis demand. Nothing can be recovered if not paid down. Mr. Cronin\" (the\ndoctor travelling with them), \"with all his practice at Aleppo, got fees\nonly once or twice the whole time. He and Groves both despair of it here.\"\n\nEnglish patients when they use to their doctor the familiar phrase, \"I put\nmyself entirely in your hands,\" little think how completely and\npractically this was understood by these Bagdad doctors, who considered\nthat a dollar in the hand is worth two promised _after_ treatment of a\ncase, and who, when they once had patients \"in their hands,\" held them\ntight!\n\nIt is clear, I think, from the following entry that Newman did not approve\nthoroughly of Mr. Groves's methods of learning Arabic, any more than he\nseems to do of his \"monthly visits\" to the Arabs. He says that a friend of\ntheirs, who had recently joined them, had studied Arabic and Persian\ntwenty-eight years, and is an accomplished Orientalist, yet he \"ridicules\nEnglish notions of learning.\" Our religion, poetry, philosophy, science,\nare so opposed to everything here \"that, he says, nothing but long time in\nthe country can make an Englishman intelligible on religious subjects.\" To\nconfirm this theory that a perfect knowledge of the language of the people\nto be taught is an absolute essential in a missionary--it is known, for an\nabsolute fact, that missionaries have been eight years in India preaching\nuntil even they became convinced that sometimes they gave a totally wrong\nimpression of what they were trying to teach to the natives, and therefore\ngave up all further efforts at teaching until they had learnt the language\nmore _thoroughly_, and had it at their finger's--or, to speak more\ncorrectly, tongue's--end.\n\nEventually Mr. Groves came to the conclusion that for a long time to come\n\"the wisest method\" was to \"avoid controversy with the Moslems.\" He formed\nschools not on the ground of \"attending to the rising generation,\" but to\naid him in the language ... give him opportunities of \"trying his wings\n(as he calls it) against Christian errors, and exciting the attention of\nMoslems. Indeed, several (chiefly Persians) have come privately and begged\nNew Testaments to send to their friends in Persia. At present I conceive\nhe has nearly the whole Christian population here in his hands.\" And\nlater, \"Groves has not at all disappointed me, do not think that from\nanything I have written. He is what I expected from his book, and a great\ndeal more. He has a practical organizing directing energy which fits him\nto be the centre of many persons, especially since it is combined with\nentire unselfishness and a total absence of personal ambition or _desire_\nto take the lead which he does take. He is very sanguine.... I am apt to\nbe sadly faithless, and to see nothing but difficulties.\"\n\nPerhaps his lack of conviction that this effort at missionary work _could_\nmake its way in spite of so many great difficulties, as well as his own\nbad health (he states that he had not had a single day of real health\nsince they have been at Bagdad), had something to do with his decision to\nreturn to England.\n\nIn August, 1832, Newman had a big class of boys every afternoon to whom he\ntaught English and Geography; he mentions that \"into the latter\" he puts\n\"a vast miscellany, physical, political, historical,\" from his knowledge\nand power of talk.\n\nOn 18th Sept., 1833, he left Bagdad. There is no entry in his diary\nbetween this and the last one in August, 1832, four months earlier. No\nword of his parting with his friends; no word of his reluctance to give up\nhis missionary work.\n\nBut there is, I think, a good deal more in these words written on 18th\nSeptember than meets the eye:--\n\n\"I am on my way to England for reasons partly personal\" (I think this\nhints at a hope not altogether dead, which had been his close companion\nthrough his two years of absence), \"partly connected with the interests of\nmy Bagdad friends, _and my imagination is in England_.\"\n\nIn his journey through Teheraun and thence to Tabreez, he passed through\nthe celebrated rock of Besittoun. The sculptures there are said to\nrepresent the conquest of Darius Hystaspis.\n\n\"Our caravan did not go close enough to see the sculptures; we were\nprobably half a mile off, but the muleteers were careful to point to them\nand talk of them. So too in going from Babylonia into Media by the ancient\npass of Zagros, they were eager to draw my attention to the sculptures in\nlofty, apparently inaccessible rocks. 'Your uncle made those,' said a\nmuleteer. At first I did not understand, but I found he meant by my uncle\nsome infidel. No true believer, he said, could have done it.... The pass\nmust be very ancient, and it is by far the noblest work I have seen in\nAsia.\"\n\nThe next letter is from Constantinople, 9th April, 1833.\n\n\"I am on my way to England, but do not know how long I may stay there.\" In\nhis journey from Erzeroom to Scutari, he says he \"became a mere animal\";\nhe could only think of his horse's feet and his horse's footing. He never\nfelt secure, for this reason: that the Tartar's horse, behind whom he\nrode, in the \"ladder road\" [Footnote: A \"ladder road\" is made by the\nhorses all following each other in one track, and each trying to step in\nthe steps made by the first horse.] beside the precipices, through the\nsnow, \"fell eleven times with him,\" and more than once fell over him.\nFrank Newman says his fear of falling prevented him from being able to\nadmire the scenery, when, as often, it was grand and striking. \"The Tartar\nstarts at a fast walk, gets gradually into a shuffle, and studies the pace\nand power of all the beasts; at last he takes a sharp trot, but slackens\nbefore any of them lose breath. His great problem is, that the _weakest_\nhorse of the set (who really sets the pace) shall come in well at last....\nI never imagined I could have gained a power of sleeping for an hour, or\ntwo hours, and at last even for ten minutes ... in our last week, in which\nI had no regular night sleep. He\" (the Tartar) \"could not sleep, for he\nhad two horses carrying gold ... but he dozed famously while on horseback.\nDr. Kidd used to tell us that the wrist, the eyelid, and the nape of the\nneck went to sleep before the brain--a charitable excuse for one who drops\na Prayer Book in church from drowsiness. I wish I could get Dr. Kidd to\ntell me whether the knee does not (at least by habit) remain awake after\nthe brain is asleep, for I never saw the Tartar loose in the saddle even\nwhen he was all nidnodding.\" Then comes again the suggestion of the doubt\nwhich beset Newman that the way in which his mission party at Bagdad, and\nsome Church Missionary workers at Constantinople laboured, was not a way\nwhich could long endure. That difficulties in the future inevitably must\ncome as lions in the path. \"Constantinople itself looks to me like mere\ncard-houses--bright blue and bright red; and they are not much better. By\nbeing perched up so steep, they force themselves on the eye.... Perhaps I\nam out of humour: Constantinople is so dreadfully dear to one who comes\nfrom Asia (I pay ten piastres, or half-a-crown, for my mere bed--full\nLondon price). It is also very chilly and raw.... Yet I do enjoy the bed\n_with sheets_, it is an inexpressible luxury. How I have longed for it,\nbut in vain, when suffering fever, to be able really to undress! But I\nmust not write of such matters, nor of more serious ones that distract my\njudgment and distress me.\n\n\"I have seen the American Missionaries here. He\" (Mr. Goodall) \"gives\nhimself entirely to promote the _self-reform_ of the Armenian Church. This\nfundamentally agrees with what Mr. Hartley, of the Church Missionary\nSociety, told me was the Society's proceeding against the Greek Church....\nIt also agrees with Groves's plan at Bagdad. I cannot censure it: I must\napprove it: yet I have a painful belief that it cannot long go on in the\nfriendly way they all design.... This zeal of the Americans for Turkish\nChristianity is a new and striking phenomenon.\"\n\nThe last entry in the _Personal Narrative_ occurs on 14th April, 1833,\nbefore Newman had left Constantinople. Very shortly after he departed, and\nnot very long after, all his connection with this two years and a half\nmissionary journey was a thing of the past.\n\nIt had been more or less a failure as far as regards outward consequences.\nOf that there seems no doubt. But there is also no doubt that it made its\nmark in spiritual matters in the minds of many. No doubt that it altered\nfor some their spiritual landmarks and rubicons. No doubt that the subject\nof this memoir came home seeing religion from a different standpoint.\n\nArchdeacon Wilberforce reminds us in one of his sermons, preached at\nWestminster Abbey, that the astronomers who built the pyramids of the Nile\npierced a slanting shaft through the larger pyramid, which pointed direct\nto the pole-star. Then, if you \"gazed heavenward through the shaft into\nthe Eastern night, the pole-star alone would have met your gaze. It was in\nthe ages of the past; it was when the Southern Cross was visible from the\nBritish Isles. Slowly, imperceptibly, the orientation of the planet has\nchanged. Did you now look up into the midnight sky through the shaft in\nthe Great Pyramid, you would not see the pole-star. New, brilliant space-\nworlds would shine down on you. But the heavens have not altered, and the\nshaft of the pyramid is not lying, or unorthodox. A new view of the\nheavens has quietly come, for the earth's axis has changed its place.\"\n\nVery slowly too, sometimes, the axis of a personality changes its place.\nIt may be that an entirely new point of view faces it. Some other view of\nlife \"swims into its ken.\" The mental eye can no longer see through the\nold means which served it in years gone by for lens. It is, as it were,\nlooking at a new place in life's sky: for a time it is quite unable to\nreconcile its old ideas of religious astronomy with the new ones. What\nthen? The sky is the same; but there are many ways of looking at it; and\nmany spiritual atmospheres which cloud the outlook. Frank Newman could not\nreconcile at this time, nor in those which were coming, his old\nCalvinistic tendency of thought with new ideas which were forcing\nthemselves in upon him. At the very end of life he saw the star of\nChristianity again, but this missionary journey which had just, for him,\nterminated, seemed to be more or less the rubicon which divided him from\nhis old faith, and from the rationalism to which he drifted during the\nyears while he was at Manchester, and University College, London.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nHIS MARRIAGE: HIS MOTHER'S DEATH:\nHIS CLASSICAL TUTORSHIP AT BRISTOL IN 1834\n\n\nIn Francis Newman's diary is this entry:--\"On June 27th, my birthday, I\nfirst saw Maria Kennaway at Escot.\" [Footnote: Escot, Ottery St. Mary, S.\nDevon, now in the possession of the present Sir John Kennaway, M.P.]\n\nEvidently the attraction between them was mutual, for the engagement\nfollowed quickly, and they were married the same year.\n\nMaria Kennaway was the daughter of the first Sir John Kennaway, who was\nborn at Exeter in 1758. In 1772 he sailed to India with his brother, the\nlate Richard Kennaway. In 1780 he received his captain's commission, and\nin 1786 Marquis Cornwallis made him one of his aides-de-camp. I quote from\n_New Monthly Magazine_ for 1836, which gave an account of some incidents\nin the first Sir John Kennaway's life at the time of his death. [Footnote:\nI am indebted for this account to the courtesy of the present Sir John\nKennaway.]\n\n[Illustration: MARIA KENNAWAY\nFRANCIS NEWMAN'S FIRST WIFE\nFrom a miniature\nPHOTO BY MESSRS. WEBSTER, CLAPHAM COMMON\nBY KIND PERMISSION OF SIR JOHN KENNAWAY]\n\n\"In 1788 Lord Cornwallis sent him as envoy to the Court of Hyderabad to\ndemand from the Nizam the cession of ... Guntoor. In this mission he was\neminently successful, not only obtaining that which he came to demand, but\ninducing the Nizam to enter into a treaty of offensive and defensive\nalliance against Tippoo Sultan. For this service His Majesty was pleased\nto create him a baronet (1791), and he received a mark of still further\napprobation from the Court of Directors (East India Company) in a vote\nwhich they passed to take out the patent of creation at the Company's\nexpense.\" Later, Sir John arranged a definite peace between the Nizam's\nCommissioner and the Mahrattas with those of Tippoo Sultan. From this time\nforward Sir John remained as Resident at the Court of the Nizam. But as\nhis health had suffered greatly from the Indian climate, he came back to\nEngland in 1794, and the East India Company voted him \"the unusual grant\nof a pension of \u00a3500 per annum\" on his retirement from official duties.\n\nSoon after his return to England he met and married Charlotte Amyatt, and\nwent to live at Escot, Ottery St. Mary. Here their family of twelve\nchildren was reared. Sir John, though his official life was over, yet\nbusied himself in many local matters. He acted as deputy-lieutenant and as\ncolonel-commandant of local militia and yeomanry. Then later, in advanced\nage, there fell upon him a great trouble: he lost his sight entirely.\nCuriously enough, his brother (who had served in the Civil Service of the\nEast India Company) suffered the same deprivation.\n\nEveryone who remembers her describes Maria Kennaway, Sir John's daughter,\nas possessing great beauty and attraction. She had hitherto spent her\ngirlhood in the daily service of the poor around her home. She and her\nsisters started village schools in the neighbourhood, and taught the\nchildren constantly the religious duties in which they themselves had\ngrown up.\n\nMaria Kennaway--a Plymouth Sister as regards her religious profession--was\na girl of deep and earnest faith. After her marriage to Francis Newman, it\nbecame a real grief to her to find that he was drifting further and\nfurther away towards agnosticism. Loving him devotedly as she did, her\nconstant prayer was that he might return to his former faith: that the\n\"cloud,\" as she called it, which was over him might be dispersed, and that\nhe should believe as she did.\n\nLike Moses, she never in this life saw her \"Promised Land\" (she never\ndoubted that he would _die_ in faith), for when she died in July, 1876\n(devotedly nursed by her husband), she knew that _he_ thought, as he bent\nover her at the end, that it was probably a _last_ farewell for both.\n\nI give here, as it seems an appropriate place, Newman's letter (to Dr.\nNicholson) on his wife's death:--\n\n\n\"15 Arundel Crescent,\n\"Weston-super-Mare,\n\"_21st July_, 1876.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n\"For more than forty years I have been in possession of a heart that loved\nme ardently: that happiness is no more. But I kept my treasure ten years\nlonger than I had any reason to expect. Yesterday we committed my beloved\nto the grave....\n\n\"I saw her declining in strength through failure of appetite, but ever\nhoped for finer weather and change of air to restore her. But the fine\nweather came too late to restore her. From want of blood her heart became\nfatally weak, and she died just as her brother did, the late Sir John\nKennaway, through failure of the heart and consequent mortification of the\nfeet. I now believe that local death began on the night of the 5th. Her\nsufferings in the feet were great, and we could do nothing to allay them.\nHer breathlessness (also from weakness of the heart) we could aid by\nfanning. She knew she could not recover, and only prayed for 'release.'\nHer prayer was granted early on Sunday morning, 16th July.\n\n\"Of course I feel very desolate, and to live quite alone in declining\nyears [Footnote: Some few years later he married his first wife's devoted\nfriend and companion who had lived with them for eleven years, and who\ntook the greatest care of Newman till he died in 1897.] seems unnatural\nand unhealthful; but I cannot form any decisions at present. I am\nconscious of excellent health and unbroken strength, and after forty years\nof happy love should be very ungrateful to repine.\n\n\"By God's help I mean to be cheerful and active....\n\n\"I am, your affectionate friend,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nThis is the epitaph Newman had placed over his wife's grave:--\n\n\n\"With no superiority of intellect, yet by the force of love, by sweet\npiety, by tender compassion, by coming down to the lowly, by unselfishness\nand simplicity of life, by a constant sense of God's Presence, by devout\nexercises, private and social, she achieved much of Christian saintliness\nand much of human happiness.\n\n\"She has left a large void in her husband's heart.\n\n\"Obiit, _16th July_, 1876.\"\n\n\nNewman always spoke of his wife as \"the most affectionate and tender-\nhearted of mortals.\" There was always a very great affection between them.\nHis letters all show this. Their married life was a long intercourse of\nhappiness, _un_-\"chequered by disputes.\" [Footnote: \"Marriage is one long\nconversation, chequered by disputes.\"--R. L. Stevenson.] Still, there was\nnot (as is shown, I think, in many ways) strong community of interests.\nFor in all Newman's laborious philological studies--his learned lectures,\narticles, and researches, scriptural and literary, his speculations in the\nrealms of deep thought--she was to all intents and purposes practically\noutside his mental door. She was never greatly inclined to join in the\nsociety of his learned friends; but this was more from a sense of modesty,\nbecause she was afraid of not being in sympathy with them; because she\nthought that she was not clever enough.\n\nShe had the greatest admiration for her husband. It is easy, of course, to\nunderstand that when Frank Newman came back from his missionary journey he\nwas just the sort of young man who would take a girl's fancy. It was a\nthing not to be surprised at that she fell in love with him. She was\nkeenly interested in home missionary work among the poor villagers of her\nown home. She knew that he had come through great dangers in his journey\nto the Holy Land as a missionary. He had not then definitely cast aside\nhis old beliefs--that was to come later; _now_ he was on the brink of it,\nand he was alone on this inward, personal brink. _She_ would not yet be\naware of it. Very probably he seemed a hero in her eyes, because of all\nthe dangers he had braved to preach the Gospel, and because he was one of\nthe most intellectual men of his day: had taken high honours at Oxford,\nand had given them up for the sake of what he believed to be right.\n\nIn the beautiful little Devonshire town of Ottery St. Mary, very possibly\nhe was the greatest man who had come across her life's path. He very\nevidently cared for her; the inevitable next thing seemed to be to care\nfor him. At that time his name was in everybody's mouth. Miss Frere wrote,\nin 1833, that \"the brother of Mr. Newman (John Henry Newman) is a young\nman of great promise, who has left the fairest prospect of advancement in\nEngland to go as a missionary to Persia.\"\n\nAt any rate, Destiny had brought them together, and they were married.\n\nAs a woman said once to me, \"There is no choosing in love\"--once the\n_meeting_ has happened, all free choice is at an end.\n\nMrs. Francis Newman was not very strong, and later in life developed\ngreater delicacy. It will be remembered that Newman's mother and sisters\nwere living at Oxford at this time, and he was anxious some time later to\nbring his bride to see them. Unfortunately she fell ill, and the treatment\ngiven for her illness proved quite a mistaken one; consequently her\nrecovery was much slower than it need otherwise have been. The journey\nwas, besides, a tiring one for her in her state of health. They had to go\nfrom Bristol to Oxford, for by this time Newman was settled at Bristol\nCollege as classical tutor. He had previously been tutor in Dublin for a\nshort time.\n\nIn 1836 Francis Newman went through the ceremony of Baptism at a chapel in\nBristol. I say advisedly, \"went through the ceremony,\" for I believe both\nhe and his brother had received the rite in early childhood, when their\nfather was alive.\n\nMr. George Hare Leonard, University College, Bristol, has kindly sent me\nsome information as regards Francis Newman's work at Bristol, as also has\nMr. Norris Mathews, the City Librarian of the Municipal Public Libraries\nthere.\n\nFrom them I learn that the college at which Newman was classical tutor\nwas, not \"Queen's,\" as has once or twice been asserted, but Bristol\nCollege. It was founded in 1831, and only existed ten years. Mr. Hare\nLeonard tells me that it was held in a large house in Park Row, and that\nit had some very distinguished pupils, Sir Edward Fry, the late Sir George\nGabriel Stokes, [Footnote: Sir George Gabriel Stokes, Lucasian Professor\nof Mathematics at Cambridge since 1849, and Fellow and President of\nPembroke College, Cambridge, was born in 1819; senior wrangler, 1841.\nPresident of Royal Society 1885. Contributed many mathematical papers and\nlectures to the Royal Society and other societies at Cambridge University,\nAberdeen, Edinburgh, etc.] and Walter Bagehot being amongst them.\n\nAt this time Newman was a member of the historic Baptist chapel at\nBroadmead. I think it must have been in this chapel, indeed, that he was\nre-baptized (as I mentioned a little earlier), and some of the\ncongregation anticipated his becoming one of the sect of Plymouth\nBrethren.\n\nPerhaps it is not generally known that Bristol College undertook to give\nreligious instruction on Church of England lines to those boys whose\nparents wished it (I quote now from Mr. George Hare Leonard's letter to\nme): \"This was not obligatory upon all, and there was a fierce attack on\nthe college by certain of the clergy, and Bishop Gray was hostile. In\n1841, under the influence of Monk (Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol),\nBishop's College was founded close by, and the older and more liberal\ncollege was unable to stand the competition, and came to an end.\"\n\nI quote here [Footnote: By the kindness of Miss Humphrey, Lensfield,\nCambridge, who gave me this extract from a memoir of her father.] an\naccount of the school life of the Vicar of St. Mary Redclyffe, Bristol:--\n\n\"In 1835 he went to Bristol College, a school that no longer exists, of\nwhich Dr. Jerrard, his brother William's friend and a mathematician of\nsome note, was principal.... He remained for two years at Bristol College,\nand considered that when there he owed much to the teaching of Francis\nNewman, brother of the Cardinal, a man of charming character and great\nattainments (afterwards made manifest in many ways), who was then lecturer\nin elementary mathematics, and subsequently corresponded with him\" (the\nVicar of St. Mary Redclyffe) \"on mathematical subjects when both had\nbecome famous.\"\n\nThis all seems to point, I think, to the fact that Bristol College had\ncertainly a distinguished roll of names in its short ten years' record.\n\n1836 was the year of Mrs. Newman's death--Francis Newman's mother. His\nwife was so alarmingly ill that he was not able to be present at his\nmother's funeral; and so the last time he saw her alive was on the\noccasion when he brought his bride to introduce to her at Oxford.\n\nMiss Mozley says of his mother: \"She was a woman content to live, as it\nwere, in the retirement of her thoughts. She had an influence, though not\na conspicuous one, on all about her. The trials of life had given a weight\nto her judgment, and her remarkable composure and serenity of temper and\nmanner had its peculiar power. Under this gentle manner was a strong will\nwhich could not be moved when her sense of duty dictated self-sacrifice.\"\n\nA month after her death Cardinal Newman had written: [Footnote: _Letters\nof John Henry Newman_, Anne Mozley.] \"Of late years my mother has much\nmisunderstood my religious views, and considered she differed from me;\n[Footnote: As of course she did.] and she thought I was surrounded by\nadmirers, and had everything my own way; and in consequence I, who am\nconscious to myself I never thought anything more precious than her\nsympathy and praise, had none of it.\" He goes on to say: \"I think God\nintends me to be lonely.... I think I am very cold and reserved to people,\nbut I cannot ever realize to myself that any one loves me.\"\n\nThose who have read Miss Mozley's _Life of John Henry Newman_ will\nremember how passionately devoted to her two sons Mrs. Newman was. Once or\ntwice she said that though \"Frank was adamant\" when she had wished to get\ncloser in touch with his interests and sympathies when he was quite a\nyoung man, yet she was always _quite_ in sympathy with her eldest son.\n\nProbably as time went on and she saw the latter drifting ever further and\nfurther into religious views with which she had never been conversant,\ninsensibly to herself, her manner changed when he spoke to her of how\ngradually the whole scope of his religion was widening and developing in a\ndirection in which she felt it impossible for herself to follow him.\n\nOne wonders if she had had any knowledge of the growing agnosticism of her\nother son, but probably this was unlikely.\n\n[Illustration: DR. MARTINEAU\nFROM THE PAINTING BY A. E. ELMSLIE]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nFRIENDSHIP WITH DR. MARTINEAU\n\n\nIn the year 1840 Francis Newman was made Classical Professor in Manchester\nNew College. That same year saw Dr. Martineau appointed Professor of\nMental and Moral Philosophy at the same college. It will be remembered\nthat for thirty-seven years Manchester New College had been at York, and\nhad now but just returned to its name-place.\n\nHere then began the friendship which lasted unbroken until death.\n\nBoth men were keen searchers--each in his own way--after religious truth.\nFor both it was a subject that practically affected their whole lives. But\nwhile in Martineau the result was a deep theology which found its\nsatisfaction in the fold of Unitarianism, in Newman dogma of any sort was\npractically an unknown quantity. He drifted further and further from\nrevealed religion, until many of his letters and writings became to the\nChristian minds of some who read them exceedingly painful. It is true that\nbefore he died Mr. Temperley Grey, the minister who attended him in his\nlast illness, declared that there was a return to his original faith, but\nstill nothing can alter the effect of the written word, and there is a\npassage in one of Newman's own letters which illustrates this fact very\nclearly. \"It is a sad thing to have printed erroneous fact. I have three\nor four times contradicted and renounced a passage ... _but I cannot reach\nthose whom I have misled_.\" In those last nine words there is a world of\nunexpressed regret--regret which no after endeavour can eradicate. Both\nspoken and written words go to far mental ports, and very often-from being\nout of our ken--unreachable ones for us. No later contradiction can reach\nthem and undo the once-made impression.\n\nMartineau and Newman were not of one mind in the matter of religion. The\nletters which passed between them show that; but they show, too, that no\ndispute separated them. If for a time some painful passage in a letter of\nNewman's troubled his friend, the matter was dealt with with\nstraightforward candour and unfailing forbearance and gentleness. There\nwere no harsh words between them. Both of them were naturally, innately\nsweet and kindly in disposition. Even in matters of dispute which\nconcerned that subject which occupied so large a part in both their minds,\ndifference of opinion could not \"separate very friends.\"\n\nIt will be remembered that the year before the regular correspondence\nbetween the two began, Martineau had written a paper criticizing Newman's\n_Phases of Faith_.\n\nBefore giving Newman's letters, perhaps a few words on Martineau himself\nwould not be out of place here. He came of an old Huguenot family. Mr.\nJackson, from whose biography of him I am quoting, says that Gaston\nMartineau, who, tradition tells us, was a surgeon of Dieppe, came to\nEngland after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, and that\nthough first he went to London to live, yet that eventually he settled\ndown at Norwich, and here all his children were born. The youngest of them\nbecame the father of James Martineau, the theologian. He was born in the\nsame year as Francis Newman, and died just seven years before he did.\n\nIn the bringing up and early training of both men there was a large\nelement of Puritanism. Many of the most severe Calvinistic doctrines held\nsway in Newman's home life, and even if the atmosphere was a little less\nthickly charged with religious thunderclouds in the early environment of\nMartineau, yet certainly, from all accounts, Sunday was pre-eminently a\nday that \"hid its real meaning and brightness behind a frowning face.\" I\ncannot help quoting here a story which a little reveals the sort of\nreligious atmosphere which brooded over the day and the point of view\nbrought to bear on it by James Martineau's mother when he was a boy. The\nmother had gone to church one Sunday evening, and left word in her little\nhome circle that they were to read the Bible.\n\nWhen she came back she put the probing question to James: \"What had he\nread?\" His answer was: \"Isaiah.\" She at once replied that he couldn't have\nread the whole; and he answered promptly, \"Yes, mother, I have, skipping\nthe nonsense.\"\n\nFrom eight years old to fourteen James Martineau went, as a day scholar,\nto Norwich Grammar School. After school life he came to the conclusion\nthat he wished to give his life to the ministry, and as, of course, the\nEnglish universities were not open to anyone who refused to sign the\nThirty-nine Articles, he was sent to Manchester College. Here it became\nevident to everybody that he was a student who would let nothing interfere\nwith his work. His masters were struck by his accurate habits of mind and\ngreat perseverance in research.\n\nIn 1835 his ministry in Liverpool, as pastor in Paradise Street Chapel,\nbegan, and to his work here was joined his work at Manchester New College,\nwhich, as I mentioned before, began in 1840, the same year as Newman's own\nconnection with the college. But when, in 1853, the college was\ntransplanted to London, for four years Martineau continued to live as a\nminister in Liverpool, and yet he kept up his classes at the college (six\nhours by train from Liverpool).\n\nIn 1857 he was asked to come and live in town and devote his whole time to\nhis college work, and this he agreed to do. There were not then many\nstudents, but among them were names which after years were destined to\nmake famous, and among these were Alexander Gordon, Estlin Carpenter, and\nPhilip Wicksteed.\n\nIn 1858 he was appointed minister to Little Portland Street Chapel.\nFormerly the congregation belonging to the chapel were rigid, unbending\nUnitarians. With the advent of Martineau began the newer, broader views of\nUnitarianism. Throughout the years which now were to be passed in London,\nDr. Martineau's labours were unceasing as scholar, thinker, and\ntheologian. It is said that, though he wrote and taught so much, yet he\nnever let his reading be interfered with; he was always adding to his\nstores of knowledge. For fifty years he was recognized as one of the most\nprofound thinkers of his day, as well as one of the finest writers.\n\nThe first letter from Francis Newman to Martineau, from which I quote, is\ndated December, 1850, from Brighton:--\n\n\n_Dr. Martineau from Newman._\n\n\"I seem to be out of joint with you in the two highest interests of man--\nReligion and Politics ... I am ... become a Republican by principle, for\nthe continent Jefferson always held that constitutional monarchy was a\nsimple impossibility in a large continental country where great armies\nwere kept up; and I think the history of a millennium in Europe\ndemonstrates it. All royalties were in their origin constitutional; but in\nthe long run no dynasty ever resisted the temptation to overthrow the\nbarriers which fenced it in. _Our_ liberties seem to me rightly ascribed\nto the fact that we are insular, and need only a _navy_ for protection.\nSweden for the same reason is able to retain its liberties.... I think\nthat in the order of Providence, royal power has served the purpose of\nuniting nations in larger masses than would else have held together.\n\n\"Where it has done this without destroying municipal organization it is\nclearly good in its result--as in Great Britain, Sweden, Germany; ... but\nhaving served this function, it seems to me that Royalty (unless it could\nagain become elective) has done its work, and ought not to be\nregretted.... On doctrinaire grounds, either to unsettle it where it works\nwell, or to desire to enforce it where it has violated its pledges and\nforfeited all claims to love and devotion, seems to me a mistake similar\nin kind.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Must not a time of weakness come when Austria is bankrupt--when an\nEmperor of Russia is a dotard or a child, when provinces of Russia become\ndisaffected, or an army mutinies; or again, when France and Austria\nseriously fall out?... You see I am dosing you with some of my most\npungent stuff, in proof that I trust your strength of stomach ...\n\n\"Your affectionate friend,\n\n\"FRANCIS W. NEWMAN.\"\n\n\nIn the letter which follows, Newman touches on two well-known\npersonalities of his day--Frederica Bremer and Charles Kingsley. He\nmentions the fact of his having been engaged to meet Kossuth as the reason\nwhy the first attempt to meet Miss Bremer was unsuccessful. It will be\nremembered that Miss Bremer came to England in order to collect material\nfor her _Life in the Old World_. (This year was also the date of Kossuth's\nfirst visit to our shores.) Miss Bremer was Swedish by descent, but\nFinnish by birth, for she was born in Finland in the year 1801.\n\nAs regards Kingsley, in 1850 he had published tracts on \"Christian\nSocialism.\" _Alton Locke_ had already come out and met with scorn on the\npart of the Press, though working men--who recognized Kingsley as their\ntruest friend--welcomed it gladly. In 1851--a year of great trouble and\ndistress all over England--he thought out plans to drain parts of Eversley\n(his parish), for there had been many cases of fever there, and Kingsley\nwas pre-eminently a _practical_ Christian. He was also far ahead of his\ntime (as all great men invariably are), and he saw clearly how inseparably\nclose in this present world is the connection between physical matters and\nspiritual. He recognized that if a man is _living_ in unsanitary\nconditions, it affects in a very real though inexplicable way his\nspiritual life. He could trace the connection in a parishioner's life\nhistory between bad drainage and drunkenness: later on--though it might\nperhaps be very much later on--a \"bee-in-the-bonnet\" of his child: and he\nsaw in this unhappy, unfortunate Little Result the outcome of someone's\nsinful failure in his duty to his neighbour in years gone by, when the\nfirst insanitary conditions were allowed to live and be mighty.\n\nIn some senses drainage, therefore, has a decided effect upon the\nspiritual life of men and women. Everyone probably will remember Dr.\nNettleship's resolute assertion, that \"even a stomach-ache could be a\nspiritual experience.\"\n\nAnd so Kingsley pushed forward the drainage improvements in his parish,\nand considered it, what in very truth it was, a fitting subject for the\nenergies of a parish priest, at work night and day for the betterment of\nthe souls and bodies of his parishioners.\n\nI cannot avoid quoting here Francis Newman's own strongly expressed views\non drainage of the land:--\n\n\"Now, the drains being out of sight, it is morally certain that defects\nwill exist, or be caused by wear and tear, unseen. In one place evil\nliquids and gases will percolate; in another evil accumulations will\nputrefy. Instead of blending small portions of needful manure quickly with\nsmall portions of earth that needs it, we secure in the drains a slow\nputrefaction and a permanent source of pestilence; we relieve a town by\nimposing a grave vexation and danger on the whole neighbourhood where its\ndrains have exit; we make the mouth of every tide river a harbour and\nstorehouse of pollution; and after thus wasting an agricultural treasure\nwe send across the Atlantic ships for a foul commerce in a material\ndestined to replace it....\n\n\"It was quite notorious forty years ago that the refuse of the animal was\nthe food of the vegetable, and ought to be saved for use, not wasted in\npoisoning waters. How could well-informed men delude themselves into an\napproval of this course? Only one explanation occurs: _they despaired of\nreturning to Nature_. They assumed that we must live by artifice, and they\nentitled artifice 'Science.'\"\n\nI return now to the letter from Newman to Martineau:--\n\n\n_Dr. Martineau from Francis Newman._\n\n\"Southampton, Wednesday,\n\"_8th Oct._ 1851.\n\n\"My dear Martineau,\n\n\"Your interesting letter was sent to me by Monday afternoon, and first\ntold me that Miss Bremer was in London, which I learned only by a pencil\nnote on the outside, '142 Strand.' That evening I was going to see my two\nsisters--one returned from the Continent, and one come from Derby. And on\nTuesday morning I was engaged to come hither to meet Kossuth! So I fear I\nhave missed Miss Bremer. But, from to-day's news, I fear there is no\nchance of K. arriving till next Monday or Tuesday; and I shall probably go\nback to-morrow. I will _try_ to see Miss Bremer immediately, but am much\ndisappointed.\n\n\"I have had a little correspondence with Mr. Kingsley lately--rising out\nof a recent lecture of his, the practical results and practical principles\nof which gave me great pleasure. He says he has 'done his work' of\nprotesting and denouncing capitalists, and now hopes to give himself to\n_construction_ and practical creation; and much as I fear some of his\ngeneralizations, I hope great good from his purely excellent aims, and the\namount of aid he can command. He agrees most heartily with my denunciation\nof large towns as the monster evil, and takes the matter up agriculturally\nthus: _No country can be underfed while it returns to the soil what it\ntakes out of it_\"--[The italics are my own. Is not this sentence of\ninfinite value to us to-day?]--\"for, in the long run, the soil will always\ngive back as much as it receives. Every country impoverishes itself which\npours into the rivers and sea the animal refuse which ought to be restored\nto the soil.\n\n\"No community can avoid this prodigality, unless its inhabitants live upon\nthe soil. Therefore towns ought not to exceed the size at which the whole\nanimal refuse can be economically saved and directly applied to\nagriculture.\n\n\"To me it seems that every reason--moral, political, agricultural,\neconomical, sanitary--converge to this same conclusion; and I apply\n_Delenda est Carthago_ to every city in Europe.\n\n\"On the subject of masters and servants, he says, 'Masters should be\nconsidered \"_infamous_\" who hired servants by the day or week, and not by\nthe year; or who dismissed old servants without any other reason than to\nlower wages; but such a thing, to be possible and effective, must be\n_mutual_. The servant must have no power to leave a good master in order\nto _raise_ his wages. But at present, while the servant is under no bonds\nto the master, and _does not like to bind himself_, it seems to me quite\nimpossible to treat the masters as having any moral responsibility for the\nservants more than for foreigners. When we buy tea, we cannot ask whether\nthe Chinese get a comfortable livelihood by selling it at that price.'\nThat is an extreme and clear case to which we approach in every commercial\ntransaction in proportion as the other party claims that the relation\nshall be one of mere marketing....\n\n\"Ever yours affectionately,\n\n\"Francis W. Newman.\"\n\n\nThe next letter, which is dated September, 1851, and which was written\njust after Newman's return from his Swiss tour, goes on with the same\nsubject as the last, and also touches on the evils of _suddenly_\nintroducing machinery; while it shows clearly that, in the long run,\nbetter wages are gained for the worker by its means--\"Machinery is in\nevery light the friend of the poor.\" He says very truly, \"The first great\nwant of the workmen is better morality and more thriftiness, _not_ better\nmasters or higher wages.\" Putting quite aside the question of whether\n\"higher wages\" are not needed by the workman, nothing can be truer at the\npresent time than this fact, brought thus before us by Newman. It _is_,\nbeyond all question, these faults which run through the bulk of the\nlabouring classes (as we term them)--lack of the true spirit of morality\nand thriftiness.\n\nIt is difficult altogether to account for the reason why the lack of these\ncharacteristics is so much to the fore to-day, or to think of the remedy\nwhich shall reach and cure them. But that it is a presence in our midst is\na self-evident fact. No one who has travelled much in France (to name only\none other country), but is aware how vast is the gulf which divides the\nways of living of our own labouring classes and of those which obtain\nacross the water. There, thriftiness is the rule. They use a far simpler\ndiet, and one which the land supplies them with, and are content. There is\na far more healthy tone about them, even if it be a rough one, than there\nis among our own poor. I am constantly in France myself (it is the country\nof my own ancestors), and I have never failed to be struck by the absence\nthere, in the country, of the vice which disfigures so often the home life\nof our villagers. You do not see there the sights that make the streets on\nSaturday evening in England a degrading scene. When the French villager is\nhappy, he can be it without the aid of drunkenness. And as far as the\ncultivation of the land is concerned--well, we need only look at home in\nour \"French Farming\" schemes to-day and we shall find that when we want to\ncome \"back to the land,\" to find out how much care and industry will bring\nout of it, we have to send for a Frenchman to show us his country's\nsecrets of manuring the land, so that the soil becomes precious and will\nyield, even from so small a space as a quarter of an acre, incalculable\nriches in the way of marketable goods.\n\nAs regards what Newman says about the work_women_ of England, it is\nimpossible to agree with him. It is most assuredly not the case in\nthousands of instances that \"there are _no_ good workwomen out of work, or\nearning low wages,\" nor that \"those who cannot get good wages are women\nwho have _spent their prime in idleness_ ... and sew badly.\"\n\nOne has but to refer to the statistics with which the Christian Social\nUnion supplies us, as well as other societies, to have this idea quickly\nnegatived. Mrs. Carlyle's experiences and Mrs. Newman's were evidently\ninvoluntarily misleading.\n\nThere was a certain impulsiveness in discussing many subjects to which\nNewman seems to have been peculiarly subject. He was sometimes so led away\nby it as to dogmatize inaccurately or over-forcibly.\n\n\n_Dr. Martineau from Francis Newman._\n\n\"My dear Martineau,\n\n\"... In a day or two I am meditating a visit to Froude, who is in Wales,\nand too much in solitude.\" [Froude was then preparing or writing his\n_History of England_. It will be remembered that Cardinal Newman's\ninfluence over him at college decided him later on taking Holy Orders, but\nhe never went beyond the diaconate.] \"Gladstone's letters just now are a\npowerful stimulus to public opinion.... Not the Socialists only, but\nnumbers of workmen besides treat it as _an abstract wickedness_ in a\nmaster to offer lower wages than are at any particular time existing. They\nhave never any objection to a _rise_ of wages; so I cannot say they treat\nthe existing rate as a divinely appointed amount; but they do not see that\nif they are unwilling to bind themselves not to strike for a rise, they\nought to concede in the master a moral right to lower.... What is to be\ndone with those who will go on enunciating and propagating dangerous\ngeneral maxims as abstract axiomatic truth?... _Your_ method of making the\nmasters determine how many _shall enter_ a trade will succeed; but I do\nnot see that it will succeed in ejecting. In the years of railroad\nexcitement the London newspapers were enormously overworked, and a great\nincrease no doubt took place in the numbers of printers (perhaps also in\ntheir wages); now the printers for some time have been in comparative\ndepression.... I do not contend that _all_ lowering of wages by masters is\nmerciful and just, but that _some_ may be; whereas the Socialists and Co.\ninstantly declaim against _all_ or _any_ lowering, without entering into\nany details as to present or past history of the trade. When I said that\nmachinery is in every light the friend of the poor, I do not think I\noverlooked the occasional mischief caused by its _sudden_ introduction....\nThe effect of machinery is in the long run a steady rise of wages as well\nas a cheap supply of goods: the advantage to the poor is universal and\npermanent, the evil is partial and transitory. Moreover, the evil is\nimmensely aggravated by their perverseness. Three generations of hand-loom\nweavers have been propagated in spite of the notorious misery it must\ncause. Machinery does _not_ raise the rate of profits or interest; it\n_does_ raise the rate of wages: compare Manchester and Buckingham in\nproof.... I do not think I am _at all_ carried into reaction by unjust\nattacks on capitalists, but I am very strongly by the [right or wrong]\nbelief that the first great want of the workmen is better morality and\nmore thriftiness, _not_ better masters or higher wages. I have not dared\nto print half of what are my convictions on this head.... The sufferings\nof the poor from bad air and bad water are quite a separate chapter. High\nwages do little to cure this. Indeed, in Manchester the workmen habitually\nprefer to save a shilling a week in house rent and spend it in beefsteaks,\nwhen the shilling would have got them a healthy instead of an unhealthy\nlodging. Bricklayers' wages are at present high in London; what is the\nconsequence? I have at present a bit of a dwarf wall building in my\ngarden. The men leave their work; I complain; the builder replies: 'Men\nwill not come to work on a Monday without much trouble.' I fear this\n_means_ that they drink on Sunday and are very 'seedy' on Monday morning.\nThe very men who are excited by high wages to drinking and idleness will\nmake a violent outcry when a fall of wages takes place, and _moreover_\nwill get the ear and sympathies of Maurice and Co. for their outcry.\"\n\n\n\"Maurice and Co.\" of course refers to Frederick Denison Maurice, who was\nthe principal mover in the Christian Socialism of the day, as he was in\nall social reforms. He had met with much abuse and opposition, but still\nthere were very many who called him \"Master.\" Amongst these last was\nCharles Kingsley, who had been one of his pupils, and who had been very\ngreatly influenced by his opinion in religion and social matters.\n[Footnote: Kingsley (see memoir) said to Maurice, when opposition was\nfiercest against him: \"Your cause is mine. We swim in the same boat, and\nstand or fall thenceforth together.\"] Neither man could bear the\nnarrowness of \"parties\" in religion. They always demanded more toleration,\nbroader views, and refused to be bound by narrow creeds. It was owing\nchiefly to Coleridge that Maurice took Holy Orders. He was born in that\nyear of great men, 1805, and by 1851 his socialistic ideas were well known\nto the world.\n\n\n\"As to the milliners and tailors, my wife has the same experience as Mrs.\nCarlyle, that there are _no_ good workwomen out of work, or earning low\nwages. Mrs. Wedgwood tells me that the Ladies' Committee could not get\nwomen to make the shirts.... Those who cannot get good wages are women who\nhave _spent their prime in idleness_, and cannot work well enough to\nsatisfy ladies. They sew badly, and get a poor pittance from the shops. As\nto tailors, I give more for a coat by four or five shillings than I did\ntwenty-five years ago.... Until our national morality is much improved,\nand our moral organization repaired, there must be a large body of persons\nwithout any trade, art, or connection who will throw themselves into what\nseems to be the easiest art, and by their numbers will swamp it....\n\n\"Ever your affectionate\n\n\"Francis W. Newman.\"\n\n\nIt should be mentioned here that in 1853 Manchester New College was moved\nto London, but that it was not until 1857, that Dr. Martineau went to live\nin town, in order to devote his time chiefly to the important work which\ndevolved upon him in connection with it. This he continued to do until\n1885. Newman had been appointed in 1846 to the chair of Latin in\nUniversity College, a post he held until 1863.\n\nThe next letter of this period, addressed to Martineau, gives one an\ninsight as to the effect of beauty of scenery upon Newman. He was far\nremoved from the ordinary point of the rapid traveller of to-day, who only\nseems to want to cover great distances at rapid speed, and can therefore\nhave no conception at all of what we might call the \"atmospheric\nenvironment\" of a place, which can only be felt by quiet moving, as Newman\nexpresses it, \"from point to point,\" to \"see how aspects and proportions\nchange.\"\n\n\n_Dr. Martineau from Francis Newman._\n\"Grisedale Bridge,\n\"Patterdale, near Penrith,\n\"_31st July_ 1854.\n\n\"My dear Martineau,\n\n\"I have been faithless in not writing to you before now....\n\n\"We are more delighted than ever with Patterdale. Probably enough you know\nthe beauties of _your_ neighbourhood so well, and esteem them so highly,\nthat you turn as deaf an ear as I do to all praises of other parts. I have\nso strong a sense of the inexhaustibility of beauty, that it aids me to\nrepress the restlessness which is kindled by other persons' praises of\nwhat is unknown to me....\n\n\"Unless I had _my own_ carriage I get little pleasure from touring. What I\nwant is to stop at the beautiful places, and go from point to point and\nsee how aspects and proportions change; this in fact you seldom do well\nexcept on foot and at leisure. The walks here are inexhaustible, for\npersons who can carry with them their book or other occupation, and stay\nout four or five hours; but you want reasonably dry weather, else indeed\nthe swampiness of the mountains greatly lessens the number of feasible or\npleasant walks, besides impairing the beauty.\n\n\"I only get a newspaper once a week, and in such a crisis feel hungry for\nnews as the week goes on.\" [The \"crisis,\" of course, was the near approach\nat this time of the beginning of those hostilities which were to end in\nthe Crimean war.] \"Lest the Eastern question should flag in interest by\nlingering, lo! the Spanish insurrection breaks on us. I do not yet dare to\nhope European benefits from Spain: should such be the ultimate result, it\nwill be a striking illustration how incalculable is the _course_ of\nevents, while the general end is not very obscure.\n\n\"Mr. Charles Loring Brace, of America (who, you may know, was imprisoned\nin Hungary), sent to me an introduction from Theodore Parker. It is highly\nprobable he had one to you....\n\n\"The post summons.\n\n\"Ever yours,\n\"F. W. N.\"\n\n\nHarriet Martineau, sister of Dr. Martineau, was fifty-three years of age\nwhen Newman wrote to her brother about her illness. Practically for the\nwhole of her life she had been more or less of an invalid. Even as a girl\nshe suffered so much from deafness and wretched health, that she was\nhardly ever free from anxiety and depression. Nevertheless she did not let\nher ill-health prevent her from earning her livelihood by writing. Before\nshe made her name by the publication of her stories on political economy,\nshe experienced endless difficulties in her efforts to get publishers for\nher books. But no sooner had these stories appeared than her fame was\nassured, and money came in, so to speak, by handfuls, so that all\nfinancial troubles were altogether at an end.\n\nFrom 1839 till 1844 she was so terribly out of health that no treatment\nproduced any effect, until someone suggested that mesmerism should be\ntried, and this succeeded so well that she recovered a certain amount of\nstrength and was able to go on with her writing. Nevertheless, that it did\nnot wholly restore her health is evident from the fact that in 1855, when\nNewman was writing to her brother, he mentions her \"formidable fainting\nfits\" and daily pains in the head. \"Her letter tells me,\" he says, \"how\nvery bad she is, that every day she feels shot in the head\"; but he goes\non to say that he does not despair of her better health because (as indeed\nher numerous books testify), her \"body is so subject to her mind.\" It is,\nI think, necessary to remember that in 1844, when Miss Martineau tried\nmesmerism as a cure for her continued ill-health, mesmerism was\npractically taking its first steps in the English medical world. This\nscience of healing, which began to be recognized in England about the\nmiddle of the eighteenth century, through the medium of the afterwards\ndiscredited Mesmer, has \"in its day played many parts\" and had more names\nthan one. In the first instance it was called mesmerism, then animal\nmagnetism, while to-day, when it has forced its way through incredulity,\ndistrust, and opposition of all sorts, and come to the front in very\ntruth, it faces us as a power which bids fair to be more and more with us\nas time goes on under the name of Hypnotism.\n\nPerhaps few people remember the name of the man who really brought animal\nmagnetism into prominence in the middle of the last century. Yet James\nBraid, the Scotch surgeon, who then lived at Manchester, and pursued with\nuntiring thoroughness and perseverance his studies in the then little-\nknown science, was really the shoulder that pushed hypnotism into our\nmidst. It was Braid, indeed, who caused the name of \"hypnotism\" to eject\nthat of \"mesmerism\" in England. He was never properly appreciated during\nhis lifetime. But if he was not, he was only one of numerous examples\nwhich are always being brought up before our eyes (among those of our\ncountrymen who have rendered their country signal services), who\nillustrate the famous English quotation, \"Thus angels walked the earth\nunknown, and _when they flew were recognized_\"\n\nBraid, however, proved effectually that the mesmeric phenomena depend\naltogether on the physiological condition of the person operated on, and\nnot on the power of the operator.\n\n\n_Dr. Martineau from Newman._\n\n\"7 P.V.E.,\n\"_17th Feb._, 1855.\n\n\"My dear Martineau,\n\n\"You will believe that the state of your sister's health gives me much\nconcern. She has kindly written twice to me. The second letter tells of\nformidable fainting fits, which I cannot explain away; yet, as I told her\nin my reply to her first, her symptoms _in general_ are so similar to my\nown that I cannot but hope her physician views them too seriously, and\n_does her harm by it_. I, on the whole, believe that my own heart is\nunsound organically (distended), but my experience certainly is that the\nless I attend to it _in detail_ the better, though I must in prudence\navoid impure air and other evils. Her second letter tells me as a decisive\nproof how very bad she is, that every day she feels _shot_ in the head.\n\n\"Now this is exactly the symptom I have for nine months been struggling to\nsubdue, and as my wife knows, I am, week by week, balancing whether to put\nmyself under a doctor for it.... The spasm which distresses me comes at\nthe crisis when I ought to go to sleep, and so wakes me up. I could not\nget rid of it even in the summer, on days on which I had least mental\neffort, and was in all other respects conscious of great vigour....\n\n\"I went to a physician to complain of _sleeplessness_ and got the reply\nthat it was my _heart_ that was diseased.... Your sister's body is so\nsubject to her mind that I do not despair that, either through mesmerism\nrestoring sleep or in some other way, she may rally far beyond her present\nexpectation. I know a lady who was dying of brain fever, and could get no\nsleep until the physician called in a mesmerist; this gained sleep for\nher, and by that alone she recovered without medicine.\"\n\n\nDr. Martineau was one of the founders of the _National Review_ in 1855,\nand frequently contributed articles to it. This next letter treats mainly\nof the proposed lines on which the magazine was to be run--its politics,\npoints of view, etc.\n\n\n_Dr. Martineau from Newman._\n\n\"_14th June_, 1855.\n\n\"My dear Martineau,\n\n\"I have seen with interest that your scheme of the National Review is\nresumed, and I am told that you and Walter Bagehot are the political\neditors. Supposing that your politics are not essentially different from\nthose of the _Westminster_ the _Review_ is of _practical_ interest to me,\nin spite of my unfortunate collision last year, for which I hope you have\nforgiven me. I wrote in the last _Westminster_ the last article on the\n\"Administrative Example of the United States,\" and in the forthcoming\nnumber I have written the second article on \"International Immorality.\" I\nwrote them freely, and indeed could not comfortably take money from\nChapman in his present circumstances, but I would much rather write for\nthe _National Review_ if I am admissible.... I value _forms_ of government\nin proportion as they develop moral results in individual man; and if I\n_now_ am democratic for Europe, it is not from any abstract and exclusive\nzeal for democracy, all the weaknesses of which I keenly feel, but because\nthe dynasties, having first corrupted or destroyed the aristocracies, and\nnext become hateful, hated, and incurable themselves, have left no\ngovernment possible which shall have stability and morality except the\ndemocratic. In England my desire is to ward off this result, to which, I\nthink, our aristocracy are driving fast by uniting their cause with the\nperfidious immoralities of the Continent.\n\n\"Your political prospectus seems to me to be delusive by its vagueness. I\nmean, that it is no sort of security after misunderstandings between\neditors and writers. I think it is liable practically to lead to the\nresult that one man's mind seems undesirably to assume the authority of a\nconfederation;... but where Truth is sought, this is not easily borne.\nHave you considered whether you may not do as the _Revue des Deux Mondes_,\nwhich admits independent essays with the writer's name signed? I value the\nconvenience of anonymous writing, and I do not wish to see it destroyed;\nbut it is undoubtedly abused and overdone, and I think every movement in\nthe opposite direction has its use.\"\n\nI think that when reviewing many of Newman's ideas--ideas considered as\nstrongly tending to socialism of a sort--it is wise to bear in mind these\nwords in this letter: \"If I _now_ am democratic for Europe, it is not from\nany abstract or exclusive zeal for democracy, all the weaknesses of which\nI keenly feel.\" For they show very clearly that his was a mind which\nrefused any party labelling. The reform was the thing with him, and the\nmeans by which this was brought about were only secondary and subordinate.\n\nIn September, 1856, Newman was at Ventnor; and though apparently still\nsuffering from his heart and indigestion, found that he was able to bathe\nin the sea with much pleasure to himself. He gives voice to his surprise\nthat, in those days, there should be so strong a feeling against \"mixed\nbathing,\" as the term is: and he quotes articles and letters which he had\nseen in which disgust was expressed at \"ladies bathing within reach of\ntelescopes\" and \"at the indecency of promiscuous bathing\"! This excessive\nover-prudishness, which has always, since early Victorian days,\ndistinguished England, possesses as much vitality (even when, happily,\ndying) as that of the conger eel, whom no killing seems really to kill!\n\nThe earlier part of the letter deals with the disputes of the \"three\ntutors against Dr. Hawkins,\" Provost of Oriel in 1830, and also with the\nproposal that his brother, John Henry Newman, should be made third\nsecretary of the local Bible Society.\n\nIn the _Letters of Rev. J. B. Mozley, D.D._, edited by his sister in 1884,\nthere is a good deal of information given about the Oxford of that day,\nand this account of the dispute in 1830 occurs in one of Dr. Mozley's\nletters from Oriel College:--\n\n\"All sorts of rumours have gone abroad respecting the differences between\nthe tutors, and it has received a most amusing variety of versions. It has\nbeen described as a strike for advance of wages or more pupils, which of\ncourse has fitted well into the probable falling off of the college\nconsequent on the Heresy: at Tunbridge, a friend ... was told, the junior\nfellows had combined to turn out the Provost! For my part, I think it no\nmore use trying to send abroad a correct account of it, for it is not easy\nto make it obvious to the meanest capacities, and everybody nowadays seems\nto feel himself justified in contending that to be truest which is the\nmost consonant to his understanding.... I take it there is little doubt of\nH. Wilberforce being elected here, to Oriel, next year ... he is\nconsidered sure of his Double First....\"\n\nOf the Rev. Mr. Hill, mentioned by Newman as the \"old secretary of the\nBible Society,\" Dr. Mozley speaks in connection with the constant\nopposition and ill-humoured references to Pusey which at that time were\nrife at Oxford.\n\nAs regards \"Bulteel\" of Exeter College, Dr. Mozley thus speaks of him:\n\"Bulteel's sincere belief is that there is a new system of things in the\ncourse of revelation now, as there was in our Saviour's time, and that God\nhas given him the power of working miracles for the same reason as He gave\nit to the Apostles--in order to convince unbelievers.... There can be\nlittle doubt that Bulteel is partially deranged. I should not be much\nsurprised if, before long, he attempts miracles of a more obvious kind.\"\n\nAs regards Hurrell Froude, Fellow and tutor of Oriel College, he, John\nHenry Newman, and Pusey were all three close friends in 1822. Hurrell\nFroude exercised a strong influence over J. H. Newman, and it was he who\nwas one of the leaders in the Tractarian movement in 1833. He was a man of\nwonderful genius and originality, and it was a distinct loss to the world\nwhen, in 1836, he died. I cannot help quoting here the \"private critique\"\nwritten in 1838, and quoted by Miss Mozley in her volume, with reference\nto his _Remains_:--\n\n\"It is very interesting and clever, but I must say I felt as if I was\ncommitting an impertinence in reading his private journal-probably the\nmost really private journal that ever was written.... I am very curious to\nknow what kind of sensation his views will make, uttered so carelessly,\ninstead of in Keble's, or Pusey or Newman's grand style.\"\n\nWith respect to Dr. Hawkins, the Provost (whose influence was in many ways\na powerful one with J4 H. Newman), I quote two passages from letters of\nDr. Mozley. One is dated 1836 and the other 1847 (during the Gladstone\nElection):--\n\n\"The Provost alluded in the most distant way to the sore subject (the\ncondemnation of heretics) last Sunday. He observed that it was a\ndisgusting habit in persons finding fault with other people's theology.\nNothing so tended to make the mind narrow and bitter. They had much better\nbe employing themselves in some active and useful way. This is laughable\nas coming from the Provost, who has been doing nothing else but objecting\nall his life.\" And:--\n\n\"The Provost has behaved very characteristically. He has been for once in\nhis life fairly perplexed; and he has doubled and doubled again, and\nshifted and crept into holes; at last vanished up some dark crevice, and\nnothing was seen but his tail. One thought one was to see no more of him,\nwhen, on one of the polling mornings, he suddenly emerged, like a rat out\nof a haystack, and voted for Round. The Heads, in fact, have been\nthoroughly inefficient. The election has literally gone on _without_ them.\nThey have done nothing.\"\n\n\n_Dr. Martineau from Francis Newman._\n\n\"_18th Sept._, 1856.\n\n\"My dear Martineau,\n\n\"Your welcome letter finds me still here. I certainly did not contemplate\nthat I was speaking for the public ear on such a subject. I have a pain\nfrom it (chiefly from a sense, perhaps, that I should not like my brother\nto know or suspect that the information came from me), yet I cannot blame\nyour proceeding, or question your right, so carefully and tenderly as you\nguard against objection.... The Rev. Mr. Hill, Vice-Principal of St.\nEdmund's Hall, was the old secretary of the (local) Bible Society. The\nRev. Benjamin Parson Symons (now warden of Wadham College) is he who\nproposed and carried that my brother should be a third secretary.\n\n\"I think I told you that Symons was the _second_ secretary; but I now\ndoubt whether the second was not Rev.---- Bulteel, of Exeter College, then\nan evangelical preacher of St. Ebb's Church in Oxford, much attended by\nEdmund Hall men. The after vote rescinding my brother's secretaryship was\nproposed by Benjamin Newton, a young Fellow of Exeter College, if this is\nof any importance.... The affair of the three tutors against Dr. Hawkins\nwas told me exactly as I had it from my brother's lips; but the whole must\nhave been strictly public. The other tutors were Robert Isaac Wilberforce\n(since Archdeacon and Roman Catholic), Richard Hurrell Froude, known by\nhis _Remains_; and a much older man, Dornford, now a rector in Devonshire,\nwho adhered to Hawkins. This took place in 1830, when my brother was only\ntwenty-nine, Wilberforce his junior, and Hurrell Froude _my_ junior in the\nUniversity; probably my equal in age, i.e. then twenty-five; so it was\n_young_ Oxford versus old. When the three tutors resigned (whose youth was\na result of the Oriel Fellows going off so quick), Hawkins brought into\nthe tutorship young Coplestone, as he was called--a nephew of the\nBishop;... I almost think that for a time he resumed lecturing himself:\nbut it will not do to say so.... I have here found out (after more than\nten years' cessation) that I can swim as well as ever, and without\ndiscomfort to my heart. I am becoming quite zealous for my daily swim,\neven when (as to-day) the south-west gives us rather too much sea, to the\nchagrin of the bathing men. Perhaps you have seen various letters in _The\nTimes_, etc., on the indecency of promiscuous bathing, etc. I cannot\nunderstand why they all direct their attack to the wrong point, and insist\non driving people into solitudes and separations very inconvenient,\ninstead of demanding that, as on the Continent, both sexes be clad in the\nwater. Last year I saw an article that expressed disgust at ladies bathing\nwithin reach of _telescopes_! There is here such a colony of foreigners,\nthat I hope they may teach this lesson. Besides the Pulszkys, who are a\nfamily of twelve persons, there are seven of Kossuth's household, a large\nfamily of Marras (Italian), three of Janza (Viennese), two or more\nPiatti's (Italian), who keep company together, and very many of whom bathe\nstatedly. Mrs. Pulszky is not well this year for swimming; but last year\nshe swam daily, with her husband and an intimate male friend at her side.\nHe will not let her swim in the sea without him, and is amazed at English\nhusbands consenting to abandon their wives as they do. Mrs. Walter, her\nmother, is a devoted bather, and whenever the breakers are formidable has\nthe aid of one or other male friend. It is a new fact to me, that the\nViennese ladies, as a thing of course, are taught to swim in the Danube.\nThere are regular teachers of swimming for both sexes, and a sort of\ndiploma is granted to those who swim well enough to be at home in the\nwater.\" [This is a phrase that was used to me; it now occurs to me that it\nmay have been merely _metaphorical_, when the teacher says _Macte\nvirtute_, etc., and concludes his lessons.]\n\n\"Of course, our climate does not allow the facilities of tropical waters\n(where alligators and sharks, however, are not facilities!); but the sea\nis fit for bathing with us as many months as the Danube, though I suppose\nnever so warm as the Danube at its warmest.... If I could be with you at\nDerwentwater again, I think I should be less indisposed to try an oar.\nIndigestion or sleeplessness, not exertion, seems to be the chief enemy of\nmy heart, which yet cannot bear exertion when so suffering. I am giving\nmyself abundant ease, and never enjoyed myself with so much 'abandon.' We\nboth like this place extremely.\n\n\"With kindest regards to all around you,\n\n\"I am, very affectionately yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nIn 1857, as I mentioned before, Dr. Martineau came up to London to live,\nhaving been asked by the authorities of Manchester New College to take\nmore share in the work there than he had hitherto done. He was made\nPrincipal of the College in 1868, and held the post until 1885.\n\nThere is something in the letter which follows which must have made a very\nspecial appeal to Martineau--for this reason: that there is in it a\npassionate \"abandon\" quite foreign to Newman's usual style. He seems to\nhave given rein to a sudden impulse of enthusiasm for his friend, and his\nletter, from start to finish, is full of it. He is evidently longing that\nMartineau should find in his London audience all the appreciation which\nhis great talents deserved. And perhaps this is the thought which prompted\nthose sentences which seem to urge him to curb the powerful steeds of his\nintellectual vigour, and not to give so lavishly or in such unstinted\nmeasure as in his sermons he had hitherto been accustomed to do. Newman\nsays that in his preaching \"there is _superfluous_ intellectual effort.\"\nHe adds that from \"_intellectual_ persons \"he has heard the complaint that\nthe \"effort to follow is too great\"; and he entreats him to prepare each\nsermon \"with less _intellectual_ effort, though, of course, not with less\ndevotional purpose.\"\n\n\n_Dr. Martineau from Newman._\n\n\"7 P.V.E.,\n\"_30th May_, 1857.\n\n\"My dear Martineau,\n\n\"Perhaps you are already pulling up your tent-pegs: rather a heart-\nbreaking work, especially to those who so love beauty and have surrounded\nthemselves within doors with so much. You _need_, dear friend, a broad and\nfruitful field in London for your spiritual activity to recompense the\ngreat--the very great--sacrifices you must make in parting from all that\nyou have loved in Liverpool. I have felt this so deeply that I never knew\nexactly how to _wish_ that you might come to London; and, indeed, this\nplace, so emphatically _dissipated_,\" [that is, _mente dissipat\u00e1\ndistract\u00e1_] \"does not prize its great minds so much as smaller places\nwould. ... Beloved friend, you know that great expectations are formed of\nyou. It is hard, most hard, not to let this draw you into great\nintellectual effort, from which I fear much. For your literary lecturing,\nof course, I have no word of dissuasion. But let me assure you that in\nyour preaching there is _superfluous_ intellectual effort. It would be\nspiritually more effective if there were far less perfection of literary\nbeauty and less condensation of refined thought and imaginative metaphor.\nI hear again and again from _intellectual_ persons the complaint that the\neffort to follow your meaning is too great, and impairs both the pleasure\nand profit of listening to you. I myself am conscious that wonder and\nadmiration of your talent is apt to absorb and stifle the properly\nspiritual influence, and when I _read_ your sermons, I often pause so long\non single sentences as to be fully aware that I could have got little good\nfrom _hearing_ them. I know that no two men's nature is the same, and\nhabit is a second nature. Do not imagine that I wish you not to be\nyourself. (There is no danger of that.) But I am sure that by cultivating\nmore of what the French call 'abandon'--by preparing with less\n_intellectual_ effort for each separate sermon--though, of course, not\nwith less devotional purpose--and by letting your immediate impulse have a\nlarge play in comparison to your previous study, there will be less danger\nof overworking your mind and fuller effect on those who are to benefit.\n... I dare say you received from me the new volume of _Religious Duties_.\nIts author seems to me _primitively_ to have belonged to what you call the\nclass of ethical minds, but to have passed beyond it, and now to be at\nonce Passionate and Spiritual. And is not this the natural and rightful\nthing, that though we begin with a fragmentary, we tend towards an\nintegral religion? This book has been to me most delightful and\nprofitable, and I trust you will also find it so. Such a revelation of a\npure, tender, ardent spirit is itself an inexpressible stimulus, and has\ngiven me quite a flood of joy and sympathy.\n\n\"The doctrine of immortality so unhesitatingly avowed (?) affects me as\nnothing from Theodore Parker on the same subject ever did. The love and\njoy in God flowing out of it is so spontaneous and kindling as to make me\nlong to say,--I now no longer _hope_ only, but _I am sure_. In any case I\ndo rejoice that others can so believe, and I pray that if this be a mere\ncloud over _my_ eyes, it may at length be taken away. Not that I have any\ndeficiency of _happiness_ from this, but I have a great deficiency of\n_power_, and I am painfully out of sympathy with others by it.\n\n\"I want to cultivate, if I knew how, rather more free communication with\nthose who supremely love God as the Good One, and who will bear with me! I\nmuch need this, if I could get it. But however shut up I may seem, believe\nthat a fire of love for you burns in my heart. With warm regards to Mrs.\nMartineau,\n\n\"Your affectionate friend,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nI should like to quote here words illustrative of this side of Newman's\npersonality, that side which reveals him \"at once passionate and\nspiritual,\" longing to attain to religious truth, and not railing against\nthe forms of dogma which have led other men into \"the kingdom of heaven,\"\nas was his too frequent habit. These words were written by him when he\nseemed to himself to have reached some measure of spiritual intuition, and\nthere is great beauty in them:--\n\n\"None can enter the kingdom of heaven without becoming a little child. But\nbehind and after this, there is a mystery revealed to but few, namely,\nthat if the soul is to go on into higher spiritual blessedness it must\nbecome a _woman_. Yes, however manly thou be among men, it must learn to\nlove being dependent; must lean on God, not solely from distress or alarm,\nbut because it does not like independence or loneliness.... God is not a\nstern judge, exacting every tittle of some law from us.... He does _not_\nact towards us (spiritually) by generalities... but His perfection\nconsists in dealing with each case by itself as if there were no others.\"\n\nAnd now, before concluding this chapter, I take two much later letters\nwritten by Newman to Martineau; one is dated 1888 and the other 1892. The\nfirst one is written quite clearly--which is wonderful when one remembers\nthat he was then eighty-three--and the other, four years later, is cramped\nand not so easy to decipher. Still, in the first of these letters he\nhimself says, \"I have to write as slow as any little schoolboy... and\ncannot help some blunders.\" He had been to Birmingham on the 20th June to\nsee Cardinal Newman, and mentions how travelling by rail tried his head.\nThe latter part of the letter relates to a big dinner composed chiefly of\nAnglo-Indians and their _attach\u00e9s_. There is one lighted sentence near the\nend which brings before one's mental eye his often-expressed \"Mene, Mene,\nTekel Upharsin,\" with regard to the Indian Empire, our past\nmisgovernments, and our present failure to recognize old promises: \"The\nglorification of our Indian policy only made me melancholy.\"\n\nThe \"degree\" which Martineau was to receive was no doubt his \"Doctor of\nDivinity\" degree which he took in 1884 (Edinburgh). Dr. Jowett, it will be\nremembered, was, throughout his whole life, closely identified with\nBalliol College. He was Fellow in 1838, tutor of his college from 1840\ntill 1870, when he was chosen as Master. Ruskin (to whom reference is made\nin the second letter) gave the larger part of his originally large fortune\nto the founding of St. George's Guild. This was intended to be a sort of\nagricultural community of \"old-world virtues\" for young and old, \"and\nancient and homely methods.\" One of his great aims was the promoting of\nhome industries. As regards Newman's reference to politics at the end of\nletter No. 2 in 1888, Gladstone's Government was but just _breathing_\nafter the sharp tussle they had been through with the Home Rule party,\nwith Parnell at their head. In 1886 Gladstone had brought in the measure\nwhich was to give Ireland a \"statutory parliament.\" This was practically\nthe signal for a disastrous rent which tore his party in two, and was the\nprecursor of their defeat at the next General Election.\n\n\n_Dr. Martineau from Newman._\n\n\"_6th July_, 1888.\n\n\"My dear Martineau,\n\n\"I did not know that the day of Oxford Convocation was June 20th. I was\nengaged to the Worcester College Gaudy for the 21st. Had I known that on\nthe 20th you were to receive the degree, I should have been tempted to\ncome and 'assist,' though I have always had an instinctive hatred of such\nmobs.\n\n\"I was at Birmingham on the 20th to see my brother. The noises on the rail\ngreatly affected my brain and stomach. Noise was increased in the bedroom\nat Oxford, beside which heavy goods went to the rail, and I had two bad\nnights, partly from that cause, aided by the mental excitement up to\nmidnight.\" [It is not difficult to understand this \"excitement.\" The\nmeeting between the brothers was never devoid of a certain mental\nreticence. It must almost have been impossible to forget the fact that\nabout the subject on which each had always been most keenly exercised,\nthey were worlds apart.]\n\n\"When I reached home I thought myself _quite well_, but soon found I could\nnot write a word without one or more blunders in several letters, and a\nneedful epistle became a heap of unsightly blots. This is only\nexaggeration of a weakness becoming normal with me. I have to write as\nslow as any little schoolboy. My housemaid was alarmed without my knowing\nit; but mere rest and sleep in some days removed my wife's alarms. But I\nstill am forced to write very slowly, and cannot help some blunders.... On\nthe morning of the 22nd I called on Jowett, who instantly said, 'Tonight\nis _our_ Gaudy; you _must_ come to it.' I had to beg off from my Worcester\nCollege host. (I was on my way to see friends in a neighbouring village.)\nI sat down to dinner with 102 guests; such a company as I never before\n_looked_ at. I name chiefly high Anglo-Indians and their various\n_attach\u00e9s_ (members of Balliol College): _oi peri_ Lords Northbrook,\nRipon, and Lansdowne, three Viceroys of India, and Sir Gordon Duff, late\nGovernor of Bombay.\" [It will not have been forgotten that the part played\nby Lord Lansdowne and Lord Ripon in 1833, with respect to the Bill for the\ndiscontinuance of the East India Company's trade, was not a very\ndistinguished one.]\n\n\"Many smaller stars, Mr. Ilbert of name well known, and (long ago to _me_\nwell known) General Richard Strachy, eager for bi-metallism. He began, but\nalas! could not finish his elucidation to me, how it would relieve Indian\nfinance, without _anyone_ losing _any_thing, or any lessening of payment,\nor dismissing officers, or the English Government paying anything, nor any\nunlucky last holder of coin or paper losing. The miracle (as to me it\nseemed) was to be wrought, not by a double standard--that was an ignorant\nmistake--but by a _single standard metal_, composed of gold and silver in\nfixed ratio. I was not happy enough (or unhappy enough) to _learn_ how\nthis was to result; but his eagerness and confidence were to me a\nsurprising phenomenon.\n\n\"A Worcester College man told me that your _Types of Morals_ had already\nleft a _strong_ impression on younger men. I think there has not yet been\ntime for the second great book and work.\n\n\"The glorification of our Indian Policy only made me melancholy. I hope\nyou now get full and real rest. Though I _feel_ as in perfect health, I\nhave to say to myself, _Non sum qualis eram_, and take warnings. Pray, do\nyou the same.\n\n\"Affectionately, to you and yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\n\"In London vegetarianism seems going ahead. I have, still struggling\nthrough the press, _Reminiscences of Two Exiles and Two Wars_. The Quakers\nwill be at once pleased and angry if that is possible.\"\n\n\n _Dr. Martineau from Newman._\n\n\"_19th Aug._, 1892.\n\n\"My dear Martineau,\n\n\"I seem to have allowed you to get quite out of my sight. This is a result\nof my practical renunciation of London, the place which seems too exciting\nfor me. I do not wonder that you so early take refuge in far Scotland. I\nso mortified my dear friend Anna Swanwick last year by my sudden retreat\nfrom the overstrain of her house, that I did not dare to repeat the trial\nthis year; indeed, I should deeply alarm my wife by attempting it, and,\nalas! dear Anna herself proved unable to sustain herself--due, I suppose,\nto the self-imposed task of her new book. Though I am myself (foolishly\nperhaps) reprinting a tract on Etruscan, I see how many things are better\nleft to younger minds. I am here (near Bewdley, Worcestershire) to make\npersonal acquaintance with a remarkable man who has made marked advances\nto me for more (I think) than three years. He _was_ a prot\u00e9g\u00e9 of Ruskin's\nand member of St. George's Guild. As such he was (apparently) reared under\nEmerson, Margaret Fuller, and Carlyle more than under Ruskin, and heard\nall the side of English Agnosticism. But with the growth of his own mind\nhe became dissatisfied, and now for fourteen years he has given himself to\na fruit farm of four and a half acres, with a cow and kitchen-garden and\npigs! and abundant poultry, and looks the type of the future English\npeasant. His wife and one trusty woman manage dairy and cookery with\neminent success, and various sales, while he is cow-milker and gardener,\nstudent also of fruit and of the soil. _It is to me an interest as a\nforesight of the future_. He is a _student_ of our hardest literature, and\nemploys no labourer under him. Ignorant of foreign tongues, he reads\nGerman translations and Jowett's _Plato_.... A school friend of Mr.\nBraithwaite lately sought my acquaintance.... He tells me that Mr.\nGladstone lately gave to the world the utterance that among the\npossibilities of the immediate future he now sees, rather than any general\nAgnosticism, a simple recurrence to the simple Judaic Godhead. I _wish_\nwell to Gladstone's new Cabinet, but fear that the trickiness by which he\nled Parnell's folk to aid Salisbury's overthrow will arouse a fatal\nresentment. If he espouse the Indian claims, that may save him. My best\nregards to all yours, and earnest wishes.\n\n\"Your affectionate friend,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nMr. Estlin Carpenter wrote lately to me to say that he does not know of\nany evidence to prove that Newman and Martineau were \"acquainted, or at\nleast intimate,\" before the former became tutor of Manchester College. He\nsays their correspondence ended in 1892, and he imagines that Newman's\n\"declining health during the last two or three years made further writing\nimpossible,\" but that their warm regard for each other, up to the very\nend, was unalterable.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nFRANCIS NEWMAN AS A TEACHER\n\n\nFrancis Newman was certainly one of the greatest mathematical and\nclassical scholars of his day. So that when the authorities of University\nCollege secured him for their staff, they knew that they could have\nobtained no better man for their purpose.\n\nAs a teacher he showed an infinite fertility of method in dealing with the\nyoung men who, there for the purpose of learning, yet did not always\n_want_ to learn! He had, in especial, that rather vague and narrow\ndefinition of genius--\"an infinite capacity for taking pains.\" He \"took\"\nthem always with any scholar who had failed to grasp his meaning in some\none of his instructions. He could put the whole matter in some absolutely\nnew light--take it from an utterly different point of view; so that, while\ngiving another chance to the slow-witted, he did not keep his whole class\nwaiting. The quality of teaching is not strained. It is doubtful if it is\ncapable of being learnt, if not in the first instance, in some measure,\ninnate. Lying dormant in a man's being--even if, perhaps, its presence is\nunrecognized by its owner--it can certainly be developed by him when he is\nconscious of it. But if the power in embryo be absent, it is a difficult\nmatter indeed to attain by effort any capacity of which one has not\nalready the beginnings in oneself. Indeed, a famous writer of another age\nhas written the word \"impossible\" against this attempt.\n\nFrank Newman could, and would, take any trouble to help any dull student\nover some mathematical or classical stile, but he was not an adept at\nquickly getting into touch with that Presence which has moved, in\nwhimsical measure, through the ways and by-ways of this life since the\nworld began with coat of many colours, upon which the sun of merry\nimagination was always sparkling, and cap and bells which could for the\nmoment ring sudden, spontaneous mirth across the shadows of the darkest\nday. If in medieval days it could cross the cell of some grave and\nreverend monastery, and guide the hand of some sculptor busy at his\ngargoyle for some majestic church, surely it could, with the greatest ease\nin the world, cross the threshold of some crowded class-room where a\nlearned, absorbed professor was endeavouring to gain the attention of a\nnumber of young men rejoicing in their youth and on the look-out for the\nfirst suggestion of the Spirit of Humour. Frank Newman was not quick at\nappreciating the quips and cranks, the--to others--irresistibly mirth-\nprovoking sallies of humour. He was not quick at seeing a joke. And when\nmiddle age was well past with him, he did not always see when he had\nhimself been provocative of an upset of gravity on the part of the\nstudents. He did not always discover in time the pranks and designs for\ndiverting the course of true knowledge in which the average young\nEnglishman loves to indulge. He had not a very close focus for this sort\nof thing, and probably the reason was, that he was so absolutely absorbed\nin the subject which he was teaching or upon which he was lecturing. But\nin teaching a mixed class of boys or young men it is a _sine qu\u00e2 non_ that\none possesses a \"mind's eye\" with easily adjustable focus, as in a\nphotographic camera; otherwise one cannot keep in mental touch with those\nmembers of the class who \"come to\" play \"and remain to\" distract the\nattention of fellow-students. Another reason why Newman did not appeal to\nthese non-studious ones was attributable to the fact that he was, in many\nways, very eccentric both in manner and dress. Now, everyone who knows the\naverage English boy at all, knows that if there is one thing he cannot\nstand it is eccentricity. To be eccentric is to be taboo. As regards the\n\"correct\" thing to wear, and the \"correct\" thing to do and how to do it,\nhe is generally quite as particular as the average young woman over\nfashion. And anyone who offends in these respects has his name written\nupon the ostracisic shell. If it happens to be a master--well, his\npeculiarities are quite enough to divert the boy's attention successfully\nfrom the weightier matters in which the master is vainly endeavouring to\ninstruct him.\n\nSir Alfred Wills, Mr. Winterbotham, Sir Edward Fry, Mr. William de Morgan,\nand others, to whose kindness I am indebted for many reminiscences of\nProfessor Newman as a teacher, tell me that he had many eccentricities\nwhich perpetually aroused their sense of humour. Sir Edward Fry tells me\nthat his manner, when he himself was at college in 1848, was \"somewhat\nnervous, perhaps even a little irritable, and he was not exactly popular\nas a professor. But his lectures were very interesting and stimulating.\"\nHe adds that he was \"a very brilliant scholar, with a tendency towards\neccentricity.\"\n\nThis eccentricity showed itself in various forms, but one very noticeable\none was that of dress. I am told by a friend that he often dressed in the\nonion fashion--three coats one over the other, and the last one--green!\nThat he often wore trousers edged with a few inches of leather, and that\nhis hats were not immaculate. Well, perhaps it has never been quite\nunderstood from what part of old and unfashionable attire the Spirit of\nHumour winks at one with such twinkling fun in the corner of its eye that\nlaughter is irresistible. But none the less, few there are of us who have\nnot--though it may be against our steadier and wiser judgment--at some\ntime or other caught sight of that wink, and laughed spontaneously. To\neveryone who saw it, when the relics were collected and placed in his old\nhouse in Cheyne Row, Carlyle's old 'top' hat was irresistibly funny.\nNothing loses caste more completely than a top hat when it is behind the\ntime, and the shine is off the silk.\n\nSir Alfred Wills mentions, in the reminiscences which follow, which he has\nkindly sent me, that at one time Newman \"took to walking from his house\"\n(in town) \"to the college and back in cap and gown.\" This, however, was\nnot such a startling vagary of costume in a London street as was that of a\ncertain professor of my acquaintance, very absent-minded and dreamy, who,\nintent on making some abstruse point clear to a young lady pupil, walked\none evening round and round a London square with her, talking earnestly,\nand attired in his top hat and dressing-gown!\n\nAs regards Newman's teaching of Latin, Sir Alfred Wills says that \"much\nthe best thing that\" he \"got from\" him \"was the practice in writing\" it.\nHe tells us that his lectures showed signs of the most profound research,\nand that he took untiring trouble in explaining any difficulty which had\narisen. If the difficulty had been that of some member of one of his\nclasses, he would not keep the whole class waiting while he went over the\ndifficult part of the lesson again, but he would approach the subject from\nan altogether different point of view, and throw, for the class _in toto_,\na new light upon it.\n\nOf course it was not only in Latin that he wished to make pupils think of\nit as a \"spoken language,\" for Mr. Darbishire tells us that \"one of his\nspecial endeavours was to accustom his students to deal with Greek _as a\nspoken language_\" [Footnote: It will be remembered that Francis Newman\nintroduced the \"new\" pronunciation of Latin.] (as, for instance) \"in\nreading Greek plays.\" Mr. Darbishire further tells us that Newman was\naccustomed to have a series of meetings in his study for conversation in\nLatin.\n\nAs regards old methods of teaching Latin, I should like to quote from a\npaper on \"Modern Latin\" which Francis Newman wrote in 1862, because there\nis very much in what he says which shows where the failure of the old\nsystem comes in:--\n\n\"In general the old method was one of repetition: _it dealt immensely in\ncommitting Latin to memory_. Ridiculous as was the system of giving to\nboys a Latin syntax in the Latin language, it at any rate did accustom\nthem to the reiteration of a small number of words expressed in very\nsimple sentences, and conveying knowledge of _immediate utility_.... While\nI nevertheless believe that at most schools the boys still learn grammar\nby heart, I venture to remark that the newer method of teaching, so far as\nknown to me, has immensely lessened the _quantity_ of Latin which is thus\nlearned....\n\n\"Further, it seems to me that we want what I may call a Latin novel or\nromance--that is, a pleasing _tale_ of _fiction_ which shall convey\nnumerous Latin words which do not easily find a place in poetry, history,\nor philosophy. Nothing has struck me as being so much to the purpose as an\nimitation of the story of Robinson Crusoe, which brings in much that is\ntechnical to special occupations--as in nautical affairs--carpentering,\nfowling, pottery, basket-making, agriculture, etc.... If anyone had genius\nto produce in Terentian style Latin comedies worthy of engaging the minds\nand hearts of youth (for I can never read a play of Terence to a young\nclass without the heartache), I should regard this as a valuable\ncontribution.\"\n\nI pass on now to some reminiscences, kindly contributed by Sir Alfred\nWills, of the professor in relation to his University College students in\n1846:--\n\n\"I have a very distinct recollection of the personality of Mr. F. W.\nNewman. He was appointed to the Professorship of Latin in University\nCollege in 1846, and I entered the college in October, 1846, and attended\nhis first lecture and all those he delivered in the course of that\nsession.\n\n\"He was of middle stature, very well made, with a face that always\nreminded me of the type of the North American Indian, with which I was\nfamiliar from Mrs. Catlin's book published in 1841. His complexion was\ndark, his hair very black and with no tendency to curl, and he wore it\nlong, and his nose was aquiline. He differed from the Indian type,\nhowever, in that his face was rather narrow than broad.\n\n\"His voice was particularly clear and 'carrying,' and every syllable could\nbe heard. I ought to have added to my description that his eyes were blue,\nbright, very expressive, and his smile, not very often seen, peculiarly\nsweet and engaging. He was decidedly eccentric. At one time, in dirty\nwinter weather, he wore trousers of which the lower six or eight inches\nwere of black leather; and at another time, upon what occasion I forget,\nhe took to walking from his house to the college and back in cap and gown.\nThere was a 'Cap and Gown' movement among the students, or some of them,\nin the session 1847-8, but it was not upon that occasion, for I remember\nseeing him in the streets in cap and gown, and during the session 1847-8,\nI was at home in bad health, having overworked myself. He would now and\nthen, very seldom, ask some of the students to breakfast at his house. It\nwas an odd mixture of hospitality and formality. He never seemed quite at\nhis ease on such occasions, and I have a very distinct remembrance of one\nof these occasions.\n\n\"It was in singularly gloomy and bitter weather in the winter or very\nearly spring of 1849. We were rather a large party. There was no fire\neither in the room in which we assembled or in the breakfast room; and I\nhave not often been colder. There was only one guest who was not a\nstudent, and he was a certain Herr Vukovich (that was how the name was\npronounced) who had been Hungarian Minister of Justice during the short\nperiod when Kossuth was supreme in Hungary.\n\n\"When he came in, Professor Newman said: 'Gentlemen, this is Herr\nVukovich, lately Minister of Justice in Hungary,' and then turning to Herr\nV., he added, 'I shall not introduce these gentlemen to you by name, as it\nwould be of no interest to you; and besides, you would forget their names\nat once'; and then he went off at score with, 'I have never been able to\nunderstand, Herr Vukovich, how it is that you have never introduced the\nBactrian camel into Hungary,' and then proceeded to enlarge upon the\nadmirable suitability of the Bactrian camel to the climate, soil, roads,\nconditions of Hungary. Herr V. _looked_ very much as if he had never heard\nof the Bactrian camel.\n\n\"During the whole of the session 1846-7, Newman's lectures were the wonder\nof all who heard him. We read with him some of Cicero's letters to\nAtticus, and his stores of information of every description--antiquarian,\nphilological, historical, and literary--were absolutely marvellous. I have\nnever destroyed or lost my notes of them, and I feel sure that they would\njustify all that I have said. We all felt that we had secured for the\ncollege an intellectual giant. I had the great advantage of being, during\nmy first session, in the senior class in both Latin and Greek, and we had\nfor our Greek Professor Mr. Malden, who, I should think, was unsurpassed\nfor sound and elegant scholarship, and in whose lectures I delighted from\nfirst to last during my two sessions (1846-7 and 1848-9), but certainly\nduring the first session, Professor Newman's lectures were those which\nmade upon me the deepest impression, which remains unimpaired to this day.\nIt seemed as if no trouble was too great for him to take in preparing for\nthem and as if nothing which could throw any light upon a set of letters,\nwhich are often obscure and difficult, ever escaped his eagle eye or his\nprofound research. When I returned to college in 1848, I met with a\nprofound disappointment. I have been asked for my recollections, and I\nmust make them truthful. Professor Newman was at that time much engrossed\nwith his theological and religious works.\n\n\"_The Soul_ was published in 1849, and whether that may account for the\nchange or not, the fact is that the lectures of that session presented a\nmarked contrast to those of the earlier session, and I don't think I am\nexaggerating when I say that they were dry and jejune to the last extent.\nAnd I felt throughout that session that much the best thing I got from it\nwas the practice in writing Latin, which was always an important part of\nhis teaching, and in which he was a master himself. I am sure it is true\nthat days often passed without there being anything in the lectures which\nI cared to preserve or even to note. I had that year, however, the\nprivilege of reading the Nicomachean Ethics with him as a private pupil,\nand found him as good in Greek and as interested in illustration as I had\npreviously found him in his Latin lectures.\n\n\"I forbear to touch upon his private character. That impressed itself\ninsensibly upon us as worthy of the highest respect. But it was simply\nfrom the natural effluence of a noble character, for we came rarely into\nanything like personal intimacy with him. He was reserved and even shy,\nand I doubt if any of us knew much more of him privately than I did--which\nwas not much.\"\n\nI think these reminiscences of Sir Alfred Wills bring before us very\nvividly the sort of intercourse which existed between professor and pupil\nin those days. It reveals Newman as a man with whom the pupil would not\nfeel altogether at his ease--towards whom he would not be moved to get\ninto close sympathy, and this, perhaps, very largely because of a certain\nstiffness and formality of manner which unavoidably erects a barrier\nbefore any natural, spontaneous conversation.\n\nSir Edward Fry mentions Newman's manner as a \"nervous\" one, but says that\nhis lectures were very stimulating, leading one to infer that even if the\ndelivery was not arresting or impressive, yet all this was made up for by\nthe force and brilliance of the matter itself.\n\nIt will be remembered that, at any rate, in his Oxford days, J. H. Newman\nhad not an impressive manner either.\n\nWe come now to some other keenly interesting recollections--those of Mr.\nWilliam de Morgan, who has kindly written them for this memoir. Mr. de\nMorgan tells me that his father and Francis Newman were old friends, but\nthey were widely apart on religious questions, and that he remembers \"when\nthe Martineau controversy was at its height\" he said to him: \"Newman and I\nwere very old colleagues, and I loved and respected him. But if I had been\nsupposed to have any official knowledge of Newman's views about\nChristianity derived from my position as a Professor, I should have thrown\nup my situation long ago.\" And Mr. de Morgan adds: \"This had reference to\nthe absolute agnosis on religious views which was the banner U.C. nailed\nto the mast in old days.\" He says he remembers, in his boyhood, that there\nwere many religious discussions between his parents and Francis Newman,\nbut that he was far too young to understand what they were about then, and\nremembers them consequently but vaguely.\n\n\"When I came to see more of Newman as a Professor in class, I had arrived\nat the condition of a pert and very foolish boy of sixteen who had made up\nhis mind to be an artist and failed altogether to take advantage of the\nsplendid opportunities before him. I attended Newman's classes; saw him\nevery day; might have acquired the knowledge of much of the Latin\nclassics. Somehow I missed my chances, and I cannot now recall a single\ninstance of my availing myself of the interviews he accorded so gladly to\nany attentive student to get at difficult passages, and so on. In my time\nI suspect his classes included a larger number than usual of bad and idle\nyoung scaramouches, who deserved to be turned out of the class, instead of\nthe sort of over-forbearance their Professor showed. I feel sure now that\na more truculent character than his would have enforced order better, with\nadvantage to the weak and wavering pupils. He treated boys too much like\nhuman creatures--and some of us were as mischievous as monkeys. I\nrecollect a particular instance illustrating this fact and his\nforbearance.\n\n\"The weather was bad, and bad colds abounded. One day Newman ventured to\nremonstrate gently with the victims of catarrh--indeed, the noise was\nawful. But he had the indiscretion to add: 'Gentlemen, if you cannot wipe\nyour noses, I must really ask you to blow them outside the door.' Of\ncourse the results were awful! The young imps rushed out incessantly into\nthe passage, and made noises like motor-cars. If the Professor committed\nan error of judgment in his first edict, he certainly made up for it by\nthe way he kept his temper. In this he was really perfect. But the boys\npresumed on it, of course. I remember that one of them, instead of\nattending to his _Juvenal_, wrote a long poem about this nose incident,\nwhich passed from hand to hand.\n\n\"There was another incident about that time which I fancy others may\nremember better than I. It was snow time, and the schoolboys in the\nplayground were pelting papers in the college precinct. Newman passed by,\nand a heavy volley all but destroyed his umbrella, which he used as a\nshield. A few days after he came into the Common Room with a new umbrella.\n'See what a beautiful present I've had,' he said, 'from my young friends\nacross the railings.' I have an impression that it was a guinea umbrella\nbought with penny subscriptions; but this may be another story that has\ngot mixed with it.\"\n\nSir Edward Fry writes, in response to a request from me for his\nrecollections of Newman:--\n\n\"I attended Professor Newman's senior class on Latin literature for two or\nthree sessions in 1848, and I have a very vivid remembrance of him; at\nthat time he had not assumed a beard, and his clean-cut features were not\nobscured by hair, as in later life. His lectures were very interesting and\nstimulating. If I may venture to express an opinion on the point, I should\ndescribe him as a very brilliant scholar, with a tendency towards\neccentricity.\n\n\"We read whilst I was with him some three or four of the early works of\nLivy, and some of the histories of Tacitus; and his expansion of the\nConstitution of Rome, both at the early and later date, was of very\nunusual excellence. Such was my memory, and this has been confirmed by a\nreference to my notebooks which I have made in consequence of your note. I\nthink his estimate of character did not always agree with that of Tacitus.\nOther subjects which I recollect as having been expounded were the\nrelation of Latin to the Celtic group of languages, and that everlasting\nquestion, the relation of the Etruscans and the Pelasgi.\n\n\"Once a week Newman used to give out a piece of English prose to be\nrendered into Latin; these he corrected, reading also to us his own\nversion. Since your note I have looked at such notes of his lectures as I\ncan find, and at his corrections of my Latin prose.\"\n\nMr. Talfourd Ely, writing on Francis Newman as a teacher, says \"he was\nmost careful and conscientious in his work. He was refined and even\nfastidious in literary taste. To the ordinary undergraduate, such as\nmyself, he seemed too little like other men. We did not understand his\ngenius, and were too apt to judge him by peculiarities of garb and speech.\nLike many other scholars, he could hardly keep in touch with young\nathletes, and probably did not care to do so. But personally I was greatly\nindebted to him, and I can never forget his generous help and kindly\nthoughtfulness.\"\n\nMr. Winterbotham, also pupil of Francis Newman, says:--\n\n\"I was more keen on mathematics than classics, and was not what he would\nhave considered a promising pupil. My brother Edward, who was a year my\nsenior, was not much better.... My recollections are confined to the\npeculiarities of his dress and manner: the rug with a hole in the middle\nfor his head, which formed his outer garment in winter. The complete suit\nof dark grey alpaca, _tail_ coat, waistcoat, and trousers, which he donned\nin warm weather.\n\n\"His remonstrance to the class on the indignity inflicted on him by the\nboys at the adjoining school, who snowballed him and broke his umbrella,\nwas followed by his request that they would 'use their influence with the\nboys' by way of protecting him in future, and his recognition of their\nefforts next day, when he exhibited a new umbrella presented to him by the\nboys.... For dear old De Morgan [Footnote: Father of the Mr. de Morgan who\ncontributes his reminiscences, and old friend of Newman.] I had a great\nregard, and I was better able to appreciate his marvellous powers as a\nmathematician.\"\n\nHere is a short reminiscence by Professor Pye Smith:--\n\n\"Newman was a small, dark, slightly-built man, with black moustache and\nbeard, and a doubtful affected manner. He made us read long passages\nwithout comment, and rarely went beyond the translation. I do not think I\never spoke to him (or others of his class). The memory of his teaching\nwould, I think, be most valuable in correcting the Latin verses we made\nfor his comment and correction. The only professors at that time whom I\ngot great benefit from were Aston Key, De Morgan, and Masson.\"\n\nThe next reminiscence belongs to a much later date in the Professor's\nlife. In 1863 he was no longer teaching at University College. Mrs.\nKingsley Tarpey says she remembers him first in the summer of 1874 or\n1875. Her descriptions of him, his opinions, and his life as she knew it\nare full of keen interest.\n\n[Illustration: FRANCIS NEWMAN\nIN MIDDLE AGE\nFROM PHOTO BY JOHN DAVIES, WESTON-SUPER-MARE]\n\nIn the quotation from a letter which follows, Professor Newman's own views\non teaching at the college are given:--\n\n\"You say there is a complaint that '_as the students cannot be got to\nprepare their work_ the lessons _have come to be_ mere prelections from\nthe professors.' I am not aware of any change in the pupils since I have\nbeen here, except that my classes are smaller, in part owing to the\nremoval of Coward College and the rivalry of the new institution in which\nit is now comprised; in part (I happen to know) from dread of my personal\n... influence; in part, I suspect, from the working of London University,\nwhich I think bad; and others must add, whether worst of all is, my own\nwant of judgment in selecting subjects, and the mode of the treatment.\nUndeniable it is that my classes are smaller, that my half-dozen best\nscholars are decidedly below the half-dozen best I had in the first year\nor two. But if I am myself to blame, it is, I think, _from the very\nreverse process_ of that implied in the words above quoted, viz. I often\nquestion whether it would not be at once wiser and more right to raise my\nteaching to the small minority of my best pupils, and ignore the many who\ncome in on my classes unprepared. I have of late suspected that I allow\nthe University so to drag me down into school teaching that the abler and\nadvanced students are driven away from me. Moreover, I am getting quite\nsick of going again and again over elementary books in mere school\nfashion.\n\n\"To vary this, I have this term given one day a week in my senior class to\nlecture _on_ books, viz. 1st, on Horace's _Odes_, which nine out of ten\nhave already read, and which I myself read with the junior class last\nsession (having engaged to do this before I guessed that the University\nwould select the same year for B.A.), and many of the junior class being\nthis year in my senior class. 2nd, on the _Epistles_ of Cicero, which are\nenormously too long and too difficult for pupils to read, and in which,\nnevertheless, candidates for honours at B.A. are liable to be examined. I\nconjecture that somebody has seen this announcement of mine in our\nprospectus, and imputes it to a _relaxation of discipline_ in my pupils\n(indeed there is little enough, and always was, in the majority of mine;\nthey only want to scrape through their degree, and the University kindly\nkeeps its real demands at a minimum). On the contrary, it is an effort of\nmine to make the lectures less unworthy of my more advanced pupils. I may\nadd that I have _always_ lectured more or less in this way on Cicero's\n_Letters_.... At the same time I avow my entire dissatisfaction with\nthings as I have them. In June I have to print and publish the books in\nwhich I will lecture from October to June next, _while I have not the\nslightest idea who will be in the classes_. In August, out comes the\nstatement of University books for the following year, which often\nincreases my confusion. It is easier to complain of this than to remedy\nit.\"\n\nIt is not difficult to understand Newman's point of view as regards the\nalmost impossibility of keeping in hand in one class a team of students--\nsome eagerly desirous of going forward into the real study of literature,\nand others only anxious to \"scrape through\" for the purpose of obtaining\ntheir degree.\n\nMrs. Kingsley Tarpey's reminiscences begin thus:--\n\nI think it was in the summer of 1874 or 1875 that Professor Newman first\ncame to visit us. My mother had been much interested in some articles of\nhis on vegetarianism, and had corresponded with him on the subject, and\nwhen the Annual Conference of the Vegetarian Society was held in\nManchester later on, he stayed with us. This visit was the beginning of a\nvery warm friendship with our family, which lasted close on twenty years.\nDuring that time my mother corresponded regularly with Professor Newman,\nbut unfortunately only some eighteen or twenty of his letters have been\npreserved. There is scarcely one of these, however, that does not contain\nsomething of permanent interest and value.\n\nI remember very well, in the days when we used to have visits from him,\nthat Professor Newman was looked upon by very many as a mere faddist. His\nextreme views on several subjects no doubt took him out of range of the\nsympathies of the \"man in the street.\" But it is strange to find, on\nlooking through these letters, how advanced opinion is coming into line\nwith his so-called outrageous ideas of a generation ago. It would have\ngiven him keen pleasure, if he could have lived till now, to see the\nstrides that have been made of late years in the Women's Suffrage\nmovement, and the admission of women to public bodies. In social and moral\nreform, and in the Temperance movement also, the progress has been very\nmarked, and we may soon have an Act prohibiting the smoking of tobacco by\nyoung boys--a matter on which Professor Newman had very strong views.\nLast, but not least, the Vegetarian movement, in which he took so keen an\ninterest, has gained new vigour from the advocates of the simple life.\n\nI remember that on the occasion of his first visit we children regarded\nhim with mingled awe and curiosity. His quaint appearance and his formal,\ndeliberate manner of speech made him seem to us like a being from another\nworld. We were at once fascinated and repelled, and I think he became at\nfirst the object of our constant, though furtive, observation. But his\nunvarying gentle kindness and extreme simplicity very soon won our\nconfidence, and later on an accident made us his fast friends and\nadmirers.\n\nIt happened that the second or third time that he came to Manchester for\nthe annual meeting of the Vegetarian Society, my father and mother were\naway, and it fell to the younger members of the household to entertain our\ndistinguished visitor. It was an occasion looked forward to with\ntrepidation and misgiving, but we need not have felt alarmed. No one could\nhave been more genial in his attitude to the youthful housekeepers. He\nwould chat easily and pleasantly with even the youngest of us, and he\nalways managed to find some interesting topic. Sometimes he would give us\nan account of the doings at the Conference during the day. I remember some\ncurious facts about some of the members. One man ate nothing but apples,\nand considered them a complete and ideal food for man. Another varied his\ndiet between roots and nuts. He carried assorted strange nuts with him in\nhis pocket, and after his speech he presented some to the President. Our\nProfessor brought them home with him and wished us to try them, but I am\nafraid that, with the conservative instinct of young animals, we\ndistrusted the unknown, and we did not venture. The Professor considered\nthat our molar teeth clearly indicated grain, roots, and nuts as our food,\nand the incisors as clearly suggested fruit, but at that time he was in\nsome doubt about the canine teeth. At his request some of us gravely\ncracked nuts with him, and after the experiment we agreed that human\nbeings more naturally crack nuts with the back teeth, where leverage is\nmost powerful. A suspicion remained that our pointed fangs _might_ have\nbeen used to tear flesh!\n\nDuring this same visit it was suggested that the Society should change its\nname to one that would describe it more accurately, \"Vegetarian,\"\nstrictly, implying that the members would eat only vegetables. There was\nmuch difficulty in finding a portmanteau word that would convey\nvegetables, eggs, and milk. Professor Newman much disliked the idea of\ncalling it the VEM Society (the name that was afterwards adopted, I\nthink); his proposal was \"Anti-creophagite,\" or \"Anti-creophagist.\" But he\ncould get no support for this name; members objected that no one would\nknow what it meant or how to spell it. Professor Newman had been pained to\nlearn that only two or three people in the hall knew the Greek word.\n\nHe was very much interested in language, and it was characteristic of him\nnever to pass a word that he did not know. He had a great dislike and\ncontempt for _slang_, and he deplored the growing use of it, and the\nimpoverishment of the language that resulted. But dialect words, or old\nwords that lingered in some parts of the country, while they had dropped\nout of common speech, interested him greatly. One day a younger sister of\nmine brought him a footstool as he sat reading, and in offering it to him\ncalled it a \"buffet.\" It is not a word in common use, but I think we had\nadopted it from the nursery rhyme about \"Miss Muffett, who sat on a\nbuffet.\" The Professor was on the alert at once.\n\n\"That word is quite new to me,\" he said. \"Did you say 'bussock'? I wonder\nis that a Lancashire word, or does it come from Ireland? 'Bussock'! Will\nyou spell it for me, please?\"\n\nMy sister was far too young and too shy to correct him, and after faintly\nmurmuring \"buffet\" again, she ran away in extreme confusion. I am afraid\n\"bussock\" went down in the Professor's notebook as an interesting variant\nof \"hassock.\"\n\nIn this connection some delightful stories were told by Dr. Nicholson, of\nPenrith, an old friend of Professor Newman's and of my father's. The\nProfessor was staying at Penrith, and the two friends had been walking up\na steep path. When they stopped to rest, the doctor was regretting that\nhis climbing days were virtually over.\n\n\"The truth is,\" he said humorously, \"we are neither of us as steady on our\npins as we once were.\"\n\n\"Pins, Nicholson, pins! What are _pins_?\" asked Professor Newman gravely.\n\nOn another occasion they were out walking together and the first Lord\nBrougham passed them in an open carriage. Dr. Nicholson remarked upon Lord\nBrougham wearing \"goggles,\" and Professor Newman said, in his gentle\ndeliberate way, \"Now, Nicholson, may I ask what you exactly mean by\n'goggles'?\"\n\nThe Professor wore hats that in those days were considered amazing: large\nwhite or light grey hats made of soft felt. On one of his visits to\nPenrith he had walked up from the station to the house, and he was\nfollowed by a crowd of little boys shouting \"Who's your hatter?\" which was\na catch-phrase of the time. The Professor described to Dr. Nicholson what\nan extraordinary interest the boys had shown. \"They repeatedly asked me,\"\nhe said, \"to tell them who was my hatter, and really, Nicholson, at the\ntime I could not remember the man's name.\"\n\nMiss Nicholson, of Penrith, adds another story which should have place\nhere.\n\n\"My own chief recollection of him,\" she writes, \"is of a day when he and\nthe second Mrs. Newman came into Penrith with me, where I had some\nshopping to do. On the way into the town Professor Newman said, 'You do\nnot seem to be very clear as to the history of John Brown and the battle\nof Bull's Run.' I said I was not very clear about it, so he began from the\nbeginning, so to speak, and the story of John Brown lasted till we reached\nhome again. I went into shops to make my purchases, and on each occasion\nas I came out Professor Newman took up his tale just where he had left\noff. He showed no annoyance at the frequent interruptions or at my\ninevitable lapses of attention. His wonderfully clear, distinct\nenunciation, and his marvellous memory for facts, never faltered.\"\n\nThere was an extraordinary absence of humour about Professor Newman that\nmade him at times unconsciously very humorous. I wish I could remember the\nquaint wording of an advertisement of his for a cook in a vegetarian\npaper. There was a long and precise account of the services required for\n\"the smallest possible family,\" and application was to be made by letter\nto \"Emer. Prof. F. W. Newman,\" etc. We thought some of the cooks might be\npuzzled to know what Emer. Prof. meant. I remember also an artless post\ncard he wrote after one visit explaining that he had forgotten his\n_teeth_, and asking to have them sent after him.\n\nHe had a very odd theory about baldness in men. It sounds a little like a\njoke, but I believe it was meant in all seriousness. He had observed that\nmen with a very strong growth of beard were more liable to go bald early\nthan those who had the hair on the face thin and scanty. He described this\nas a kind of _landslip_, I remember, and his idea was that human beings\ncould only have a small crop of hair, and that a good crop on the chin\nmeant a failure higher up. And that, he thought, accounted for the fact\nthat women rarely go bald.\n\nAt the time of the visit I have described, our whole family had become\nenthusiastic vegetarians--indeed, I may say the whole household of\nfourteen, for the servants had followed suit. This was a great pleasure to\nProfessor Newman, for it was through his writings that my mother had first\nbecome interested in the subject. He had great hopes at one time that she\nwould also share in some other crusades of his against alcohol, tobacco,\nvaccination, etc. etc. He sent her a great number of leaflets and\npamphlets on all these subjects, but though my father was a non-smoker and\nalmost a total abstainer, he was so from habit and inclination and not\nfrom any pledge, and I do not remember that the Professor made any convert\nexcept myself. I came across a bundle of tracts of his which no one seemed\nto be reading, and I devoured them all. For some years, from about the age\nof fifteen, I was an enthusiastic follower of Professor Newman, even in\nhis most extreme ideas. I am afraid he never became aware of this,\nhowever, for of course it was only with the older members of the family\nthat he would discuss such questions.\n\nThe most enjoyable visit we ever had from him was also the last of any\nlength that he paid us. I think it must have been in the summer of 1879 or\n1880, when we were living in the country a few miles from Manchester. It\nwas then I first learnt what a delight a country walk might be. He joined\nsome of the younger members of the party who were taking the dogs out for\na run, and I do not think two hours were ever spent by us in a more\ninteresting and fascinating way. He had the rare and charming gift, in\ntalking to young people, of making them feel that he regarded them as\nequals. And though he was imparting knowledge all the time, he had the air\nof being really more interested in what they had to contribute. That walk\nwas a revelation to me, a kind of treasure trove of natural science.\nHitherto my love of nature had been almost entirely aesthetic and\npoetical, and this walk with the Professor gave me a new pleasure and a\nnew interest in country life.\n\nI should run into great length if I were to set down all the little traits\nand incidents that go to make up the memory of that gentle and charming\npersonality. His eccentricities were entirely lovable, as we knew them,\nand even when he meant to be severe his unconsciously humorous way of\nputting things took away the sting, as when, one day at lunch, he pointed\nat a jug of claret and asked, \"What is that ugly black liquid? I say ugly\nand black because I believe it to be some kind of wine.\"\n\nHe had kind and courteous ways with women, and he surprised one by his\nthoughtfulness in domestic matters. There was no subject too small or too\nremote for his consideration. I remember his showing us a new scientific\nway to build a fire, lighting it from the top; and it is upon a lesson of\nhis on rural sanitation that I have based my own management of those\nmatters in our country home. I have a pleasant memory of his holding a\nskein of wool for me to wind one wet afternoon, and of his telling me the\nwhile of his observations of a family of _bugs_. He was travelling in the\nEast, and at some place where he stayed was much distressed by vermin. At\nlast he discovered that a procession of bugs came out nightly from a\ncertain crack in the plaster, and by removing the paper he could get a\nvery good view of the colony with the aid of a glass. He did not disturb\nthem, it is needless to say, but watched them during his stay, and learnt\nmany curious things about their habits and customs. He formed a very high\nopinion of their intelligence, I remember.\n\nOne day he came in and found my mother and some of us sitting sewing; he\nasked if he might read to us, and said that his mother and sister used to\nlike him to read to them when they had work to do. I do not remember in\nthe least what he read to us, though I am sure it was appropriate and\ninstructive; but I remember well that he stood while he read, and that his\ndelivery was as clear and as careful as if he had been reading to a large\naudience.\n\nAfter his second marriage we saw him but little, but my mother heard from\nhim now and then, and he often sent her articles he had written. In the\nlast years of his life he wrote but seldom. I give extracts from letters\nover a period of about eighteen years.\n\n\nFRANCIS NEWMAN IN PRIVATE LIFE\nBY MRS. BAINSMITH, SCULPTOR\n\nMy father and mother were very great personal friends of Newman's,\nconsequently I saw a great deal of him during my early girlhood.\n\nMy father was the late George Bucknall, of Rockdene, Weston-super-Mare,\nand for many years was a great invalid. He suffered from locomotor ataxy.\nProfessor Newman lived just across the road from our house: we could often\nsee him walking about his garden, or sitting at his library window, and\nvery often he came across to our house to discuss his books or letters\nwith my father.\n\nAs a young girl I remember the great fascination of his courtly, genial\nmanners. I shall never forget my first interview with him. It happened on\nmy return home from school for the holidays. Being much distressed at\nhaving to change from the old pronunciation of Latin to the \"new,\" it\noccurred to my father that I should ask Professor Newman to help me. So I\nwent in to see him. He was sitting by the fire in large fur-lined boots\nmade of felt, and wearing two coats (for he always found it difficult to\nkeep sufficiently warm). When I stated my difficulty, he went to his\nshelves with his wonderful smile (the room was lined from floor to ceiling\nwith books) and took out his translation of the _Iliad_, and read it to\nme. Then he said quite casually, \"Now I will read the same passage to you\nin Latin.\" And he proceeded to read it aloud in a musical voice of\nexquisite charm. I cannot express the pleasure which this gave me, nor how\nit set me at my ease with him from that moment. He gave me a very warm\ninvitation to come again, and he would gladly help me in any holiday work\nI wanted to do.\n\nI was always specially struck with his way of talking about religion. He\nwas very reverent in what he said, and it was evident that he was at heart\ndeeply religious. I mention this because in later years it has been often\na shock to me to find him condemned by others for doubting revealed\nreligion.\n\nThe Professor's special views on foods were very strong, and he had a\ngreat dislike for the custom of rearing cattle for food. Once he gave a\ndinner party to show how many choice courses could be served with\nvegetarian recipes only. As my mother was ill at the time, I was invited\nto go with my father. I remember the delightful way in which he received\nus. He presented the \"youngest lady\" (myself) to the \"oldest gentleman\"--\nthe late Professor Jarrett, who was an old college friend of his, and who\nwas staying with Newman. I remember the awe with which I gazed at him. Mr.\nand Mrs. Dymond, Mr. and Mrs. Temperley Grey, and Mr. and Mrs. F. G.\nComfort were among the other guests.\n\nOnce, when he was talking to my mother, he said: \"You are wearing a nice\ncoat\" (a black fur one). \"I suppose it is very dear? How much a yard do\nyou think it would cost?\" As he spoke he looked down at his own coat (the\noutside one of three), and said: \"I have had this coat twenty years and\ncannot match the cloth.\" This was not to be wondered at, for it was a long\nhairy one--quite green with age. Another day I came into the room and\nheard the Professor say to my mother quite seriously: \"I never can\nunderstand how it is that my hat always interests the idle little boys in\nthe street. They say as I pass them, 'Where did you get that hat?'\nEveryone wears a hat of one shape or another, and I really fail to see why\n_mine_ should be so very interesting.\"\n\nHe was wearing a soft felt hat with a very broad brim, set far back on his\nhead; and with his peculiar American-looking beard and thin grey locks\nthat came down over the high Gladstone collar which he always wore, and a\nblack and white shepherd's-plaid scarf wound round his neck and twisted\nover in front with its ends tucked into his waistcoat, he looked\nsufficiently odd.\n\nI remember once running as fast as I could to catch the post, and as I\nstarted I saw the Professor in front of me, evidently bent on attaining\nthe same object. Great was his glee when at last I did overtake him\n(though I had some difficulty, for he ran well even at the age of\nseventy), and he said, \"I thought I would give you a good race, but you\nhave caught me up after all!\"\n\nOne day he called just as I was going for a ride. He gave me quite a\nlecture on the dangers of the side-saddle, and said very earnestly that\nwomen ought to ride \"astride\" (at that time this was a thing _incompris_\nin England). He declared that women in other countries were accustomed to\nriding thus, and that it was the only safe method of riding.\n\nAt the time of his brother's being made Cardinal, some ardent admirers of\nthe Professor's in Australia sent him a very beautiful silver inkstand.\nHis delight and pleasure in receiving such a present was great. But that\npeople should think of him in that way was a great surprise, for his\nhumility as regarded his powers was a very noticeable fact about him\nalways. The design of the inkstand was one of great beauty and good\nworkmanship. It represented ostriches standing under a palm tree, and\nbeside them was an exquisitely made silver feather for a pen.\n\n[Illustration: FRANCIS NEWMAN\nEMERITUS PROFESSOR OF LONDON UNIVERSITY\nEnlargement of photograph of the bronze bust done from life by Mrs.\nGeorgina Bainsmith, sculptor, of St. Ives, Cornwall, which is now in\nUniversity College, London.]\n\nOne afternoon my father, mother, and I were all sitting reading, when the\ndoor opened and the Professor walked in. He held his hat in his hand, and\na large rug was fastened round his shoulders like a shawl (over his three\ncoats), and in his hands he held a small brown-paper parcel. As he came in\nhe said, \"I don't know why your maid did not announce me--I see she is a\nstranger\"; and then turning to my mother, who had been ill, he said, \"My\ncook has made a new vegetarian dish for my lunch to-day, and I requested\nher to make some for you, as I am quite sure it will suit you.\" The dish\nturned out to be delicious--one of those which his wonderful vegetarian\ncook was so constantly inventing. [Footnote: The parlourmaid, on being\nreprimanded for not showing Newman into the drawing-room, said she thought\nshe was only to show \"gentlemen\" into the drawing-room!]\n\nNewman had a theory that plants feel pain, and that we should treat all\nvegetable life as if it were sentient, and care for it accordingly.\n\nThe Professor was always ready to respond to any appeals for the\nadvancement of the Woman's Suffrage movement. At that time it was very\nunpopular, but whenever we had meetings in favour of it at our house he\nwas always the moving spirit.\n\nAt Weston-super-Mare Newman lived a life of great seclusion, and I believe\nI was the only young girl who visited him constantly--indeed, ours was the\nonly house to which he came almost daily. Once when he was very ill, I\nthink I was the only visitor admitted; and as Hannah, his old servant,\nushered me in with a smile of pleasure, I heard a curious sound. On\nlooking back to the hall door I saw a huge netting hanging from where the\nletter-box should be, trailing along the floor like a huge sausage,\ncrammed full of letters of enquiry for the Professor. Hannah told me \"the\nmaster had not been able to attend to them.\"\n\nI had long possessed a great wish to devote my time to the study of\nmodelling, and my father's great wish was that I should devote myself to\nArt. In 1885 I gained the distinction of a silver medal at Taunton\nExhibition for modelling some flowers in clay on vases, with low relief\npanels. This pleased the Professor very much; and when, one day, I told\nhim how keenly I wanted to model a bust of his head and shoulders, he\nsmiled, and said, with an odd boyish, shy sort of pleasure, \"Was he good-\nlooking enough to be immortalized?\" and added he would be delighted to sit\nto _me_ for his portrait, though he had always refused to sit to others to\nbe photographed.\n\nSo he used to come and talk to my mother, and thus I was able to work at\nmy modelling with ease. Great was my delight when I found I possessed\npower over the clay, and was succeeding in making a portrait which\neveryone considered a good one. The Professor insisted on my being very\nparticular over the collar and the scarf. (His collars always had to be\nmade for him, as he could not buy in shops the kind he wore.) In later\nyears of hard student life that followed, for me, with the added\ndistinction of other medals, nothing ever came up to the excitement caused\nby my portrait of the Professor. The bust [Footnote: This bust is now\nstanding in the general library of London University, with this\ninscription:--\n\n                       \"FRANCIS WILLIAM NEWMAN\n                       (brother of the Cardinal),\n\n             Emeritus Professor of University College, London.\n                Natus June 27, 1805. Obiit October 4th, 1897.\n   As an expression of the great esteem and affection in which he was held\n         by all who knew him, this bust (modelled from life by the\n               Sculptor) is presented to this University by\n\n                                         GEORGINA BAINSMITH, Sculptor,\n\"St. Ives, Cornwall.\" Aug. 1907.] has always been one of my greatest\ntreasures; and after the lapse of years that have gone by since it was\nfirst modelled, I still revere and reverence his memory and his truly\nbeautiful life. Whatever he wrote, _this_ is what his actual life and\ndeeds expressed strongly: \"_he lived to do good_.\" This is what impressed\nme most as a young girl, and my life has been richer and nobler for the\nhonour and privilege of knowing Francis Newman.\n\n                                           Georgina Bainsmith,\n_n\u00e9e_ Bucknall. St. Ives, Cornwall.\n\n[Illustration: ANOTHER VIEW OF THE BUST IN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE (OF FRANCIS\nNEWMAN), ON ITS PLINTH\nBY MRS. GEORGINA BAINSMITH, SCULPTOR, OF ST. IVES, CORNWALL\nThe Reproduction is by Mr. J. C. Douglas, of Strives, Cornwall, and was\nphotographed from the clay before it was cast.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nLETTERS TO ONE OF HIS GREATEST FRIENDS, DR. NICHOLSON\n\n\nDr. Nicholson, a native of Barbadoes, was only fourteen years old when his\nfather, Rev. Mark Nicholson, came to England. [Footnote: I am indebted for\nthese facts of Dr. Nicholson's life to some printed data kindly sent me by\nhis daughter.] He was sent to a private school at Bristol, and went on to\nOxford, where he took his B.A. degree. Later on he went to study Oriental\nlanguages at G\u00f6ttingen; and there he became the pupil of the famous Dr.\nEwald, Professor of Oriental Languages. At the end of his work there Dr.\nNicholson obtained the Ph.D. degree. The Professor and he became close\nfriends, and a correspondence began between them, on Dr. Nicholson's\ndeparture, which lasted unbroken till the Professor's death. He was\nperfectly conversant with Latin and Greek, and also Arabic, while Hebrew\nwas almost as familiar a language; and as for his knowledge of Sanscrit,\nEthiopian, Gothic, Chaldean, Syriac, French, German, Spanish, Italian,\nDanish, it was as perfect as could be. He had, in the truest sense, the\n_gift_ of tongues. Sixteen languages, indeed, he had mastered besides his\nown. He had, in very truth, a perfect genius for them. And it was no\nslipshod attainment with him to learn any one of the sixteen; for by the\ntime he had mastered a language he practically knew it inside _and_ out.\nHe loved this study perhaps more than any other, because it gave him a\ntruer insight into Holy Scripture. Many articles on the Hebrew Scriptures\nwere contributed by him to _Kitto's Biblical Encyclopaedia_, and there are\nmany allusions to these in Newman's letters which follow. He translated\nDr. Ewald's _Hebrew Grammar_, and thus it became well known to Englishmen.\n\n[Illustration: DR. JOHN NICHOLSON\nFROM A PHOTO TAKEN AT G\u00d6TTINGEN BETWEEN 1855 AND 1860\nBY KIND PERMISSION OF MISS NICHOLSON, PENRITH]\n\nDr. Nicholson lived for forty years at Penrith. He did not care to go much\nin society; he was too true a student for that. For the two studies (and\nsocial life _is_ certainly one) are so diametrically opposed regarded as\npursuits, that it is almost impossible to make the day long enough to\ndevote oneself to both. \"Love to study\" might very truly have been\nrecognized as his life motto, even as it was that of one of the greatest\nstudents at Harrow a few years ago, Rev. Thomas Hancock, for both men\ncared nothing for fame. Dr. Nicholson was a man of strong religious\ntendencies, and though he was in no way narrow in his views of other\nreligious societies, yet he was decidedly most in touch with the Anglican\nChurch. As a politician he was a Liberal. Fifty years ago he married the\nsecond daughter of Captain Waring, R.N., and had six children.\n\nHe died (in November, 1886), as Rev. E. W. Chapman, Vicar of Penrith,\nsaid, \"in perfect peace, with our Lord's Name and our Lord's last words on\nhis lips. His presence in the town, his loving sympathy with poor people,\nhis kindly greeting to all who knew him, we shall miss very much....\" He\nadded that \"his whole life was spent in the study of Holy Scriptures....\"\n\nFrancis Newman was his lifelong friend, and the letters which follow will\nplainly show that it was a friendship of kindred spirits: the friendship\nof two who had a great many interests in common, and were therefore in\nclose touch with each other.\n\n\n _To Dr. Nicholson from Francis Newman._\n\n\"_17th Feb._, 1843.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"I hope you will not bother your little boy with any foreign language too\nsoon. _Soak_ him well and long in his native English, or he will never\ncome to any good, I fear. If he sees a father in love with German, he will\nof himself quite early take to it. The great difficulty (I should expect)\nwill be to secure that it may not be too early. Of course you see about\nthe Anti-Corn Law doings? I think I shall before long be as fanatical as\nanyone about it: I rage the more inwardly because I have no vent. I am\neager to sign a solemn league and covenant about total and immediate\nrepeal, which I suppose and hope they will get up....\"\n\n\nThe next letter in order refers to \"Berber,\" a language bearing some\nrelation to the Arabic, over which Newman was at work with his dictionary.\nIt also touches on his own ill-health and enforced idleness. It is dated\nfrom Manchester, October, 1843:--\n\n\"I have been suffering indisposition which was aggravated in reality by\noverrating its importance. My medical adviser said it was organic\naffection of the heart; in spite of my great incredulity ... I took other\nadvice afterwards in Derby, where I went to see one of my sisters, and am\nnow assured that it was nothing but 'the great sympathetic' that\ndisordered the heart. I was nearly three weeks in the country and in\nidleness, and gained much benefit from it. I spent much indoors time in\nlearning to use water-colours, and got a nice pony to ride, and was a\ngreat deal in the air, and very early to go to bed; and took no medicines\nbut tonics and a colocynth pill on occasion. Myself and wife both return\nmuch better. I believe I knocked myself up by excitement of mind over the\nBerber and working at my dictionary, At Prichard's advice I have lately\nwritten to Bunsen to ask his aid in getting the dictionary published. I\nthink it may be of use, as adding one more known language in North Africa\nto those already accessible, which are, I believe, Arabic, Coptic, Gheez,\nand Amharic.\"\n\nIn June of the same year he says, in respect of Kitto's _Encyclopaedia_:\n\"Your _Ahasuerus_ shows you to me as an invaluable contributor to him: I\ncould not have written that (if I had had the learning) without an attack\non Ezra and Esther about the word!... Mr. Jowett has sent me (at Bunsen's\nand Prichard's request) the chief part of the transcript of the Berber MS.\nin the possession of the Bible S----. I suppose I must do my best now to\nget deeper into the language.\"\n\nIn May, 1845, Newman has been greatly interested in translating into\nGreek, English verses \"to test the _possibility_ of retaining any Greek\naccent such as the books mark in singing.\" He has tried translating \"Flow\non, thou shining river\" in Greek, so that it might be sung to Moore's own\ntune. One does not come across in his letters much reference to music, nor\ndoes it seem as if he had any great taste for it--at any rate, not in the\nsame way as had Cardinal Newman, who had a real passion for it in earlier\nyears.\n\nThe later part of the letter has to do with the much-vexed question of the\n\"Maynooth Controversy.\"\n\nNewman writes from \"4, _Cavendish Place_, 12th _May_ 1845\":--\n\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"I venture to enclose two tunes for the Sapphic metre, Greek and Latin, to\nwhich my sister, at my request, has added an accompaniment. Will you be so\nkind as to get Mrs. Nicholson to play the piano while you sing it, and\ntell me what is to be said to it? While dabbling in some of these tunes, I\nhave translated divers scraps of English poetry into Greek,\nexperimentally, especially to test the _possibility_ of retaining any\nGreek accent, such as the books mark, in singing. It seems to me a clear\nimpossibility, whether emphasis or sharpness of note predominated in the\naccent. I have translated 'Flow on, thou shining river' to Moore's own\ntune, so as to retain Greek accent _as well as_ quantity in exact\nagreement to the music ... the commonest metres puzzle me most....\n\n\"I wonder what you think of the Maynooth Controversy? To me it has been so\npuzzling a one that I have been heartily glad that nothing obliged me to\nexpress an opinion.\n\n\"Some things seem clear to me: (1) That a measure for cutting down the\nChurch of Ireland, as by Lord Morpeth's Bill, would have been, and would\nnow be, far better in every respect than this of Sir R. Peel; (2) that the\npresent is a mode of perpetuating the _sinecure_ Church of Ireland by\npaying the Romish, and real Church, out of English and Scotch funds. Hence\nit is popular with many Irish Protestants, of which Sir R. Peel _boasts!_\"\n[Francis Newman seems to forget, in his frequent allusions to\n\"Protestants\", that there was a National Church in Ireland, as in England,\nlong before the word which sprang into being at the Reformation had found\nits feet.]\n\n\"If they (the Government) were pleading that a Romanist people ought to be\nallowed to support their own Romish clergy, they could justly claim that\nwe, as a Protestant people, would not interfere on the ground of our\ndislike to Romish doctrine. But when they demand to support Romanism out\nof common funds, they implicate _us_ in the question, whether (on the\nwhole) _that_ religion contains more truth or error; and I think they\n_force_ those who see it in black colours to urge the No Popery cry. So\nfar, I am disposed to justify the Anti-Maynooth war. Sir R. Inglis may be\na bigot in his view of Romanism ... but I think he is _not_ 'out of order'\nin intruding the religious demerit of Romanism into a parliamentary\ndiscussion. If this measure had been thrown out, I fear Ireland would have\nbeen awfully embittered. Yet I hope the fierce opposition will stop any\nfuture scheme of keeping the sinecure church untouched and endowing the\npriests with imperial money.... Thus I halt between two opinions.\"\n\n\nIn November, 1843, Newman touches briefly upon the Oxford movement thus:--\n\n\"You do not seem to know that the _Record_ has been making a fuss this\nlast month about the Bishop of Oxford's public declaration that he never\nrequested my brother to suppress Tract 90. All he did was to suggest that\n'the publication of the Tracts be discontinued,' which meant that there\nwas to be no No. 91. The Bishop indignantly disclaims the idea that my\nbrother had been disobedient.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"I am, for a week past, resting from Berber, having written to M. d'Av\u00e9zac\nin Paris to ask whether a report I heard is true, that he is preparing a\ndictionary of it. I have ordered an Amharic grammar, too, and want to\ncompare them, but I abhor the Ethiopic type!.... I cannot get Kitto to\ntell me whether the sale of the _Cyclopaedia_ is satisfactory.\"\n\nAs regards Irish affairs:--\n\n\"I have lately spoken at a meeting of the Friends of Ireland, and have\nsent to the _Guardian_ newspaper here, [Footnote: Manchester Guardian.] in\nreply to their demand that I would specify some plan, a paper on _Fixity\nof Tenure_ for the cottiers of Ireland. I feel no doubt that this must ere\nlong become the great Irish question, of even more interest than the\necclesiastical one....\"\n\nAnd in March he gives more news of his \"Berber\":--\n\n\"I am again at work at the Berber MS., which I have not touched since the\n1st October. The Royal Asiatic Society have accepted my offer to edit it.\nAt present their pages are occupied with the history of Darius Hystaspis\nfrom the rocks at (I think) Besittoon, near Hemadon--the most curious\ndocument which recent research has brought to light, and, I am told,\nconfirming in detail the accounts of Herodotus.\"\n\nThe two following letters to Dr. Nicholson deal chiefly with matters\nconnected with John Sterling (who had recently died) and with Newman's\narrangements for adopting one of his children.\n\nPerhaps most people are familiar with Carlyle's biography of Sterling, but\nit may be as well to say here that he was a brilliant writer, a Liberal in\npolitics, and interested himself keenly in General Torrijos and his group\nof Spanish exiles. When at college, at the age of nineteen, he came under\nthe influence of Julius Hare, his tutor. When he was twenty-six he again\nfell in with Hare at Bonn, and here came to pass one of the mistakes of\nhis life. Chiefly through Hare's influence he took deacon's orders, and he\nworked under Hare at Hurstmonceaux for the best part of a year. Very soon\nafterwards he began to feel the breach growing wider between his own\nconvictions and those taught by the Church. He never, consequently, took\npriest's orders. Through grievous ill-health his winters were passed at\nBordeaux, in Italy, or at Madeira. He died at Ventnor 18th Sept., 1843.\n\n\n\"While riding to-day I was meditating on the continual strain which the\npulling of my horse made on the left arm, while the right was idle; and it\nstruck me that this might conduce to the size of the muscles on that side.\nAlso my wife always leans on the left, as being stronger in her right\narm.... The hardest work I am put to is holding an umbrella against a\nfierce wind; and in this my right hand certainly beats my left.... I have\nhad no bad nights since I left Manchester, except two which I attribute to\nan excitement on meeting my sister, whom I had not seen for eight\nyears.... I mean to return home next Saturday. Since I left you an\nimportant change of prospect in my domestic economy has occurred. I have\naccepted the responsible office of guardian to the eldest son (thirteen\nyears old) of my dear dying friend Sterling, whom I went to see at\nVentnor, Isle of Wight. The lad will come to Manchester next week, and in\nfuture live in our house, and I trust I shall love him as a son. He seems\na very affectionate boy. His mother died about eighteen months ago. I\nfound my poor friend on the whole stronger than I had expected, yet\nsteadily declining: long since convinced that his case was hopeless (and\nindeed expecting his end sooner than those around him), yet thoroughly\ncalm and resigned to the gracious will of Him Who had so ordained it. Not\nto mourn over talents so high and a will so upright thus prematurely to be\nlost to us were impossible, even did I not know how truly brotherly in\naffection is his heart to us. He will leave six orphan children. Yet this\ncalamity is relieved by the tenderness of his brother to them, and by the\nexistence of adequate supplies for all reasonable wants.... Tell your\nlittle boy that I have to-day been out with a nephew of mine (Johnny\nKennaway) nearly of _his_ age, and he rides a little white pony. It was\nalmost too spirited for him, and I was once afraid it would run away with\nhim; but I could not do anything to help him but pull up my own horse\nshort and call to him to do the same....\n\n\"Believe me, my dear Nicholson,\n\n\"Your affectionate friend,\n\n\"Francis W. Newman.\"\n\n\nThis letter was written from Escot, Ottery St. Mary, Devon, [Footnote: His\nwife's old home.] in September, 1844.\n\nIn 1841 Ward of Balliol brought out a very strong pamphlet, and accused\nthe Reformation of many changes in the English Church; as Rev. J. B.\nMozley says in his _Letters_, it was \"a kind of strong interpretation of\nNo. XC, just as Pusey's ... is a mollifying one, proving that No. XC says\nnothing but what our divines have said before.\" As regards \"the statute\",\nthe Hebdomadal Board had early in this year \"proposed a new statute\" for\nthe conferring of B.D. degrees.\n\n\n\"_30th Dec._, 1844.\n\n\"... I suppose you are busy with _Ewald's_ [Footnote: Dr. Nicholson was\nthe pupil of Ewald, and the first translator of his _Hebrew Grammar_.]\n_Grammar_.... I shall be more at rest whenever circumstances put me into\nthat direct conflict with current opinion, which I dare not go out of my\nway to provoke, and yet feel it to be my natural element. My antagonism to\n'things as they are'--politically, scientifically, and theologically--\ngrows with my growth; and I believe that every year that delays change\nmore and more endangers destruction to our social framework.\"\n\n\nI cannot forbear quoting here from a letter recently received by me from a\ndistant cousin of mine, Mr. George Grey Butler. He says: \"I remember once\nat table Mr. Newman saying (when asked his attitude on various public\nquestions), 'Oh! I am anti-slavery, anti-alcohol, anti-tobacco, anti-\n_everything!_' with a twinkle in his eye which caused an outburst of mirth\namongst his listeners.\"\n\nRev. J. B. Mozley goes on to say, \"Pusey will not take the test,\" (or\nstatute) \"that he has declared publicly ... Hussey the Professor, Eden,\nBaden Powell, and several Liberals, Price of Rugby, are all strong against\nit.... Gladstone is very strong, and thinks every exertion ought to be\nmade against it.\"\n\nOn 7th Oct., 1844, Newman is expecting the arrival of the son of his old\nfriend, John Sterling. \"Edward Sterling will probably come to us to-day;\nhis trunk is here already. I do not think you know that his father's\nearthly career is over.... Sterling's will is like himself. He has so\nstrong a feeling of the wrong and absurdity of laying responsibility on\npeople, and yet fettering their discretion, that he has left the fullest\npowers possible both to his brother as executor to manage his property and\nthe other children, and to me over Edward. He has directed \u00a3300 a year to\nbe paid me for Edward.... He was indeed a noble soul, and few know what a\nloss it is; but those few rate it high. As Captain Sterling (his brother)\nsaid, he had been accumulating wisdom all his life, and could he have\nlived twenty years more to pour it out he would indeed have left behind\nhim a precious legacy.... Thomas Carlyle wrote a beautiful letter over\nhim. His little son knows not at all what a father he has lost; and as for\nme, I want to tell him, but feel how hard it is.\"\n\nIn 1845 the taxes upon corn had caused great distress in England. But far\nworse was the trouble in Ireland; for practically, through the potato\nfamine, owing to the thousands of acres which were blighted, there were\nliterally thousands dying of starvation. Cheap food was far more difficult\nto get at there than in England, and at length at the close of the year\nSir Robert Peel said he would repeal the Corn Laws altogether. In 1846 the\nBill with this end in view passed through the House of Commons and House\nof Lords and became law. But the consequence of this measure was in effect\nthe signal for Peel's going out of office, and his place was taken by Lord\nJohn Russell.\n\nTo return to Newman's letter.\n\n\"You perhaps know that the Liberals at Oxford are likely to side with Ward\nagainst the Heads. I do not see what else they can do; and I devoutly hope\nthat the tangle will be irremovable except by abolishing subscriptions.\nPrice of Rugby is all in a bristle about it. I much admire his spirit.\nBaden Powell protests _in toto_ against the statute.\"\n\n\n\"_6th Nov._, 1845.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Your news about the potatoes unfortunately is no matter of private\ninformation, but rings through our ears, and I am increasingly doubtful\nwhether we are to hope for open ports. I believe the League is right in\nsaying that Sir Robert's _next move_ will be for an absolutely free trade;\nbut _when_ that next move is to be must depend in part on his colleagues;\nand the country must perhaps suffer much before they come over, or he\ngains boldness to defy their opposition....\n\n\"If you have been reading the _New Prospective_, I dare say you will guess\nthat the article on 'Church Reform' is mine. I was not sorry to get it\nprinted, even in such a quarter--(though I know no other periodical that\nis free enough to dare to print it. The _Westminster Review_ is not enough\nin religious circles),--because I want to send it to Churches of various\ngrades, and get their opinion. I fear I have expressed myself too\nsanguinely of Dissenting Co-operation. They seem to say they will support\n_nothing_ that does not go to length of alienating the whole Church\nproperty to secular uses.\"\n\n\nOn 16th April, 1846, politics are touched on again.\n\n\n\"_16th April_, 1846.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n\"I have sent one or two 'Leagues' of late to my brother-in-law in\nDevonshire, thinking that they had in them matter of instruction to\nhim.... Does not Peel appear of late to have made himself as little as of\nold? Yet I rejoice in his obstructing a mere Whig ministry of the orthodox\nkind; and although his course has heaped misery on Ireland, nothing less\nsevere, I imagine, would brace England up to the stringent remedies which\nalone can save that country;--nor are we _yet_ screwed to the point!...\n\n\"I have finished the Berber MS. as far as the Arabic had been translated,\nviz. twenty-eight folio pages: four more remain, of which I cannot\nunderstand either the Berber or the Arabic. I suppose neither could Mr.\nHodgson understand them; for while he professes to have translated the\nwhole of the Arabic, he has quietly omitted these. I naturally turn myself\nto your aid. I have quite ascertained that the Arabic and Berber _do\ncorrespond_....\n\n\"I am trying to move my house, i.e. to get into a new shell, further from\nthe smoke. [Footnote: Newman had not yet left Manchester New College.]\nEdward Sterling's little brother, aged five and a half, is now with us;\nand especially for his sake I desire to have pure air.... I am sorry to\nsay she\" (Newman's wife) \"is becoming more and more afflicted with\nrheumatism. I am about to send her to Malvern, where one of her sisters\nnow is, to try a hydropathist physician there--a regularly educated man.\nAs she must take little Johnny S. and her own maid, and another to help in\nbathings, and look after the child, it is quite a nomad eruption and\nwaggon-load of Scythians.\n\n\"My sister's child, a boy of Johnny S.'s age, fell into the fire six or\nseven weeks ago, and was almost burnt to death. The poor little fellow\nendured agonies, but is at last nearly recovered.... It seems a wonderful\nrecovery.\"\n\n\nThe next letter notifies his election as Latin Professor in University\nCollege.\n\n\n\"_London. 6th July_, 1846.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n\"A few words just to say that on Saturday I was elected Latin Professor in\nL. U. C., and to thank you once more for your valuable aid. Hoping Mrs. N.\ncontinues well, and with kind regards to her, and the children,\n\n\"I am, ever yours affectionately,\n\n\"Francis W. Newman.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nLETTERS TO DR. NICHOLSON FROM PROFESSOR NEWMAN DURING THE FOLLOWING YEARS:\n1850 TO 1859\n\n\nThe first of special interest in this series of letters is dated March,\n1850, and concerns Newman's Latin studies and also Indian and China\naffairs.\n\n\n\"Sir Charles Trevelyan is doing his best to introduce the English alphabet\ninto Indian languages. He believes it, with me, to be of political,\neducational, and religious importance; but he seems to be opposed by all\nthe English scholars. Edwin Norris says that even Sanscrit imported its\nalphabet from a foreign tongue. The number of primitive alphabets is so\nfew, the diversity of languages so great, that nearly all tongues must\nhave adopted foreign alphabets. I cannot therefore understand the almost a\npriori objections raised by the learned.... Do you attend to Indian\naffairs? The disbanding of our Native Indian armies, the prospect of a\nsure surplus in the Indian treasury, with the necessity of a conciliatory\npolicy to all the Indian princes as soon as we are disarmed, seem to me as\nlight pouring in through a dark cloud. But I am not easy (far from it)\nuntil we get out of this Chinese scrape. I have for years maintained that\nthe more we fight against China the more we shall teach them the art of\nwar; and unless we tear the empire in pieces by aiding insurrections, they\nmust beat us at last, and become masters in the Indian seas. We cannot\ncontend against three hundred and eighty millions of ingenious,\nindustrious, homogeneous men under a single monarch with compact country,\nsplendid rivers and harbours, unsurpassed soil and climate--if once we\ndrive them to learn the art of war from America, as Peter the Great learnt\nit from Europe. But I seem to be _insanus inter sobrios_, for nobody\naccepts this thought from me.\n\n\"Hearty regards to you all.\n\n\"Ever yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nIt will be remembered that in 1851, though not until December, Louis\nNapoleon, nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, had been successful in his aim of\nbecoming President of the French Republic. But he had practically led his\narmy through a sea of blood to reach this autocratic position. Later, in\n1852, he made the French people designate him \"Emperor of the French\"\nunder the title of Napoleon III.\n\nLord Russell had, with his ministers, brought their time of office to an\nend; and Lord Derby came in as Prime Minister at the head of a\nConservative Party. He only remained in office a short time, however, and\nhis successor was Lord Aberdeen, and Mr. Gladstone was Chancellor of the\nExchequer.\n\nIn the letter which follows, Newman vindicates the honour of Kossuth,\nwhose friend and helper he was when Kossuth came to England for funds to\nset going the new Hungarian revolution against Austria. With the views of\nCharles Dickens, of course, Newman had not the slightest sympathy.\n\n\n\"7 P.V.E.,\n\"_19th Dec._, 1851.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"I never see Dickens' _Household Narrative_, and therefore cannot answer;\nbut I do not believe there is any 'alternative side' against Kossuth's\ncharacter. (Dickens is, in my judgment, a foolish man; he writes on\ncentralization and despotism like an Austrian: however, so does Carlyle\noften.) But all that can be said against Kossuth is, that up to the age of\ntwenty-two or twenty-three he was a thoughtless young man, who liked\nhunting and gambling. Since that age he is irreproachable, the proof of\nwhich is, that the Austrian _Times_ has not a word to say against him.\nTheir libel about the Orphan Fund was at once refuted by Count Ladislaus\nVay, but they would not insert Count Vay's letter, or even acknowledge it.\nI think, indeed, the Continental Republicans may be proud of their\nleaders.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Lord Palmerston seems to me to be entangled in _routine_ and old creeds,\nso that he does not do all the justice he might to his better wishes; but\nI also think he loves _place_ better than to carry out those wishes....\n\n\"Ever yours heartily,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nThe letter in January, 1853, which is next in order, is largely concerned\nwith Mazzini. As is well known, Mazzini was an Italian patriot and\nRepublican, born in the same year as was Newman. When he was only sixteen,\nseeing the refugees who fled from the unfortunate rising in Piedmont, he\ndetermined then and there to rescue his country when he should be old\nenough to do so. He made \"the first great sacrifice of his life\" in giving\nup the study of literature (which he loved) for direct political action.\nHe joined the Carbonari in 1829, though he was not in sympathy with their\naims or organization.\n\nIn 1830 he was imprisoned by the Sardinian police. There, in his prison\ncell, he thought out his plan of action for his country, and on being\nreleased he went and organized the \"Young Italy Association.\" The object\nof it was to teach the mass of the people first to know their rights, and\nthen to obtain them. The end of all his efforts for his people as regarded\nhimself was this:--\n\nIn 1832 he was expelled from the country, but he managed to remain hidden\nat Marseilles; and from that time for twenty years he led \"a life of\nvoluntary imprisonment within the four walls of a little room.\" In 1844\nMazzini accused the English Government of having opened his letters and\ntold their contents to the authorities of Italy. This set the whole of\nEngland against him, but Carlyle defended him in great measure, and\ntestified to the worthiness of his noble struggle for his country's\nfreedom. Later, in 1848, when the Lombard revolt broke out, he took the\npart of the revolutionaries with vigour.\n\nIn 1852 he planned the revolt at Mantua, and in 1853 at Milan. Others were\nset going later. He had started in London (with Kossuth) the European\nAssociation, and issued in September, 1855, its \"republican manifesto.\" He\nstrongly condemned the agreement made in 1859 between Napoleon III and\nPiedmont, because he foresaw its inevitable consequences. Mazzini,\nGaribaldi, and Cavour were a trio who largely influenced their country's\ndestiny. Garibaldi has been called the knight-errant; Mazzini, the prophet\nof Italian unity; and Cavour was the hub which formed the centre of the\nwheel of Italy's fortunes.\n\n[Illustration: FACSIMILE OF LETTER FROM FRANCIS NEWMAN, DECEMBER, 1855]\n\n\n\"7 P.V.E.\n\"Friday night, _28th Jan._, 1853.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"As regards Mazzini, I am both glad and sorry. I cannot pretend to know\nthe _truth_, and fear to say what may unjustly disparage him; but he has\nfallen a little in my secret judgment. I am _told_ (and I cannot test the\nassertion) that Mazzini wrote to Italy to _implore_ his countrymen to be\npatient, and not to make any attempts at resistance, even though the best\namong them were slaughtered; and added: But if you will and must make your\nattempt _now_, then by all means I shall come--not to conquer with you;\nfor of that I have no hope--but to die with you. Now I cannot learn\nwhether this was simultaneously with his writing to tell us that he was in\nhigh hopes of success, and only wanted \u00a33000 to turn probability into\nsomething like certainty. If it was simultaneous, he is not the less\npatriot; but he thinks 'the point of honour' requires he should tell a lie\nto his English friends in order to get the wherewith to die a martyr's\ndeath; and it makes it very hard to trust his simple truth in future. But\nif (as one friend of his thinks) Mazzini's own opinion has changed, it\nlowers one's notion of his discernment. In fact, it is scarcely credible\nto _me_. There are those, I find, who have lately helped him to money,\nexpressly thinking it was a going to martyrdom, but believing he was bent\non it, and that possibly he may now do more good to Italy by his death\nthan ever he can do by his life. I cannot take this view. I believe the\ntyrants would have the good sense to destroy him so secretly that no moral\neffect should follow from his death; and if he utterly disapproved of an\noutbreak, I do not understand the 'honour' which should make him go to\nuseless destruction when his life may be so valuable. It is not the same\nthing to an exile as to a soldier in a rank, for the exile necessarily\ncomes too late. However, I do not know whether at this instant Mazzini may\nbe disguised in Italy: he is so retired and so stealthy. I expect he will\n(be) betrayed sooner or later, if he plays so bold a game. Nevertheless I\nam glad that (for whatever reason) the Italians are still quiet. Louis\nNapoleon will certainly sooner or later get embroiled; and unless there\nwere new facts unknown to me ... I earnestly hope they will wait. The\nGermans are a slow people; but they will move in time. Every German I see\nbelieves this.... 'We without them cannot be made perfect,' seems to me\nthe clue to European oppressions. While stupid barbarism exists in masses,\nit will be the tool of tyranny against the more educated and refined and\nwealthy....\n\n\"Ever yours,\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nIn November, 1855, he discusses public affairs, with relation to Louis\nNapoleon, with Dr. Nicholson:--\n\n\"....I should indeed like to have the talk on public affairs which you\nsuggested; but things have moved on since then! Friends of mine dread that\nthe difficulties of French finance will precipitate Louis N. into a base\npeace. I argue,--it will then be into one so base that the French will not\nendure it. For the Russians _know_ the French difficulties; and if\nproposals of peace come first from France, or if they see French action\nbecome slacker, they will yield _nothing_, and make sure of a peace which\nsaves all their territory and reserves all their free action.... Only\nyesterday came the news of Omar Pasha's 5th November victory. Even if it\nbe exaggerated, still the repulse at Kars and this new defeat make it\nimpossible for Russia to make peace _now_ without a humiliation such as L.\nN. cannot attempt to remove. It _may_ so be that L. N. will be blown up by\nhis finance and by popular discontent; it may also be that his\ndifficulties will lead him to make popular concessions to the spirit of\nfreedom, as is usual when great sacrifices are demanded of a nation; or it\nmay be that he will get through with a struggle, putting French finance on\na healthier footing than has ever been yet. But I think, if he stands, he\n_must_ carry on the war; and the more he feels his dangers, the more\nvehemently will he resolve to stick at nothing necessary for success, and\nwill bid high to get Sweden to join us, which means to despoil Russia of\nFinland and Poland.\n\n\"And if he is overthrown all Italy will rise, and after it Hungary, and\nafter it Germany and Poland....\n\n\"It grieves me much that Kossuth has united his name with Ledru Rollin's;\nand altogether I think Kossuth is so _soured_ by the misconduct of the\nWestern Cabinets as to lose his soundness of judgment and fairness of\nreasoning.... Through 1854 his tone became more demagogic, less dignified,\nmore defiant to authorities. He is now contemptuous to the British\n_nation_ also, though I think it has throughout displayed precisely the\nsound instinct which he so often ascribes to nations, and from which he\nsays a statesman must catch his inspiration. Our _nation_ did not know\nwhat he knew--that Austria had given just ground of war to Turkey--that\nTurkey was ready in October, 1853, to ally with Hungary against Austria;\nnor could it know what were the military facilities for overthrowing\nAustria, nor whether the stubborn resistance of Louis Napoleon was what\nforced Aberdeen into his policy. But the nation since the Russian invasion\nof Hungary has practically felt how dangerous to all foreign liberty is\nthe Russian power, and the absolute necessity of repressing and curtailing\nit; and this determination of the people has made the war a reality, has\ngiven power to that side of the Cabinet which alone was willing to go\nforward, has displayed itself equally in our lowest distress and our chief\ntriumph, which Kossuth ought to honour....\n\n\"I doubt whether his union with Ledru Rollin is approved by any eminent\nHungarian in England.\n\n\"While I regret all this, I yet expect Kossuth to be great again whenever\naction in Hungary recommences; but he cannot bear _in_action well; and,\nalas! I make no doubt his private resources cannot bear delays. I almost\nbegin to fear that he _covets_ to be driven publicly to America by our\nGovernment, as less ignominious than being starved into the same step. I\ncannot understand ... how he fails to see that _if_ we weaken Russia we\nstrengthen the chances of liberty, though Aberdeen would not allow his\nparticular policy in 1853-4. We are doing _so very much_ more than he\nasked of the Americans in 1852 that the tone he assumes is wonderful. And\nthen to scoff as he does, as though we had done _nothing_ in destroying\nthe Russian Black Sea Fleet and overthrowing the whole prestige of their\nmilitary superiority. To have been beaten by the Turks is still _more_\nhumiliating.... I wonder whether you have any alarm about America. I\n_should_ have some alarm if Nicaragua and the Mosquito land were the topic\nof quarrel; for I think the Americans would really fight us as a single\nnation to hinder us establishing ourselves on American soil _south_ of\nthem. They sufficiently dislike our _northern_ position....\n\n\"Very cordially yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe now pass to Newman's letters in the year 1856; and the first of this\nseries speaks of the \"Harry\" who is mentioned elsewhere in this volume, as\nhaving been Professor Alleyne Nicholson, of Aberdeen. He was coming to\nstay with Professor Newman during term time:--\n\n\"7 P.V.E. R.P.,\n\"_28th Oct._, 1856.\n\n\"The grammar used in University College School is _Key's Grammar_....\nHitherto, no particular Greek Grammar has been used in the school, but\nGreek has been taught through _Robson's Constructive Greek Exercises_,\nwhich, I presume, Harry ought at once to work at.... A Greek Grammar by\nMr. Greenwood is expected to be ready by Christmas, and is to be brought\ninto the school. It will be new _to all_; and Harry will be on a par with\nthe rest about it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"_Robson's Constructive Latin Exercises_ ... are used in the school....\nGive him\" (Harry) \"my very kind regards, and say that his little bedroom\nhere looks to me desolate until he comes; but I cannot flatter him that I\nhave anything to fill up the emptiness of heart he will feel when he loses\nnot only papa and mamma, but also his faithful coadjutor in study--\n_Annie!_ Seriously, you will have to consider about his evening\n_amusements_, for it will not do to be studying morning and night. What\nthink you of giving a well defined time to _drawing_ every evening? He has\nso much taste for drawing insects that he cannot fail in outline. We have\na little room which we call 'the boy's room,' where he can put any of his\nNatural History collections which you think it well he should try, but we\nhave _no butterflies to catch,--few even in summer.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAt the end of July, Newman went to stay with Dr. Nicholson and his family\nat Penrith, and there are one or two notes concerning his journey tither.\nThe next letter is dated 24th Aug., 1856. He wrote therefore when the\nCrimean War was still going forward. That war which, amongst mistaken\npolicies, blundering Government tactics, and aimless ambitions, holds a\nforemost place. It was not till the end of the year 1855 that it came to\nan end. After the attack on Sebastopol, the French--whose army had\nsuffered quite as much from the terrible winter and from disease, etc., as\nour own--succeeded in taking the Malakoff Tower. This made it impossible\nfor the Russians to defend Sebastopol any longer, and in March, 1856,\npeace was proclaimed. Then followed Russian promises, which were made as\neasily as they were broken.\n\n\n\"7 Park Village, East.\n\"_24th August_, 1856.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Events have proved that Russia, too, painfully knew her own weakness.\nProbably he\" (Louis Napoleon) \"already in December knew that she knew it,\nand the war was far too unpopular with the French to be continued except\non a different policy, with new necessities and new prizes to be won. Our\npolicy from March, 1853, to March, 1855, was so hollow and so silly, that\nno wisdom could afterwards bring things right, or make the results of the\nwar worthy of the cost; but the _comparative_ result in March, 1856, is so\nvast a gain over what nine out of ten of our statesmen (so called) were\nprojecting to accept in March, 1855, that I cannot open my lips against\nthe peace in itself. I could not in any case wish the war continued,\nexcept on new principles for worthier objects. However, Russia has really\nhad a terrible lesson, and a great humiliation. That she could not take\nSilistria or Kars against Turkish troops, except by the accident of\nfamine, will never be forgotten by German armies or statesmen.... The\nnative Russian peasants and low persons do not _yet_ know that the Czar\nwas beaten; they suppose him to have conquered with immense cost; but the\nnobility knew the truth, and it will leak through to the lowest people, I\nexpect, in the course of a few years. I think Europe has a respite of a\nquarter of a century from the incubus of Russia; and _if_ in that interval\nthe Hapsburgs are overthrown, all will yet come right. I fear we are still\nforced again (in spite of Mazzini and Kossuth) to regard the French as\nhaving the initiative of revolutions. I have resolved to give up all extra\nand needless effort of the brain, until I can really get rid of certain\nmorbid symptoms, quite chronic, which distress me, so that my projected\nLatin analysis lies in embryo.\n\n\"... I have had satisfactory approval of my _Iliad_ from my brother, Dr.\nNewman, a fastidious critic and practical poet, as also from other private\nquarters which I count much on; but reviews as yet do not notice me.... I\nhave no high expectation of the very existence of the book becoming known,\nexcept slowly to many who might perhaps be glad of it if they knew it....\n\n\"Ever your faithful friend,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nIn October of the same year he thus speaks of the School of University\nCollege:--\n\n\"... The School of U.C. is remarkably full of pupils this season. My\njunior class has unusually _old_ pupils; I do not yet know their quality.\nOne (a Mr. Sassoon, a Jew?) [Footnote: Probably this was the father of the\npresent Sir Edward Sassoon, second Baronet.] I mistook for a German, but\nhe told me he is an Arab of Hindoo birth, and talks a little Arab and\nHindostanee, but knows more of English than of any other language. His\nEnglish is good, though the pronunciation is a little foreign.\"\n\nIn another letter, written this same month, he speaks of Mazzini as\nknowing that the \"liberties of Italy cannot be safe without revolution\neither in France or Austria.\" That he feels it must come sooner or later,\nso that it would be better for Italy to act and suffer rather than to\nbecome \"stupefied.\" Newman declares that the Governments know, and is the\nreason why they \"hate Mazzini, since ... success in Italy will cause\nexplosions elsewhere.\"\n\nNewman goes on to say: \"For myself I look at it thus. The deliverance of\nItaly _cannot_ come by Governments (unless these are first\nrevolutionized); it can only come by insurrection. No one from without can\never know or judge what is the time for hopeful insurrection: it must be\ndone from within, and generally without plan. My sole question is, Is the\ncause legitimate? I find that it is. I leave Italians to judge of the\ntime. Meanwhile every year I would give of my superfluity to the aid of\npatriotic effort.... To fail ten times may be necessary for success in the\neleventh. If they were losing heart and becoming denationalized, the case\nwould be bad; but it is the contrary. The fusion with Austria is\nimpossible. The more they bleed the more they are united, and the more\nresolved.... My wife is cheered to learn that Harry will go to Mr. Bruce's\non Sunday. A black spot had rested on her heart, I find, from fearing that\nhe would go _nowhere_ to church. I am sending you a corrected copy of my\ntranslation of the first chorus in _Antigone_, since you honour it by\nputting it into your _Sophocles_....\n\n\"Ever your affectionate friend,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\n\"To Dr. J. Nicholson, etc.\"\n\n\nAnother mention of the translation I also insert here. He had been able to\ngive far more time to it than if he had been in London, for he had in\nSeptember been spending some time at Ventnor. \"A youth introduced to me by\nMrs. Pulszky is zealous in the Greek tragedians, and I have been helping\nhim to a little _Sophocles_ which put me up to translating the 1st Chorus\nafter I had been reading it with him....\"\n\nHere is the translation to which allusion is made:--\n\n  \"SOPHOCLES, ANTIGONE\"\n\n  1ST CHORAL SONG\n\n  _1st Strophe_\n\n  \"O ray of the Sun, the fairest\n  That over the rills of Dirk\u00e8\n  To Theb\u00e8 the seven-gated\n  Wast ever of yore unveil'd\n  The eyelid of heaven gilding;\n  At length thy splendour on us was shed,\n  Urging to hasty reverse of rein\n  The Argive warrior white of shield\n  And laden in panoply all complete,\n  Who sped in van of the routed.\n  Stirr'd from afar against our land\n  By Polyneikes' doubtful strife,\n  He like an eagle soaring came,\n  Screen'd by a wing of snow unstain'd,\n  With many a stout accoutrement\n    And horse-hair crested helmets.\n\n  _1st Antistrophe_\n\n  \"At mouth of the portals seven\n  Above our abodes he hover'd\n  With lances that yawn'd for carnage;\n  But vanish'd, afore his chaps\n  With slaughter of Thebes were glutted;\n  Afore the flicker of pitchy flame\n  Might to the crown of turrets climb.\n  So fierce the rattle of war around\n  Was pour'd on his rear by the serpent-foe\n  Hard match'd in deadly encounter.\n  For Jove the over-vaunting tongue\n  Supremely hates. Their full fed stream\n  Of gold, of clatter, and of pride\n  He saw, and smote with brandish'd flame\n  Him, who at summit of his goal\n  Would raise the peal of Conquest.\n\n  _2nd Strophe._\n\n    \"Foil'd in his frantic rush,\n    Though still with blasts of hate against us raving,\n    Down dropt he, torch and all,\n  And heavy struck the Earth, who upward spurn'd him.\n    Such auspice of the war\n  To us was fair; and elsewhere new successes\n    Befel, whereon the right\n    Great Ares routing wheel'd the chariot-battle.\n\n  For, posted at the seven gates,\n  Equals to equals, seven chiefs\n  To trophy-bearing Jupiter\n  Payments of solid brass bequeath'd.\n  Save that the gloomy-hearted twain,\n  Sprung from one mother and one sire,\n  Planted with adverse dint the spear\n  And earn'd a fate in common.\n\n  _2nd Antistrophe_\n\n  \"But now, since Victory\n  Mighty of name at length is come, delighted\n    In car-borne Theb\u00e8's joy;\n  Henceforth forget we battle's past annoyance.\n  But through the livelong night\n  Let us in sacred band approach the temples,\n    And Bacchus to the dance--\n  The god who shakes the soil of Thebes--be leader.\n\n  \"But hither Creon, lo! proceeds,\n  Son of Menoekeus, newly rais'd\n  The sceptre of this land to sway.\n  Now at new tokens of the gods,\n   Methinks, some sage device he plies.\n  Therefore to special parliament\n  Hath he by general summons fetch'd\n  This meeting of the elders.\"\n\nThe next letter largely concerns Persia. And it is necessary to remember\nthat, in the early part of the nineteenth century, she began, at the\nsuggestion of France, a most unfortunate war (as regards herself) with\nRussia.\n\nIn 1826 there was another war, and this cost Persia all the rest of her\npossessions in Armenia. The taxation of the people, which the rulers\nenforced to enable them to pay the expenses of the war, caused the former\nto rise in insurrection in 1829. The death of the Crown Prince in 1833\nseemed the crowning blow to the fortunes of Persia, for he had been the\nonly man who had seriously tried to raise his country from the depths to\nwhich she had fallen.\n\nIn 1848 the son of the Shah, who had, through the assistance of Britain\nand Russia, obtained the throne, came into office, and he resolved to put\nforward claims to Afghanistan and Beluchistan. When the ruler of Herat\nagreed that the Shah had claims, the English Government made the Shah sign\nan agreement in 1853 that he would give up pressing his claims as regarded\nHerat. But in 1856 the Persians retook this city, because they declared\nthat the Ameer of Kabul was planning an advance on Herat. Thereupon a\nBritish army, commanded by General Outram and Havelock, was sent to\nPersia, and defeat after defeat for the Persians followed their arrival,\nand in July, 1857, they were compelled to give up Herat. Since then Persia\nhas not ventured to lay her hand on the \"key to India.\"\n\n\n\"7 P.V.E., London,\n\"_19th Dec._, 1856.\n\n\"Dr. Barth, the African traveller, has been re-seducing (me) into the\nLingua Amazighana, which I had forsworn. I am not sure that something will\nnot come of it--to me at least. I have already built a castle in the air,\nthat sometime hereafter I shall become 'Professor of Libyan' to U.C.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"How dreadful is it that we should be able to get into a war with Persia,\nproclaimed _at Bombay_ on November 1st, and nobody here knows why it is or\nwhat it seeks after; and the country's honour is committed while\nParliament is not even sitting. And for this we throw up Italy and ...\nSwitzerland? Have you seen Cobden's recent letters on Maritime War? I\nrejoice much in them, and think adversity has improved his tone. With\nhearty regards to Mrs. N. and all,\n\n\"I am, ever yours,\n\n\"F. W. N.\"\n\n\nThe letters at which we have now arrived are those written during 1857.\nThe first is dated March, and I quote some passages from it to show the\nProfessor's own views as regards evening home preparation for boys who are\nworking at school during the day, because it seems to me that his opinion\nin this matter should carry weight:--\n\n\"I much dislike a boy having _both_ his work at school and _then_ evening\nwork at home, when he is getting sleepy and ought to have relaxation. It\nis the nuisance of day schools, and quite hurtful to study, if there is\nnobody at home to answer questions. Besides, Harry\" (this is Harry\nNicholson, mentioned two or three times in these letters as attending\nUniversity College School) \"is so studious of himself that it is very much\nto be desired that he should have time for _voluntary_ work. I regard this\nas having been very beneficial to _me_ at school, where I never had work\nenough set me to fill up half my time.\"\n\nThe letter which follows is dated April, and in it we find that \"Harry\"\nhad just returned home, and that his report had testified to his diligence\nand progress. At the end of the letter comes this little touch as to some\nof the schoolboy belongings which had been left behind in Professor\nNewman's house. \"Harry has left divers snail-shells fastened on\npasteboard. Perhaps he did not know how to carry them safely.\"\n\nOn 6th May mention of the owner of the snail-shells recurs again:--\n\n\"Mrs. Newman was rather disappointed at the unceremoniousness of my\nparting with Harry. It seems like a dream his vanishing. I suppose she is\nlike Hecuba, grieved that she could not make the funeral of Hector. (I did\nnot even kiss Harry _by proxy_ for her!) Most gladly does she give him up\nto Mrs. Nicholson; and yet, I fancy, she wanted a funeral ceremony on\nlosing him.\"\n\nThroughout these letters belonging to the year 1857, there is no special\nmention of the Indian Mutiny. Yet it is impossible to doubt that it\noccupied a great place in Newman's thoughts. No one who has written on\nIndia and our relations with her as he has done, could have failed to have\nwritten his own strong views on the lamentable mismanagement which led to\nthe Mutiny. But most probably the letters concerning it were either not\nkept by Dr. Nicholson, or else Newman asked for them back, as in so many\ncases he was accustomed to do with regard to his own letters towards the\nclose of his life. He had a theory that letters should not be kept, and\nmany people have told me that he asked for his letters back in order to\ndestroy them. Happily, however, this is _not_ the theory which everyone\nholds. Indeed, to many of us, the Past lies so near the written word, that\n_almost_ it re-awakens between the folds of a letter; indeed, in many\ninstances, the Past and Present only meet across it. In this sense it is\nthe only thing that holds up the picture of the past before our tired\neyes. _Litera scripta manet_ is a living truth. The next letter from\nNewman to Nicholson was written on 20th June, 1857. On 8th June of this\nyear died Douglas Jerrold, dramatist, satirist, and author. Mr. Walter\nJerrold tells us that, in 1852, he had accepted the editorship of _Lloyd's\nWeekly Newspaper_. It was said of this that he \"found it in the street and\nannexed it to literature.\"\n\nHis fortune as a writer began when he was only sixteen. His capacity for\nwork and his perseverance in working were enormous. In 1825 he wrote great\nnumbers of plays and farces; but beside all these, he contributed, as is\nwell known, to _Punch_ (at its first commencement in 1841), as well as to\nhosts of magazines and political tracts, etc. Newman alludes to Jerrold\nbeing in receipt of \u00a32000 a year from _Lloyd's Weekly News_.\n\nI pass over the discussion as regards the Newmans' proposed visit to the\nLakes, and also his expressed delight in a book, many copies of which he\nhad just given away--_Intuitive Morals and Religious Duty_.\n\n\"In truth, dear friend, I get happier and happier, and only am pent up and\nmourn to feel how I live for self alone. I sometimes think with a sort of\nenvy how your knowledge of medicine and tender heart for young children\nputs you into near and kind contact with the poor. However, we have each\nhis own talent, if only one can find the mode of wisely disposing it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"I am sorry to see that Douglas Jerrold has not left sixpence to his\nfamily, though he was in receipt of \u00a32000 a year (they say!) from _Lloyd's\nWeekly News_.\"\n\nIn November another letter alludes to his Latin translations. He says he\nhas been gradually inclining to the belief that Terence, Virgil, and\nHorace had \"damaged\" the Latin language in very much the same way as Pope\ndid the English, as regards arbitrary style and method of writing\ncadences.\n\nIt is universally conceded that Horace was not a great thinker. As one of\nour modern English critics has said: \"His philosophy is that of the\nmarket-place rather than of the schools; he does not move among high\nideals or subtle emotions.... He carried on and perfected the native Roman\ngrowth, satire, so as to make Roman life from day to day, in city and\ncountry, live anew under his pen.... Before Horace, Latin lyric poetry is\nrepresented almost wholly by the brilliant but technically immature poems\nof Catullus; after him it ceases to exist.\"\n\nAs regards Pope, the critics of the end of the eighteenth century\nconsidered his style eminently artificial and forced. But to-day,\naccording to Father Gasquet, we cannot but recognize his services to\nEnglish poetry as invaluable. \"He was virtually the inventor and artificer\nwho added a new instrument of music to its majestic orchestra, a new\nweapon of expression to its noble armoury.... But one must admit that to\nthe taste of the present age there occurs a certain coldness and\nartificiality in his portrayals alike of the face of nature and of the\npassions of man. He appeals rather to the brain than to the heart. Ideas\nand not emotions are his province.... To the metric presentment of ideas\nhe imparts a charm of musical utterance unachieved before his time.\"\n\n\n\"_30th Nov._, 1857.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"I have of late been urged by a particular circumstance to make various\ntrials of translation into Latin (lyrical, etc.) verse--an exercise I\nalways used to dislike, and have never much practised. I now find my\ndislike was largely caused by the unsuitable and over-stiff metres which\nused to be imposed on me when I was under orders.... In English and Greek\nversification I have long been aware of the essential importance of this;\nbut I have looked on Latin as too inflexible a tongue to be worth the\nlabour, since nearly all the translations I have seen, pall on me as mere\nflat imitations of the ancients instead of having a smack of the original.\nI have been inclining to the belief that Terence, Virgil, and Horace have\ndone damage to the Latin language, or at least to our taste; just as Pope\nwas the ruin of English poetry so long as he was allowed to dictate the\nstyle and cadences. In Plautus, Lucretius, and Catullus the language has a\nflexibility and the metres a freedom which (as I think) academicians and\nschoolmasters have not duly appreciated, and which ought to impart to us\n(when we _do_ do anything so absurd as to write foreign verses) a freedom\nat which we have not generally aimed. As to metre, I think it really a\n_folly_ to insist on Horace's restrictions, which are entirely his own,\nbeing neither found in the Greek, which he copied, nor in Catullus; and\nwhich made the problem of _translation_ so much harder (and he did not\ntranslate), that one has to sacrifice too much. I think we ought to\nconstruct our metres by selection from the Greek, just as Catullus or\nHorace did, not imitate them slavishly. I send you one specimen of my\ntranslation, to ask whether so many as seven lines together the same is\n_too monotonous_. If there were only four or five it would be as one of\nCatullus's. I dare say you have the original....\n\n\"With truest regards to you all,\n\"Your cordial friend,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nPulszky, the friend of Kossuth and also of Francis Newman, was a Hungarian\nauthor, politician, and patriot. In 1848 he was serving under Esterhazy in\nsome Government post; but when he was suspected of revolutionizing in his\nnative country, he took refuge in England. Pulszky went with Kossuth later\nto America. In 1852 he was condemned to death by the Austrian Government,\nbut his fourteen years spent in Italy seem to have influenced the\nMinisters to pardon him in 1867. While in England (I do not know if he\nsuffered from it elsewhere) he became a martyr to _tic douleureux_, that\nmost trying form of facial neuralgia which attacks in such paroxysms of\nsevere pain--attacks which seem brought on by the most trivial reasons,\nsuch as a knock at the door or by a sudden shake to the chair on which the\npatient is sitting, and which, as a rule, give no warning of their\napproach.\n\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n\"You remember that you kindly furnished me with your prescription for _tic\ndouleureux_ to give to my friend Pulszky. He told me a few days back that\nhe sent it (I think a year ago) to the poor girl at Ventnor who was a\nhorrible sufferer from it, and heard no more of it until this autumn when\nhe was at Ventnor again. He was delighted to find she had been immediately\ncured by it, had had no returns, was made competent for work, and is in a\nservant's place. On my naming this, I have two urgent applications for the\nprescriptions. If you will a second time take the trouble to copy out the\nprescription I will keep it myself, and give copies to my friends without\nfurther coming upon you.... I have ventured to assert that the Nicholson\nwho is so talked of as promoting the ballot in Australia is _not_ your\nbrother Mark.\n\n\"Do you know, when I saw in the _Illustrated London News_ the face of the\nlate lamented Brigadier Nicholson of the Punjaub, I thought it _very_ like\nyou. Is he possibly a distant relative?\n\n\"Ever yours heartily,\n\n\"F. W. Newman,\n\"7 P.V.E.\"\n\"_20th December_, 1857.\n\n\nThis remark of Newman's that he saw a strong likeness in \"the face of the\nlate lamented Brigadier Nicholson of the Punjaub\" to his friend Dr.\nNicholson is one of those arresting suggestions which seem to strike\nsudden light out of the flints of ancestry which whiten the road of life\nalong which we have come.\n\nThat there _is_ a distinct likeness in the two faces no one who had seen\nthe portraits in Captain Lionel Trotter's _Life of John Nicholson_, and\nthen looked at that of Dr. John Nicholson in this book, could have had a\ndoubt. But, as it seems to me, there is even more ground for the\nlikelihood of Newman's suggestion, if one tries to trace the lineage and\nland of the families of Nicholson in years gone by. I quote the following\nfrom Captain Trotter's _Life of John Nicholson_:--\n\n\"In the days of our Tudor sovereigns the family of which John Nicholson\nwas to be the bright particular star had made their home in the border\ncounty of Cumberland.\" He goes on to say that the first to come over to\nIreland was Rev. William Nicholson (in 1589), and he married the Lady\nElizabeth Percy. Captain Trotter says there is a tradition that his two\nbrothers went over to Ireland with William Nicholson. One settled in\nDerry, the other in Dublin. During McGuire's rebellion in 1641, his son's\nwife and her baby boy \"were the only two in Cran-na-gael\" [now known as\nCranagill] \"who escaped the common massacre by hiding behind some\nbrushwood. In their wanderings thence they fell in with a party of\nloyalist soldiers, who escorted them safely to Dromore, whence they made\ntheir way across sea to the widow's former home at Whitehaven....\" What\nbecame of this Mrs. Nicholson does not appear. \"Her son William, during\nhis sojourn in Cumberland, had become a Quaker.\" This was very probably\ndue to his having been influenced by his intercourse with George Fox.\nLater on the former went back to Cranagill. There were three sons born to\nthis William Nicholson, and Captain Trotter tells us that it was from the\neldest (also a \"William\") that the famous John Nicholson was descended.\n\nNow, it seems to me that it is not at all unlikely that there may have\nbeen some connection (as Francis Newman suggested) between the branch of\nthe Nicholson family to which John Nicholson, of Mutiny fame, was related,\nwho made their home in the \"border county of Cumberland,\" and that to\nwhich Dr. John Nicholson, the lifelong friend of Francis Newman, belonged.\nThe latter also belonged to a north country family who, I believe, settled\non the borders of England and Scotland. Dr. Nicholson himself lived for a\ngreat number of years at Penrith, in Cumberland. So that, all things\nconsidered, perhaps Newman's conjecture, after he had realized how strong\na resemblance there was in his friend's face to that of the hero of Delhi,\nwas correct.\n\nThe next letters belong to the year 1858. In August, 1858, Newman was\nagain devoting much time to Latin versification:--\n\n\n\"My chief time this summer has been employed in a new _furor_--Latin\nversification. I find that by choosing and adapting metres from the Greek\nfountain and not sticking to Horace, or even to Catullus, the language\nadmits of translation from English closer than I at all conceived. I think\nI have done 1500 lines in all. I only translate short pieces and pleasing\nones. I have been led to it by a practical object. I used to hate Latin\nversification, and indeed the extreme poverty and ambiguity of the\nlanguage is laid bare shockingly by the process. Perhaps not really worse\nthan in prose translation, but every metre (or almost every) deprives you\nat once of a sensible fraction of the already scanty vocabulary. One\nlearns also how essentially clumsy and prosaic the language is in its\nvocabulary, though so compact in its structure.\n\n\"The Atlantic Telegraph, no doubt, already excites wild and impatient\nhopes in our Australians, of which you will hear an echo. It is indeed a\ncritical event, as determining an immense extension of the telegraphic\nsystem....\n\n\"Ever yours heartily,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nIt will be remembered that the Crimean War broke up the Coalition Ministry\nwhich Lord Aberdeen had formed. This was due to the fact that the motion\nfor enquiry into the state of our soldiers before Sebastopol was carried\nby a great majority against the Government. Lord Aberdeen resigned when\nthis happened, and Lord Palmerston came into office, with Mr. Gladstone as\nChancellor of the Exchequer. Then, when Palmerston acceded to the demand\nthat a committee of enquiry should be appointed, Gladstone, who had\nopposed it before, thought he ought not to remain in the Cabinet which had\nnow agreed to have the enquiry made. So he gave up office, but still\nhelped the Government generally until after Orsini's attempt in 1858, upon\nNapoleon III's life. Perhaps it is necessary to recall here that Gladstone\nhad taken up the cause of the prisoners--especially political prisoners--\nin the prisons of Naples in 1851. He spoke strongly on the terrible\ncruelties which were perpetrated there. In _this_ effort to help forward\nan enquiry Gladstone threw himself most heartily.\n\n       *       *        *       *       *\n\n\"I send you to-day a Latin Grammar which I have found on my shelves. By\nthe _binder's_ ticket 'Penrith' I infer it to be Harry's. I hope I may\ncongratulate him.... I never met Gladstone. He was a hero of mine for\nabout a year. I hoped great things of him. After the letters on Naples and\nhis Chancellorship of the Exchequer, I thought he had worked clear of the\nerrors of his youth and was 'the coming man.' But in the Russian war his\nintense party spirit and endless mistakes have lowered his ...\nintellectual discernments.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"I am, ever yours heartily,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nIn December of this year Newman writes word that he has been working hard\nat Arabic for some time, because he has undertaken to teach a friend\nmodern Arabic. He is again staying at Hastings, where he had been so\nconstantly.\n\n\n\"20 White Rock Place, Hastings,\n\"_30th Dec._, 1858.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"I am strangely thrown anew into sympathy with _your_ studies. I have been\nworking really hard at Arabic for some time--and why, do you think?\nBecause I had the temerity to undertake (for philological reasons) to\nteach a friend modern Arabic. I could not have been so rash or so foolish\nas to undertake to teach ancient Arabic; yet I am almost driven on\nlearning the ancient by the number of questions which have kept\narising.... I have been looking up all my old MSS., and am surprised at\nthe extent of my former attainments, very much indeed of which I had\nforgotten. But words come back to me with a pleasant rapidity, and I am\ndelighted to find how much I have exaggerated to myself the gap between\nold and new Arabic.\"\n\n\nWith this letter those belonging to the year 1858 come to an end.\n\nWith 1859 begin Newman's criticisms on the policy and unscrupulous methods\nof Louis Napoleon.\n\nThe latter had made himself absolute ruler of France in 1851. Later on he\nannexed Savoy and Nice. In his campaign in Lombardy against Austria he was\nassisted by Great Britain. In May, when this letter following was written,\nNapoleon's Manifesto had just been published in the London papers of 4th\nMay:--\n\n\n\"10 Circus Road, S. John's Wood,\n\"_5th May_, 1859.\n\n       *        *        *        *        *\n\n\"I dare say you read Louis Napoleon's Manifesto in yesterday's papers. I\nwonder what you think of it. I find myself at variance with most of my\nfriends, and with nearly all the newspapers _that I see_; but the _Morning\nChronicle_ and the _Daily News_, of which I have only seen _one_ article\nfor a long time back, appeared to be maintaining what I hold. That we\nought to be strictly neutral (not armed and threatening neutrals) seems to\nbe an axiom; but at the same time I look at the crisis with much hope and\nlittle or no fear. To declaim against L. N.'s treachery is only a way of\nplaying into the wrong hands, i.e. supporting Austria. He has pledged\nhimself to expel her from Italy and not to seek dominion in Italy for\nFrance. If he fails he shatters his own power in Paris: so much the\nbetter, I suppose. If he succeeds, Italy is a certain gainer, and Europe\nthrough Italy. I say a certain gainer, because the existing oppression\n(testified by Gladstone and Clarendon) rests upon the aid of Austria, and\nis far worse than war, and worse than a transitory dictatorship of France;\nand the mischief of Austria has been that her power has been confirmed by\nEuropean diplomacy; but if France proves treacherous, it will be against\nthe protest of Europe, and her rule _cannot_ be permanent. Besides, L. N.\nmust almost of necessity give some aggrandizement to Sardinia. Lombardy,\nTuscany, and Parma seem inevitably to rush into Victor Emmanuel's arms, if\nnot also Venice, if the Confederates are victorious. Hence a stout power\nis interposed between France and Southern Italy. And is it not stupid to\nthink that because L. N. is a bad, unscrupulous man, therefore he covets\nnothing but _territory_? He covets _stability_ and the glory of liberating\nItaly; and acting with heroic moderation is the obvious way of winning to\nhis side republicans in France and the diplomatists of Europe. _If_ he\nacts thus, I think his dynasty will be permanent; if not, not, or hardly.\nThe Papists already hate him, and he already distrusts them....\"\n\n\nIt is impossible to read many letters of Newman's and not recognize the\nunfailing unselfishness with which he constantly gives up his own plans of\nseeing his friends, in order that his wife may go to those places for\nwhich she has a special affection. Not infrequently he gives up a journey\nmuch farther afield for the purpose of pursuing antiquarian researches\nbecause he knows how great would be her ennui were she to accompany him,\nand he is ever full of a tender concern that she shall suffer no\nunnecessary discomfort or trouble.\n\n\n\"_13th July_, 1859.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n\"I had really hoped we might spend a few days at Penrith and have a chance\nof seeing you, for my wife talked seriously of Keswick and the\nneighbourhood. But when she began to remember in detail the climate of the\nLakes, her courage broke down, and she said there was nothing did us good\nbut the seaside, and especially the coast of Wales. So now we are starting\nfor Carmarthen, Cardigan, Aberayron, Aberystwith, etc., a weary distance\nfrom Penrith.\n\n\"I told you I had undertaken the daring task of teaching modern Arabic\n(somehow) to a young lady. My lessons began in October (the second week),\nand ended with the second week of March, being broken by Christmas. About\na fortnight ago she sent me a written exercise, in which I corrected a few\ngrammatical faults, and then copied it out to transmit it to you, with my\ntranslation into English. I should like you to see a specimen of my\n_Roman_ (?) character, and also to hear what you think of the capacity and\npower of the modern language as compared with the ancient.... I hope you\nare hitherto well satisfied with Italian affairs. The pamphlet of Napoleon\nIII on Italy shows that in 1857 he definitely proposed to Austria a scheme\nfor the total secularization of the Papacy. I now feel sure he will not\nstop at that. It also advocates a federation of all Italy--a wonderful\nproposal from a French ruler. No democrat would have proposed that.\"\n\n\nIn September he writes from Aberystwith, and relates how he is busy\ntranslating _Robinson Crusoe_ from the Arabic.\n\n\n\"I am constantly reminded of you by the study which I have been rather\nclosely pursuing here for nearly eight weeks, viz. the reading of\n_Robinson Crusoe_ in Arabic. It is to me often difficult from several\ncauses: (1) It is not pointed, nor even the _Teshdied_ added; (2) I could\nnot bring Golin's with me, and the dictionaries which I have are very\nimperfect; (3) the writer has most arbitrarily changed the details of\nRobinson's story, and makes it often incoherent and stupidly impossible;\nso that neither does the original help me much, nor can I rest on internal\ncongruity to help me out.\"\n\nIt should perhaps be remembered here that the Arabs had a great contempt\nfor the Grecian and Roman languages. Their own language was only printed\nin ancient classical form, of which the Kor\u00e2n is the most famous example,\nand the characters and symbols proceeded from right to left. In its most\nancient form it is named \"Kufic.\" There are only symbols for sixteen out\nof its twenty-eight consonants. Certain of our own words own patronymity\nfrom the Arabic languages--words such as algebra, alcohol, zenith, nadir,\netc. These show clearly that the language did influence early intellectual\nEuropean culture in no small degree.\n\nTo go on with the letter:--\n\n\n\"I am greatly encouraged by my success in understanding it\" [the story of\n_Robinson Crusoe_ in Arabic], \"for it is a far more ambitious style and on\nfar more various topics than I have ever before encountered; and when I\nget my Golin's I expect to get to the bottom of many words that puzzle me,\nthough others are probably modern developments, especially quadrilaterals\nand words belonging to special arts. But there is a religious formula\nwhich recurs many times, every word of which is easy, and yet the whole of\nit is to me unintelligible. I suspect it is elliptical and allusive, and\nit occurs to me that it may be familiar to you; if so, I know you will\nhave pleasure in explaining it to me. Whenever Robinson falls into\ndistress and betakes himself to prayer, I meet these words:--\n\n[Arabic]\n\nand then follows the matter of sorrow. I also three times meet [Arabic] at\nthe end of a sentence, where the meaning seems to be _et alia ejusdem\ngeneris_. I suppose it is an abridgment by initial letters. Can you help\nme to a solution? We have stuck here\" [at Aberystwith] \"longer than we\nintended; in fact, we should have left nearly a week ago, only that Mrs.\nN. caught a sharp cold, and the weather became suddenly so severe that I\nhave feared to let her travel.... Probably, like all the world and his\nwife, you are yourself just now absent from home.... Do you not with me\nsee that the Italians already are showing how vast a benefit L. N. has\nbrought them? It is only the beginning of a vast revolution.\n\n\"I am, ever your true friend,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nLETTERS TO DR. NICHOLSON\n\n\nIn 1860 Sardinia, because it happened to possess the clever, far-seeing\nCount Cavour, had \"dreamed against a distant goal\"--the goal when his king\nshould be made King of Italy, instead of only Sardinia. He only had to\nwait one year before his wish was attained. Victor Emmanuel, son of\nCharles Albert, King of Sardinia, was in 1861 proclaimed King of Italy,\nand nine years later he was head of the whole united nation. This is\nbriefly touched on in Newman's first letter to Dr. Nicholson in January,\n1860. He also spoke in strong praise of a book of Mrs. Beecher Stowe which\nhe and his wife (then staying at Hastings to see the new year in, as they\ndid the year before as well) were reading together. Mrs. Beecher Stowe\nwas, of course, best known by her _Uncle Tom's Cabin_, perhaps the most\npopular American novel ever written. _The Minister's Wooing_ was published\nin 1859.\n\n[Illustrations: 20 WHITE ROCK PLACE, HASTINGS\n1A CARLISLE PARADE, HASTINGS\nWHERE FRANCIS NEWMAN OFTEN STAYED, IN 1860 AND EARLIER\nFrom Photos taken in 1909 by Valentine Edgar Sieveking]\n\n\n\"1A Carlisle Parade, Hastings,\n_4th Jan_., 1860.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n\"A Happy New Year to you all! We are here, in the same lodgings as a year\nago, having begun and ended the year in them. We have begun this year with\nhopes for the future brightly contrasted to anything for ten years back.\nFor this, among men, I thank, first of all, Cavour and Victor Emmanuel,\nand secondly, Louis Napoleon. The hatred which the last incurs with the\nAustrian party and the Ultramontanists is, I think, a fair measure of his\nservices and tendencies.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"I cannot get any solution from any of my books of certain difficulties in\nthe Arabic phraseology of _Robinson Crusoe_, [Footnote: Hiawatha and\nRobinson Crusoe were very much used for Latin translations at the college\nby Newman.] and I want to ask your help; but I do not like to do so until\nI learn that it would not encroach too much on your leisure.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"We have been here reading aloud Mrs. Beecher Stowe's new tale, _The\nMinister's Wooing_ with very great pleasure. I regard her as a real\n'prophetess,' and am delighted at the enormous circulation of her works. I\nhave been stimulated to try my hand at translating into Latin five of the\nmost eloquent passages in the book, as a trial of the possibility of\nputting such things into that language. I am pleased with the result,\nalthough it is clear to me that without a development of the Latin\nvocabulary far beyond Cicero, Livy, Tacitus, and Seneca no one could ever\nbe _fluent_ and free to speak on modern subjects. One has to paraphrase\nand go round instead of speaking outright. I am thinking I ought to know\nsomething more about Arnobius and Lactantius, and see what sort of\n_development_ they effected; and the resolution rises in my mind that I\nwill look to this, being hitherto quite ignorant of them.... I suppose the\n'Volunteer Rifles' are talked of at Penrith as elsewhere. I regard it as a\nbreach of faith to transform these Volunteers into Light Infantry, which\nseems to be the darling idea of military men.\"\n\n\nLater on, in February, there is another letter relating to Newman's Latin\n_Robinson Crusoe_ and his own difficulties as to how to find out when are\nthe times of spring and autumn in an equinoctial climate.\n\n\"I have been (as many others) a sufferer by the weather from slight\nbronchitis, exasperated by the coughs and noseblowings of the students,\nand by an ill-arrangement of the class-rooms. I had nothing serious, but\nenough to force me to spend my evenings in bed, from seven o'clock almost,\nand keep me three entire days away from college. I have been ... busy ...\nwith a Latin _Robinson Crusoe_, rewritten quite freely (not a\ntranslation), that I have not been able to get back just now to Arabic;\nand have buried your letter in papers so deep that I lost much time the\nother day in a vain search for it.... In writing on Robinson's island I\nfound my botany sadly at a loss, and have hunted the _Penny Cyclopaedia_\ndiligently and uselessly to learn the simplest things, such as: To an\nequinoctial climate, when is the spring and when the autumn? Do the leaves\nfall twice, or not at all? When is the chief cold? Is it when the sun is\nlowest, or when the clouds are thickest? Or does it depend on hail and\nelectric phenomena, or on local relation to great mountains?\"\n\nIt will be remembered that in 1859 the outbreak of the war of the Italian\nliberation took place. Garibaldi--the Knight of the Red Shirt--though he\nhad settled down as a farmer on the island of Caprera, was summoned by\nCavour to fight for Victor Emmanuel. He and his _Chasseurs des Alpes_ went\ninto Central Italy as chief in command, and helped to complete the\nannexation of the Sardinian territories. It was in August, 1860, that he\nmade his military promenade through Naples. During the next few years he\nwas longing to march on Rome, but he also wished to foment the rebellion\nin Hungary, and not to let it come to nothing.\n\n\n\"10 Circus Road, St. John's Wood,\n\"London, N.W.\n\"_10th Nov._, 1860.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n\"I believe I have never so much as written from Wales or Clifton to you,\nto denote that I was not killed on the rail. In old days I suppose that\nevery distant journey demanded this kind of 'receipt' from a traveller;\nbut we now travel too much to make it natural. I am reading the Book of\nProverbs in Arabic, in order to work myself up in the vocabulary of\nmorals, and am pleased to find that I know nearly all the words, although\nthe exact _form_ of some is new to me.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"We may now congratulate one another on the 'definitive' fact of a\nconstitutional King of United Italy. Louis Napoleon, in consenting to it,\nappears to me to have surpassed the limits not only of ordinary kings, but\nof ordinary statesmen. I find that even able and temperate French writers,\nsuch as Eugene For\u00e7at, are shocked at it.... Louis Napoleon's ... enemies\noutside have been Germany, Spain, Russia, Austria, Naples, and the Papacy,\nand inside, all the Catholic clergy and the politicians.... Do you see\nGaribaldi's renewed solemn promise that his flag shall be joined to the\nHungarian in effecting their liberation from Austria? What I hear and\n_know_ of Lord Palmerston's intrigues against Hungary and _threats to\nSardinia_ if she dares to assist Hungary ... fills me with indignation and\nno small alarm. No doubt all that intrigue can do is now employed to\ninduce Austria to _sell_ Venetia, not in order to benefit Italy (though to\nthis they have no objection), but in gratuitous enmity to Hungary, which\n(Lord Palmerston says) the English Government _will not permit_ to be\nseparated from Austria. This I _know_ he avowed to the Sardinian\nAmbassador, and sent the English fleet into the Adriatic as a\ndemonstration. Happily the war is now likely to be deferred till\nParliament meets, and our ministry may be severely checked in time. I\ntrust we are only at the beginning of magnificent results in Europe and in\nNorth America....\n\n\"Your true friend,\n\n\"Francis W. Newman.\"\n\n\n1861 was a great year for the fortunes of America. Then it was that the\nCivil War between the North and South (United States) first began. The\nquestion seemed to be, how far the United States might really interfere\nwith the doings of any particular State of the Union. The North determined\nthat they would not allow the Union to be broken up, and so they fought.\nBut really the true point at issue was a far bigger question than that,\nfor it turned out that the real dispute had to do with whether slavery was\nto be allowed to continue, or whether it should be put an end to for good\nand all.\n\nThe North said it must cease, and after a war lasting five-years, this was\nthe final decision upon which peace was made. England very nearly was\nbrought into this war against her colonies, but happily not quite. It was\nprobably due to Abraham Lincoln (who was most wise in his Presidentship)\nthat this war was averted.\n\n\n\"_14th June_, 1861.\n\n\"The interest of American affairs almost swallows up with me those of\nItaly, Poland, Hungary; though I am on the whole in decided good heart as\nto them all, i.e. as to everything but India. Everywhere else the tide\nseems to me to have turned for the better; but in India that is by no\nmeans clear to me. I hope our Government has discovered its error as\nregards America.... The glorious patriotism and unanimity of the North\nnone could absolutely foresee; but that the attempt to break up the Union\nwould goad the pro-slavery faction of the North into intense hostility of\nfeeling to the South, appeared to me so clear and certain that I predicted\nit in print. That their backers and merchants should so lavish their\nprivate fortunes for the war was more than I dared to hope. I think the\nUnion gets a new heart from this time.\"\n\n\n\"10 Circus Road, London, N.W.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n\"I hope that the capture of New Orleans, now fully attested, pretty well\ntranquillizes your mind, and justifies us in believing that we see the\nbeginning of the end.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Events have not even yet taken the scale from the eyes of deluded people\nhere. I still hear on all sides the doleful lament that 'the successes of\nthe North are much to be regretted, since they _can only prolong the\nwar_.' Mr. Gladstone [Footnote: Then Chancellor of the Exchequer.] has\njust printed his recent Manchester speech, in which he sympathizes with\nthe South, because he does not trust the soundness of the North in the\ncause of freedom!... I am calmly told that it is not for the _interest of\nEngland_ that America should be so strong, and it is better for herself,\nand for us, that she break up! England may have all India, but the United\nStates may not have one Mississippi, or keep the mouth of her own river. I\nhave never felt so unutterably ashamed for my own country, for it affects\npublic men and the press of London _on all sides_, with exceptions which\nmay be easily counted. Are you not delighted with the progress of India\nfor the better? It appears in the public news in many ways; but besides, I\nhave papers from Oudh and Calcutta which interest me extremely, and give\nme the most cheerful hopes of the future. The change introduced by the\nextinction of the Company's rule is prodigiously beyond what I ever dared\nto expect in so short a time. I am beginning to print (for very limited\ncirculation!) a Latin _Robinson Crusoe_--chiefly to please a lady-teacher,\nmy favourite pupil. It is not a translation, but an imitation. My wife is\njust returned from Brighton, where I spent Easter--but did _not_ go to the\nrifle review. I feel unable to take interest in it, until Secret Diplomacy\nis abolished. At this moment there is no security that Lord Russell is not\nintriguing against Hungary, while possessing liberal views for Italy.\"\n\n\nIt is necessary here, I think, to add that the Hon. East India Company\nhad, so long ago as 1833, been deprived of its commercial privileges; but\nstill its directors practically ruled India under the Board of Control,\nwhich Pitt originated. Later, in 1858, Lord Palmerston brought in a bill\nwhich was its death-blow. The Company was to be abolished, and the Home\nGovernment reigned in its stead in India.\n\nIn July, 1863, Newman severed his long connection with University College,\nand evidently looked forward with great pleasure to uninterrupted time for\nwriting and studying.\n\n\"I am finally severed from University College, but do not as yet know how\nmuch difference that means, since this is my natural vacation. I suppose\nthat next October I shall begin to realize the greatness of the change for\ngood or evil. (The enclosed photogram makes my face dirty, and one eye too\ndark; yet seen through a magnifier it is really good.) I seem to have an\nAugean stable to cleanse in reducing my papers to simplicity, and burning\naccumulations of thirty years. I am not likely to write less, but perhaps\nmore, in anonymous ways, which impedes one's concentrating oneself on one\nsubject, if that be desirable: as to which I cannot make up my mind. The\ndanger of overworking the brain I see to be extreme if one has one subject\nand that all paper work and private work.\n\n\"I have now got my house, to keep on with right to leave at a quarter of a\nyear's notice.\"\n\nAs the following letters make much mention of the struggle through which\nthe United States was passing, it is perhaps as well to give, briefly, a\nfew details of the happenings which were then taking place.\n\nIn 1856, when the Republican army was first started to put an end to the\nextension of slavery, Lincoln, who was the most prominent man against the\npro-slavery party, took the lead as the most active servant of the cause.\nBut there was another, working perhaps more quietly, but quite as\nresolutely against slavery, whose name should never be forgotten. William\nLloyd Garrison--a man of the same age as Newman--started in 1831 a paper\ncalled _The Liberator_, with no capital or subscriptions. This paper he\ncarried on for thirty-five years until slavery was abolished in the United\nStates, although he received constantly letters threatening his\nassassination. He came to England in 1833, and on his return he started\nthe American Anti-Slavery Society. Before that was accomplished, however,\nin every way possible he had spread over the whole of the States pamphlets\netc., urging on his people the pressing need of the abolition of the slave\ntrade. Then in 1863 (July) General Grant's success in capturing Vicksburg\ngave back to the Union the full control of the Mississippi river. By 1864\nGrant was in full command of the Union Army. But _the_ aim of the\nAbolitionists had been triumphantly attained before then, for on 1st Jan.,\n1863, President Lincoln declared that all slaves in the States then in a\nstate of rebellion should be free. Only two years later this man, who had\ndone so much to rid his country of a degrading trade, was assassinated.\n\nThe following letter is dated 4th Aug., 1863:--\n\n\"... I hope that you now, with me, believe that the era of Southern\n'successes' (i.e. hard and HOPEFUL _resistance_) is finally past. I\nbelieve nothing now remains but the resistance of despair, which cannot\nlong animate the masses. Hatred of the free negro may awhile move them.\nBut, the Mississippi once open, the N.W. has no longer a party favourable\nto the South; and the exhaustion of the South is so marked and undeniable\nthat the real end may be much earlier than the people think.... General\nNeal Dow (now a prisoner at Richmond) in his last letter to England\nobserved that the moral end served by the prolongation of the war had\nnotoriously been the immediate legal emancipation of the negroes in the\nGulf States; but the further prolongation of it is to determine the future\ninternal government and possession of landed property in these States as\nthe guarantee for the future. But it is a hard wrench on the politicians\nof the North to consent to this. Lincoln and Blair evidently would still\nmuch rather export the negroes _if they could_. Lincoln will not do\nanything against the will of the blacks; but it is evidently his weak\npoint to deprecate them as equal citizens.\"\n\nIn September, 1863, Newman and his wife were spending their holiday at\nWindermere. From there he writes:--\n\n\"I fear that the projects of Louis Napoleon in Mexico, and the consequent\nsympathies of the United States with Russia against Poland and France,\nmake an imbroglio fatal to Poland. Now that, if the Russian Empire were\norganized into States possessed of substantive interior nationality (as\nthe French plan is), this would seem to be a very lamentable result. The\ntwo Western Cabinets have so acted as to ensure that Russia and the United\nStates shall each desire the aggrandizement of the other; and if Russia\ntake a lesson of imperial liberality from America, her empire may terrify\nour grandchildren with excellent reason. But I believe that the interest\nof the nations, of the true people everywhere, will prevail over Cabinet\nambitions as soon as slavery is effectually uprooted in America.\"\n\nNever do the words \"a\" and \"the\" light up so vividly the significant gulf\nwhich lies between the absence and the presence of Fame than when the\nfirst qualifies in the first instance the name of some man at a time when\nhe is not specially distinguished; and then, much later on, the second\nprefaces it as the mouthpiece of Fame. In 1863 Newman's mention of \"_a_\nMr. Grace, the _recent_ celebrated victorious cricketer,\" proved that his\nworld-wide fame had but then been in its initial stage.\n\nNewman's counsel to Dr. Nicholson in _re_ cigars as injurious to appetite\nand inflaming to the eyes, reminds one that though, as I have shown by his\nspeech to Mr. Butler's family, he was \"anti-everything,\" including smoke,\nyet he mentions constantly in his _Personal Narrative_ that in Syria\nduring his missionary journey there in 1830-3, the fact was that he\nhimself smoked in the fashion of the country, and by no means disliked it\nin his own young manhood. He begins on the Temperance and Teetotal\nquestion thus:--\n\n\n\"Llandudno,\n\"_17th Sept._, 1863.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"I am reminded of it, by seeing to-day a statement made concerning\ncricketers, that no first-rate cricketer takes beer, ale, or spirits,\nwhich (it is said by the enthusiastic narrator) inevitably 'jaundice the\neye,' nor tobacco in any form, (!) which induces a kind of stupefaction or\nnegligence. The recent celebrated victorious cricketer, a Mr. Grace, it is\nsaid, will not take even _tea_; but prefers water. (I hope the water is\nbetter than that of Windermere!) Two months ago I was reading from a\nsporting newspaper about a rowing match on the Thames, and there learnt\nthat if a rower is known to take beer or ale, it lowers the bets in his\nfavour. In fact, no habitual drinker, though he drink _only_ for health\nand strength (as he thinks), is regarded to have a chance of the highest\nprize.\n\n\"I cannot help thinking that both wine and alcohol and tobacco lower the\nvital powers, and that men are strong _in spite_ of them, not by reason of\nthem.\n\n\"Will you forgive me for suspecting that cigars lessen your appetite\n(which is less keen surely than it ought to be), as well as inflame your\neye?\"\n\n\nNewman goes, in his next letter, to a much more intricate subject: i.e.\ncuneiform inscriptions.\n\nHe had been studying them for two months. Emanuel Deutsch, one of the\ngreat authorities on cuneiform inscriptions, gives us the following\ninformation as regards them:--\n\nThe writing itself resembles a wedge, and it has been proved that it was\nused by the ancient peoples of Babylonia, Assyria, Armenia, and Persia, as\nwell as by other nations. It was inscribed on stone, iron, bronze, glass,\nor clay. The stylus which impressed the inscriptions on them was pointed,\nand had three unequal facets, of which the smallest made the fine wedge of\nthe cuneiform signs. The first cuneiform writing of which we know dates\nfrom about 3800 B.C.\n\nIt was used first in Mesopotamia, and then in Persia, and the districts\nnorth of Nineveh. When it became extinct, for nearly sixteen hundred\nyears, its very existence was absolutely forgotten. It was not until the\nyear 1618 that Garcia de Sylva Figu\u00ebroa, ambassador of Philip III of\nSpain, on seeing them, felt convinced that these inscriptions, in a\nwriting to which no one in the wide world possessed a key, must mean\nsomething. Therefore he had a line of them copied. In 1693 they were\nsupposed to be \"the ancient writings of the Gaures.\" Hyde, in 1700,\ntrifled with them, and gave them credit for being nothing more than the\narchitect's fancies. Witte saw in them nothing but the disfigurations of\nmany generations of worms. Others had their own speculations as to their\nmeaning. But Karsten Niebuhr took a big step higher and nearer to their\nreal meaning. He made out that there were three cuneiform alphabets,\nbecause of the threefold inscriptions at Persepolis.\n\nIn 1802 Grotefend, of Hanover, put before the Academy of G\u00f6ttingen the\nfirst cuneiform alphabet. Then, among other great investigators, followed\nRawlinson.\n\nThe first of these alphabets is Persian; the second the Median; the third\nthe Babylonian.\n\nDeutsch tells us that, originally, the cuneiform signs were pictures of\nobjects drawn in outline on a vegetable substance, known by the native\nname of _likhusi_. He thinks it probable that the supply of this was not\nequal to the demand, for early in the Babylonish history clay was used\ninstead of _likhusi_.\n\n\n(This letter is undated.)\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n\"I cannot remember the longitude or latitude of my hearing from you or\nwriting to you, and do not know whether I have to apologize for neglecting\nyou, so absorbed (it seems) have I been. I cannot even tell whether I told\nyou of my two months' devotion to Cuneiformism, and my study of the Medo-\nPersian and Scythian inscriptions as _promeletemata_ of an article in the\nNovember _Fraser's Magazine_.\n\n\"I found the Assyrian useless to dabble in: it is so vast, so fragmentary,\nso embarrassed by dogmatic hypotheses and assertions, and deterring\ncomplications, that one must give oneself _wholly_ to it for any chance of\ngetting to its foundations. But I feel on perfectly solid ground in Medo-\nPersian or Scythian. Difficulties in them are like difficulties in Greek\nor Sanscrit: that is all. In the Assyrian, I do not yet know whether to\nbelieve at least half of the characters, and many fundamental alleged\nprinciples; and I get no satisfaction in what I read....\n\n\"The eight millions in the U.S. who are to be educated, stimulate me. I am\ndying to get into relations with some who will be practically engaged in\nit.... I was very gloomy about American affairs four or six weeks ago. The\nPresident seemed running fast to ruin. But his plans have happily broken\ndown so early and so decidedly, that he is probably himself ashamed of\nthem, and the people have rallied to oppose them. I now trust that all\nwill come right.\"\n\n\n\"Benner, Dolgelley,\n\"_20th Aug._, 1864.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n\"I dare say you duly received a copy of my Iguvine Inscriptions [Footnote:\nThere is a town in Central Italy, Gubbio, which was anciently known as\nIguvium or Eugubium, which possessed many medieval palaces (the\nBrancaleoni), and well-known Eugubine Tables.] which I directed to be sent\nto you. For the first time in my life I have published with the secret\nhope of what some call 'fame,' i.e. with the desire of gaining 'credit,'\nbecause such 'credit' is of first importance to aid me in pushing on my\nschemes in regard to modern Arabic literature in European type.... To put\nforward an Easy Instructor in modern Arabic and an Anglo-Arabic\nDictionary, in European type, _with advantage_, I should greatly wish\nanother journey to Turkey, but as I have no children to leave with my\nwife, and she would be killed with ennui if I took her, and would more\nthan double the expense, I have not seen how to do it. Besides, I want\nmoney to publish my books.... General Grant's position between Petersburg\nand Richmond is become terribly anxious (my last news was his loss of six\nthousand men in attacking the fortresses behind the one which he blew up),\nand unless ultimately successful, the longer he tarries, the more complete\nwill be his disaster.... I have always been despondent as to the Northern\nscheme for forcing its way through Eastern Virginia; and am not the better\nreconciled to it by Grant's campaign. There is no sound success for the\nNorth now, unless they put the 'coloured' race politically on equal terms\nwith the 'whites,' and not to do so when 'colour' is legally undefinable,\nand when the only loyal citizens in loyal provinces are 'coloured,' is an\nalarming infatuation. I suppose they must suffer more and more, until they\nresolve that the slave owners of Kentucky, and the colour bigots of\nIllinois and Pennsylvania, shall be forced to yield to patriotic\nnecessities. Perhaps until they put down Slavery and serfdom within their\nown limits, they are not to be allowed success against the rebels. Mr.\nLincoln's gratuitous establishment of serfdom in Louisiana, and\nrecognition of the pardoned rebels, as the only citizens worthy to hold\npower, has filled me with despair of him. It is now clear from his own\navowals, that he will do no more justice to the coloured race than he is\n_forced_ to do.\"\n\n\nIn a letter dated 24th November, 1864, he says:--\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"I much rejoice that the Americans have made the Presidential election a\ntrial of principles, not of persons. Such a victory as 213 to 21 seems to\nimply that the old 'democratic' party is henceforth killed, while the\nAbolitionists, who have voted for Lincoln and Johnson, are left quite free\nnot to attack the Government as severely as they pleased for any\nshortcomings. I hope you have seen, or will see, the speech of Andrew\nJohnson at Nashville, proclaiming liberty 'full, broad, and unconditional'\nto every person in Tennessee. It is in so hearty and outspoken a tone as\nto double its value. '_Loyal_ men alone, _whether white or black_, shall\nrule the destiny of Tennessee.' 'All men who are _for equal rights_ are\nhis friends.' Now that he is Vice-President-elect I cannot but hope a\ngreat change for the better in Mr. Lincoln's policy towards the free and\nfreed negroes, for Johnson and Lincoln have been in intimate relations\nfrom the beginning.... Have you read details about the U.S. Sanitary\nCommission? It is a magnificent development of high historical importance\nto the future of wars, carrying out Florence Nightingale's ideas and\nwishes on to the vastest scale, and adding to it the tending of sick and\nwounded enemies.\"\n\nNewman's next communication to his friend alludes to the Permissive Bill,\nand assures him that there is no fear that it can ever \"hinder _legal_\nmethods of getting liquor (for medicine, for chemistry, for art).\" He\nadds: \"The sole question is, whether by an agent of the public authority,\nwho makes no gain by an increased sale (which we think the sound mode), or\nby a trafficker who gains by pushing the sale.\"\n\nAs regards America: \"I now understand that the darkest moment for the\nNorth--the repulse of Burnside at Fredericsburgh--was the _only_ thing\nthat at last decided Mr. Lincoln to issue his proclamation of freedom....\nHe has been born and bred under a slave-owner's interpretation of the\nConstitution and of the negro-temperament, and ... seems to persist in his\npublicly avowed preference of _gradual_ abolition. Could he have had his\nway, I predicted, and would still predict, twenty years of misery,\nconfusion, with probably new war unfavourable to the North. Garrison has\ndone his worst to aid the President, but Sumner and Wendell Phillips have\n(as I now take courage to believe) checkmated him. He will NEVER get his\nLouisiana and Arkansas reconstruction approved by Congress, and _colour-\nlegislation_ will be declared to be a violation of 'Republicanism.'... Yet\nMr. Lincoln is a better President every half-year, and I fully count will\nat last give way to truth and necessity with a good grace.\n\n\"I have been actively working up my _Handbook_ of Arabic. I also design a\n_skeleton_ dictionary of Arabic-English. I have got a valuable book from\nAlgiers (if it had but vowel points!). But I cannot publish until I have\nmoney to spare. Meanwhile I work hard to mature and perfect.\"\n\nLate in September, 1864, he is again writing on American turmoils:--\n\n\"_Next June_, 1865, the debt of the U.S. will be about 400 million\nsterling, only half of what England had at the end of the great French\nWar, when her population was not two-thirds nor her means one-fifth of the\nU.S., who (if once freedom and order is established over the whole Union)\nwill be a focus of immigration three times as attractive as ever, with\nwealth multiplying twice as rapidly as ever.... I have no anxiety about\nanything _but the policy which is to prevail in victory_.... It is\nfrightful to me to hear President Lincoln avow that (against the morality\nof his heart) his official duty is to do nothing for the coloured race\nexcept under compulsion and to save the whole Republic from foundering. He\nknows they are subjects of the Union, and _owe allegiance_ to it, to the\npoint of laying down their lives for it; yet he does not know that those\nwho owe allegiance have an indefeasible right to protection. He is\nconquering rebellious States, and does not know that the conqueror is\nthenceforward RESPONSIBLE for the institutions which he permits in those\nStates, and believes it to be his official duty to respect the old\ninstitutions however inhuman, however against Republican\nConstitutionalism, and even when a violation of a treaty with France....\nIt is too clear that Lincoln will be a great drag upon everything decisive\nin policy, and especially where decision is most necessary, i.e. in\nvesting in the coloured race _power to defend their own rights_. When the\nwar ends, it will be very difficult to hinder the Northern enthusiasm from\ncollapsing and foolish statesmen from doing necessary work by halves.\"\n\nIn May, 1865, Newman writes these strong words: \"President Lincoln was\ndead against the confiscation of estates, and bent upon restoring a\npowerful landed aristocracy, with a wretched dependent peasantry free in\nname only.... A far sterner nature than his was wanted, which understands\nthat Justice to the oppressed must go before Mercy to the guilty; and I\nbelieve they have got the right man in Andrew Johnson.\"\n\nIn February of the year 1866, a great trouble and anxiety fell upon Newman\nwhile he and his wife were staying at Hastings. For nine or ten days she\nseemed to be dying. \"We got her through the acute crisis.... I resigned\nher a full month ago, and have since not dared to hope that she can do\nanything but linger. Nevertheless her life is less distressing and more\nworth having than it was. She moves from her bed into an arm-chair; sits\nat table for dinner.... She talks cheerfully, and can enjoy seeing her\nsisters. When I look at her I fancy she is pretty well;... yet I feel that\nshe might be carried off very suddenly. Indeed, this was her mother's\ncase, who had the very same combination of disease, and retained much\nmuscular strength to the last. We had two physicians at Hastings, and here\nshe is under Dr. Garth Wilkinson. I have no complaint against any of the\nphysicians: they seem to me all to have done all they could; but nothing\nthat anyone has done has been of any use. It was by nursing, not by\nmedicine, that she was saved through critical days and nights. The\nphysician said she could not live forty-eight hours, and so we believed:\nand at her request I sent him away.... I have written so many letters that\nI forget to whom I have written: and it was indeed a tumultuous existence\nat Hastings. I have now a good night nurse and cannot say that I want\nanything; but a great shadow overspreads me.\"\n\nThe Doctor had evidently miscalculated Mrs. Newman's strength and\nrecuperative power, however, for in June of the same year:--\n\n\"I am happy to say that she\" (Mrs. Newman) \"now looks very like herself,\nthough feebler and liable (I fear) to relapse. But she is not only in\ncomparative health, but gives a hope of acquiring more soundness in the\nnext three months. I give up this house\" (10 Circus Road, N.W.) \"in a very\nfew days, and have taken a house in Clifton--1 Dover Place--but it will\nnot be ready for us until 1st August.\"\n\nNearly three months later, he writes:--\n\n\"I am at last in my new home, which is very pretty, very pleasant, with\ndelightful prospect, and _perhaps_ may suit me well; but I have sad\ntrouble with a drunken house owner, who kept me twenty-three days out\nlater than his contract,... and has given me roof and pipes either out of\nrepair or insufficient, rat holes very troublesome,... cisterns and taps\nall in unsatisfactory state. Last night, for the third time in ten days, I\nhave been inundated through two floors.\" But he adds more hopefully than\nthe case seems to warrant,\" If I can get these matters right my house is\nvery promising. ... After a few weeks here my wife's strength has\nincreased notably, by no other doctor than a donkey chaise, and she now\nseems just what she was last summer....\n\n\"I have had a letter from Pulszky (to whom I had not written on this\nsubject) telling me he is convinced that Bismarck put on a mask of\nfanatical reactionarism in order to win the confidence of the _King of\nPrussia!_ ... It seemed to me certain, that when new States had to be\nincorporated with Prussia, despotic reaction would be _impossible_, much\nmore if a German Parliament were summoned. And now the King himself\nproposes Universal Suffrage for all men above twenty-five and of\nunblemished character! This seems to make any English Reform Bill\nimpossible, which is not far more democratic than any practical statesman\nhere has yet imagined. Nevertheless, I am increasingly gloomy as to the\nnear future of the English Empire. The Radicals seem perfectly blind as to\nits centres of danger, and the amount of foreign sympathy which\ninsurrection in India or Ireland will now have. Andrew Johnson seems\ndestined to involve the U.S. in new civil war. I grieve deeply for it.\"\n\nThe next letter shows Newman settled in at \"1 Dover Place, Clifton.\" His\nAnglo-Arabic dictionary is finished, though revisions are to be added\nlater. At the end of the letter he gives the names of those who, he hopes,\nmay some day form a Ministry under Gladstone.\n\n\n\"_12th March_, 1867.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n\"Our correspondence is so slack that I cannot tell what or on what I last\nwrote, nor where to lay hands on your last.... We have had severe weather\nall this month, and the snow continues all day since last night; but I am\nhappy to say my dear wife is not the worse.... I remember vividly the\nspring of 1836, the first year of our marriage: the season from December\nto May was the severest that I take note of since the great historical\nwinter of 1813 (1812?). This begins to remind me of 1836.... I had hoped\nthat continued work at Arabic would explain to me certain fixed\ndifficulties in the documents which I have studied; but a number of them,\neven where the printed text is quite clear, remain unsolved. I venture to\ntrouble you with the only words which embarrass me in a rather long and\ncomplete narrative of the burial of Abd el Mejied and the ceremonial of\ninstalling his brother as his successor. If you can translate the line or\nhalf-line I shall be benefited.\n\n\"I finished my Anglo-Arabic dictionary three or four weeks ago, but I hope\nto enrich and revise it. Perhaps the course of public events surprises you\nas much as me. As the Whigs cannot afford to be outrun by the Tories, it\nappeared to me at first that I had been wrong in expecting a tough and\nlingering struggle. Yet it seems to me, in revising details, morally\nimpossible for either Tories or a _Russell_ Ministry to do enough to stop\nand satisfy the outdoors Reform movement. If _Russell_ would retire, or\nwere forced to retire, and Gladstone had courage and resolution to make a\nRadical Ministry, including Bright and Mill, Stansfeld, Forster, Milnes,\nGibson, etc. (to which the Duke of Argyle would adhere), and were to\ndissolve Parliament if necessary--even so it would be hard to pass through\nthe Lords a measure adequate to stop the clamour for more, and active\nagitation. I begin to relapse into my belief that there _must_ be long\nconflict. Nothing seems to me worth a national Convulsion which does not\ngive us new principles and new persons in the Executive Government. I\nincline to believe that we shall live to see Radicalism (of a grade far\nbeyond what is popularly so named) in high office and carrying out its\nprinciples with energy.\"\n\n\nIt will be remembered that Lord John Russell had long tried to reform\nParliament. In 1866 he had brought a bill for the purpose before the House\nof Commons. It was rejected, and with it the Ministry went out. Then, when\nLord Derby became Prime Minister, with Disraeli as leader of the House, he\nfound he could do nothing but introduce in 1867 a Reform Bill of a far\nmore marked and definite character than the one which had \"gone under\"\nduring the last year. This bill, however, passed in August, 1867, showing\nhow the country in the meantime had become more and more ready for such a\nmeasure. Its conditions were that borough franchise was given to all rate-\npayers, and lodgers who used rooms of the annual value of ten pounds. But\nperhaps a great deal of the driving power came from the large numbers of\nthe working-classes which were now added to the constituencies. In 1868\nDisraeli, who had now become Prime Minister, retired when he found that\nthe Liberal majority reached to over a hundred through the new elections.\nThen came the man of the hour, whom Newman had longed to see in that\nplace--Gladstone, who took the office vacated by Disraeli. At once it was\nseen how far stronger was this new Ministry than the last, or, indeed, one\nmight perhaps say than many \"lasts.\" One of its first measures was the\nalways-to-be-regretted one of the disendowment of the Irish Church.\nDisestablishment, which of course preceded disendowment, was in many\nrespects a gain. The Land Bill followed in 1870, and the next year\nabolition of religious tests for admission to degrees and offices in the\nUniversities.\n\n\n\"_15th April_, 1867.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n\"I would not have you take any particular trouble about it, but if in your\nTurkish Dictionary you find (this) to mean _tax_, at your entire leisure\n(no hurry at all) I should be glad to learn how to pronounce the word.\n\n\"I received on Saturday from Washington a newspaper which contains very\ninteresting news from North Carolina and Alabama. N. C. comes out 'square'\nfor the Republican party, and Alabama avows Republican sentiments. Both\naccept negro suffrage and absolute equality of the races. _Coloured\norators are prominent and acceptable_.\n\n\"I also have a very interesting letter from a coloured gentleman from New\nOrleans, saying that the last acts of Congress have quite quelled the\nreign of terror, and brought out the White Unionists, who did not dare to\nspeak before; and they are much more numerous than he had believed.\nAlthough Congress has been pusillanimous in the extreme, and always\ndeficient, both as to time and substance, and although the danger of\nreaction is not past, still everything is turning for the better since the\nlast act of the thirty-ninth Congress and first of the fortieth, and I\nthink we may now hope that the Unionists of the South, white and black,\nwill be able to fight their own battles. In England I do not think _our_\nagitation can be appeased by the Reform Bill of this Parliament....\n\n\"Ever yours cordially,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nThe following letter concerns Vaccination almost entirely. Newman's views\nwith respect to vaccination were very clearly set forth in Vol. III of his\n_Miscellanies_. They come under the heading of an article called\n\"Barbarisms of Civilisation.\" [Footnote: Published in the _Contemporary\nReview_ of June, 1879.] Newman owns to having no medical knowledge of the\nrisks or non-risks of vaccination, but from what he considers to be the\nrational point of view he objects to it most strongly. He protests that\nGovernment Vaccinators have \"for many years obtained a large part of what\nthey called _lymph_ ... (_pus_, or matter, is the only right word) by\ninoculating calves or bullocks with small-pox. The result in the animals\nthey are pleased to call _cow-pox_, and when the poisonous matter is\ntransferred back to human infants they assume that it will not produce\nsmall-pox! But while the doctrine is orthodox in London, the Local\nGovernment in Dublin allows no such dealing.\"\n\nHe adds: \"Unless the _causes_ of small-pox be removed (generally some\nimpurity in the air or in the food), those causes will work mischief\nsomehow. throw an eruptive disease back into the system is proverbially\ndangerous.... Moreover, what right has any physician to neglect the cures\nof small-pox, by which herbalists, hydropaths, and Turkish-bath keepers\nfind it a most tractable disease?\"\n\nIn a letter called \"Compulsory Vaccination,\" published in 1884, he says:\n\"To obviate it\" (small-pox) \"by extirpating its causes is good sense; to\ninfuse a new disease without caring to extirpate the causes of the\nexisting disease is a want of common sense.\" In the letter following, the\n\"Harry\" (Dr. Henry) is the boy who boarded with the Newmans, and left\nsnail-shells stuck on a board when he left! He was well known in the world\nof science as Professor H. Alleyne Nicholson, of Aberdeen.\n\nThere is no date or address on this letter.\n\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n\"I have been pressed to make some reply to Dr. Henry's Vaccination\npamphlet; but excused myself on the ground that it was not pleasant to me\nto be in public opposition to him, for he was son of an intimate friend of\nmine;... I have no special knowledge. I look on it from outside the\nmedical art....\n\n\"Now in the contents of the pamphlet I read: 'Small-pox--never produced at\npresent _de novo_.'...\n\n\"I make sure that it never _could_ have spread, unless the conditions had\nin all the other places been highly congenial.... Predisposing causes\ncannot long accumulate and fester, without curdling into vital action. The\n_provisional assumption_ with me concerning smallpox, is, that wherever\nits predisposing causes exist, there the disease will not long be absent.\nIn new foci it may meet new influences which modify its aspect, so that\nmedical men do not recognize it; but that signifies not....\n\n\"Now, what is Dr. Henry's proof?...\n\n\"Is there so much as one disease, the origin of which has been recorded\nscientifically? What he calls 'the primitive origin' of small-pox has not\nbeen recorded to us scientifically: yet he does not on that account doubt\nthat it did once arise 'spontaneously.' I judge just in the same way, when\nit breaks out now in an English country village. What does the 'scientific\nrecord' mean? We cannot have a medical man in every room of every house at\nevery moment examining what is under the shirt and shift, with microscope\nin hand, to see the disease come of _itself_,... Dr. Henry goes on to say,\n'and it APPEARS to have spread solely by infection or contagion.' It\n_appears!_ This is so modest, that the reader fancies he may grant it. But\nthe next words are: 'TWO CONCLUSIONS FOLLOW from this,' etc. etc. In\nshort, he has forgotten that it is only 'it appears,' and fancies that it\nwas c indisputably certain and manifest.' ... After all; if unhealthy\nconditions are among the prerequisites of small-pox, we have only to\nremove the unhealthy conditions, and shall not need vaccination (if it\nwere ever so safe): and if you do not remove unhealthy conditions, you are\nsure of other diseases quite as bad however you may modify the name.\"\n\n\n_Letters from_ 1872 to 1882 (_to Dr Nicholson_).\n\nThe first letter of this series is dated 26th December, 1872, from Weston-\nsuper-Mare, and is concerned chiefly with his wife's terrible fall, and\nalso with the movement of the peasants under the initiative of Joseph\nArch.\n\nThe name of Joseph Arch is too well known to need more than a few words in\nexplanation of the reason why he came to help forward this movement as he\ndid. He was born in Warwickshire in the year 1826, and was essentially one\nof those who, having determined to rise from the ranks--_rose_. He\neducated himself during the time while he was working as farm-labourer.\nThose who have read Father Benson's _Sentimentalists_, and also Robert\nLouis Stevenson's book on the same subject, will not fail to understand\nhow complete and full is the education which comes to a man through both\ndoors--that of physical labour, and that of mental as well. Joseph Arch\nstarted in 1872 the National Agricultural Labourers' Union. Soon he had\nfreed the peasantry from many of their former disabilities. Later he went\nto Canada to find out as much as he could about emigration and labour\nquestions. In 1885-6 he stood for the N.W. Division of Norfolk.\n\n\n\"_26th Dec_., 1872.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Did I, or did I not, tell you of my wife's mishap from a terrible fall\ndownstairs? Her right hand will be for a long while stiff from having been\ntied for nine weeks with a splint on the inside, no finger being allowed\nto move. This, I am assured, is hospital practice; but it is vehemently\ncondemned by others, and in her case, at least, I believe it was wrong.\nWhether she will ever recover her _thumb_, I am not sure; for I fear it is\nstill dislocated at the base. She necessarily gives us a great deal to do;\nI have to act as her amanuensis, besides oiling, shampooing, etc.\n\n\"Knowing as I do how you sympathize with rustics and disapprove our\nexisting Land Laws, I make sure that with me you are delighted by the\nmovement of the peasants under the initiative of Joseph Arch to claim\naccess to freehold land by purchase or equivalent payments. I never dared\nto hope such an initiative from the peasants themselves, but I always\nforesaw that a destruction of slavery in the U.S. would give to the States\nsuch a desire to people their territories and the South, with English\nimmigrants, that our peasants, as soon as they became more wideawake,\nwould have the game in their own hands, and neither farmers nor landlords\ncould resist.... I now should not wonder to live to see ... household\nsuffrage extended to the peasantry-and as results, coming some earlier,\nall soon, overthrow of the existing Drink Traffic, of Contagious Diseases\nAct, Army Reform on a vast scale, Female Equality with Men in the Eye of\nthe Law, overthrow of Landlords' predominance.... I wonder whether\nabolition of Foreign Embassies must precede a serious grapple with the\nNational Debt. I doubt whether any nominally free State ever had such an\nAugean Stable left to it by forty years' eminently active legislation. \"In\ncorruptissima Republica plurimae leges,\" sounds like it. Without carving\nEngland and Ireland into States, I do not think the work can be got\nthrough: if indeed we are to avoid new wars with Ireland and India, which\nmay God avert!...\n\n\"Your constant friend,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nI quote next from a note written three years later, which ascribes his\nhealth to the Triple alliance of his three \"Anti's\"--anti-alcohol, anti-\ntobacco, and anti-flesh food.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"How many a pleasant year has run its course since I first visited you at\nPenrith! It was the summer of 1842, I think, that we ascended High Street\ntogether, a company of seventeen.\n\n\"It is my fancy that I could walk as well now: yet I believe it would make\nme lazy for a week after. Moderate exertions are surely best when one is\npast seventy, yet my spirits are inexhaustible, and my sense of health\nperfect. Seriously I attribute this to the TRIPLE ABSTINENCE [from\nalcohol, from narcotic (tobacco), and from flesh meat]....\n\n\"Your affectionate friend,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nThe same year he states in a letter to Dr. Nicholson that the Vegetarian\nSociety is that in which he feels most active interest, \"though I am a\nGood Templar and am earnest in nearly all the _Women's_ Questions.\" And in\nanother, written in August, \"I here, as usual\" (at Ventnor), \"get the\nluxury of fine fruit at this season (and the unusual luxury of mushrooms),\nbut I do protest that their demand of 4s. a pound for grapes is enough to\nfrighten Cato the elder. [Footnote: Marcus Portius Cato, born at Tusculum\n234 B.C., passed his childhood on his father's farm. In later years he\nwrote several works on husbandry, its rules, etc. When he was elected\nCensor in 184 he made great efforts to check national luxury and to urge a\nreturn to the simpler life of his Roman ancestors. He was very strict and\ndespotic as regards contract prices paid by the State, and constantly\naltered those for food, carriages, slaves, dress, etc.] The price of\nlodgings at Shanklin and here is much higher than two years back. It seems\nto me that everything is going up, here, in America, on the Continent, and\nin India; yet I do not see how to impute it to the increased supply of\ngold. I think that the working classes are everywhere demanding and\ngetting a larger share of the total which is produced....\n\n\"Believe me your true friend,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nFour years elapse between this letter and the next from which I shall\nquote. During this interval Newman's wife died (16th July, 1876), and was\nmourned long and sincerely. He was now seventy-one years of age, and had,\nas his letters show, begun already to feel lack of power and health. It\nwas evident to himself towards the end of the eighteen months which\nfollowed her death that he should not be able to live alone, and yet there\nwas no relation he could ask to come and be with him.\n\nIn December, 1879, the following letters were written by Newman to Dr.\nNicholson concerning his second marriage to Miss Williams, who had for\nmany years lived with his first wife, and been very devoted in her care\nand attention to her.\n\n\n\"_29th Dec_., 1879.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n\"I felt very warmly the kindness of your letter which congratulated me on\nmy remarriage, and I have often desired to write to you that you might\nfeel how unchanged is my regard for you, though circumstances do not at\nall carry me so far north as your dwelling. I may briefly add, that a\nyear's experience quite justifies my expectation. The marriage was not in\nmy estimate an experiment, which might succeed or fail.... That my wife's\nhealth is not robust, I certainly grieve, but she is nineteen years my\njunior. Our love and trust has only increased month by month.... This\nblack edge\" (of the note paper) \"is for my only surviving sister, whose\ndeath is just announced to me. She was my fondest object of boyish love,\nand it is impossible not to grieve. On the other hand, I had long expected\nit, and did not at all think she would survive _last_ winter.... I believe\nshe was loved and respected by _everyone_ who knew her, as truly she\ndeserved to be. I feel good consolation in this.... For three years our\npublic doings have been to me so mournful and dreadful--with no power\nanywhere to stay the madness of the Court and Ministry,--that I have been\nmade unwilling to write about them. Retribution for such deeds seemed to\nme certain, inevitable: it seems to be coming more speedily than I had\nexpected. Stormy controversies must in any case be here encountered. But\never since 1856 (I might date from the day when Lord Dalhousie went to\nIndia--1848?) we seem to have been storing up wrath and vengeance against\nourselves,--worse and worse at home as well as abroad, since the death of\nPeel. I never admired Peel: he had to trim to the Tories: but I now see\nhow moderate Peel kept them, and in comparison how wise Peel was.\n\n\"So many are the eminently good men and women in England that I am certain\nwe must have a nobler future: but that may be separated from the present\ntime by a terrible struggle....\n\n\"I am your affectionate friend,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nIn briefly reviewing the year 1881 in its effects on nation and\nGovernment, it is necessary to cast one's thoughts back to the time when\nLord Beaconsfield took office in 1874, in order to grasp the drift of\nNewman's next letter. In 1874 the former became Prime Minister for the\nsecond time. He had not been long in office before he made an end of\nChurch patronage in Scotland. The next year he was carrying forward his\ndesign of procuring part ownership for England of the Suez Canal. He did\nnot attach sufficient importance to the Bulgarian atrocities to set going\nany British interference. This in itself is an act which can find no\ndefence. He declared Turkey must be upheld as a stronghold against the\naggression of Russia. In the year 1878, Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury\nattended the Berlin Congress. This at once raised the former to the\nhighest political importance, but it undid all the splendid work done by\nthe English army, which had, at the order of a blundering, mistaken\nGovernment, been sent to obtain for England, through means of the Crimean\nWar, a victory rendered completely null and void a short time later by the\ndoings of this Congress at Berlin.\n\nThen followed the Afghan and Zulu Wars and subsequent troubles and\nupheavals: trade depression in Ireland; and finally, in 1880, came the\nGeneral Election, which restored the Liberal party to power.\n\n\n\"_1st Oct_., 1881.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n\"I was glad to get your letter, but frightened when I found it open (the\ngum wholly fresh) and no photograph in it. [Footnote: I believe the photo\ngiven in this volume, of Dr. Nicholson, to be the one referred to here.] I\nfeared it was taken out. But next day came the real thing. It is\nexcellent. The slight excess of black in the left eye is perhaps quite\nnatural. In a three-quarter face the light does not fall alike on both\neyes, and we do not in real life compare a friend's two eyes (they move\ntoo quick); we see only one at a time. [Footnote: Francis Newman expressed\nonce his theory that in the case of a photograph being taken of a man,\nunconsciously to himself, the expression of the portrait will in some\ncurious manner change as his character changes.] The photo pleasantly\nrenews my old memories....\n\n\"_Immediate_ politics sicken _me_ as well as you. I do not (with a zealous\nfriend) groan over 1881 as unrelieved gloom, completed by the murder of an\namiable and innocent President: but I deliberately conclude we are\nlaunched in a season of TRANSITION that _must_ have its sadness just as\nhas a war: and it is wise to look on beyond the troubled years.... The\ncourse of change may largely depend on events in India which not one\nEnglishman in a thousand dreams of. In 1881, thus far, I rejoice in the\nincipient elevation of Greece, and the probable deliverance of Armenia. I\nthink the great Powers _will not_ quarrel over the carcase of Turkey: and\nthough Frenchmen may justly make outcry against French ambition in North\nAfrica, yet as an Englishman and a European I do not regret it. As _I_ see\nno power but Russia who can impart improved rule to Armenia and Persia, so\nno one but France can give it in North Africa. My _immediate_ interest in\nthe politics of the High Powers is to see them combine against the Slave\nTrade, in Turkey, and _in the Pacific_. In domestic Politics I care _most_\nfor the social and moral questions, which are painful, pressing, and\ndisgracefully delayed. But all will come; and the great question of Landed\nTenure will aid the best influences....\n\n\"I am your affectionate old friend,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nOn 26th Nov., 1881, Newman caused some copies of the following letter to\nbe printed and sent round to his friends, etc.:--\n\n\"My dear ----,\n\n\"Friends are always greedy of details concerning sudden illness. This is\nmy excuse for sending a printed circular.\n\n\"In short, my general health continues as excellent as usual; but I have\nreceived a sharp warning, which I would gladly be able to call a mere\nfright. After many days of close and continuous writing, I found myself\nsuddenly disabled in my right hand. I could not interpret it as merely\nmuscular. There was no inability of motion or grasping, but want of\ndelicacy in feeling, which made my pen slip round in my fingers. I was\nforced to conclude the _brain_ involved.\n\n\"Therefore it seemed possible that I was only at the beginning of real\nparalysis. Prudence absolutely required me to back out of two engagements.\nThis illness, such as it is, has not come on in a day, and demands time\nfor cure. Some ten days of cessation have somewhat (but very imperfectly)\nrestored my power of writing; but I must not undertake any tasks at\npresent. My sole remedy has been to keep the arm warm. It is still\nsomewhat weak. I wished, if this affection were temporary, to say nothing\nabout it; but that has proved impossible.\n\n\"I am, yours as ever,\n\n\"Francis W. Newman.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere are many allusions to this trouble of the arm in later letters.\nIndeed, it is impossible not to see how very much it has crippled his\nhandwriting; he mentions once or twice that he finds it very difficult to\nkeep his hand steady.\n\nIn May, 1882, he writes to Dr. Nicholson concerning the news of the\nmoment--the murder of Lord Henry Cavendish and Mr. Burke, at Phoenix Park.\nIt will be remembered that it happened at the end of all the obstructive\ntactics used by Parnell and his Home Rule Party, which was organized to\nprevent coercion being used, and also to force on England the compulsion\nof legislating promptly for Ireland the measures demanded by the\nNationalists. It was not until 1886 Gladstone brought before Parliament a\nmeasure which would give a Statutory Parliament to Ireland. Later, after\nthe rejection of the bill on its second reading, Gladstone appealed to the\ncountry, and when the General Election brought back a Conservative\nmajority, he was defeated.\n\nLord Frederick Cavendish became in 1882 Chief Secretary for Ireland, in\nsuccession to Mr. Forster. On 6th May he and Mr. Burke (his unpopular\nsubordinate) were stabbed in Phoenix Park.\n\nThe allusion to Newman's study of the Libyan language occurs in the letter\nfollowing, as it has done in more than one of the others about this time.\nThe Numidians were descended from the race from which the modern Berbers\nare drawn. Their name was drawn from the Greek word Nomades--Land of\nNomads; and was given to tribes in Northern Africa by the Romans.\n\n\n\"_8th May_, 1882.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"To-day we have heard with horror of the murder of Lord Frederick\nCavendish, and with grief, if with once or twice that he finds it very\ndifficult to keep his hand steady.\n\nIn May, 1882, he writes to Dr. Nicholson concerning the news of the\nmoment--the murder of Lord Henry Cavendish and Mr. Burke, at Phoenix Park.\nIt will be remembered that it happened at the end of all the obstructive\ntactics used by Parnell and his Home Rule Party, which was organized to\nprevent coercion being used, and also to force on England the compulsion\nof legislating promptly for Ireland the measures demanded by the\nNationalists. It was not until 1886 Gladstone brought before Parliament a\nmeasure which would give a Statutory Parliament to Ireland. Later, after\nthe rejection of the bill on its second reading, Gladstone appealed to the\ncountry, and when the General Election brought back a Conservative\nmajority, he was defeated.\n\nLord Frederick Cavendish became in 1882 Chief Secretary for Ireland, in\nsuccession to Mr. Forster. On 6th May he and Mr. Burke (his unpopular\nsubordinate) were stabbed in Phoenix Park.\n\nThe allusion to Newman's study of the Libyan language occurs in the letter\nfollowing, as it has done in more than one of the others about this time.\nThe Numidians were descended from the race from which the modern Berbers\nare drawn. Their name was drawn from the Greek word _Nomades_--Land of\nNomads; and was given to tribes in Northern Africa by the Romans.\n\n\n\"_8th May_, 1882.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"To-day we have heard with horror of the murder of Lord Frederick\nCavendish, and with grief, if with less horror, of Mr. Burke's. I felt\npersuaded from the first that the assassins would aim only at Mr. Burke,\nwho has long been regarded as the perverter of every Viceroy and\nSecretary; but in mere self-defence they also killed his companion,\nperhaps not even knowing who he was. Lord Frederick Cavendish was almost\nunknown to the Irish, and cannot have been hated by them as Mr. Forster\nwas.\n\n\"My second thought on this grievous affair is, that it is likely to call\nout so sincere a disavowal from collective Ireland, and from the most\nextreme of Irish politicians, that it may help to reconcile Irish patriots\nand the Liberal Ministry. To have a common grief is a moral cement. Also\nit seems to compel Mr. Gladstone to send as Irish Secretary an _Irishman_,\nand one publicly esteemed as Irish patriot, as well as a sincere friend to\nthe English connection; and from what I have heard before this event, Mr.\nShaw seems to be a very likely man.\n\n\"Meanwhile, sad to say, Mr. Gladstone entrenches himself, and _blocks up_\nbusiness by the Rules of Procedure.\n\n\"Well, Ireland is taking a leaf out of Nihilism. It is bad enough, yet not\nso bad as with the poor Czar....\n\n\"Yours cordially in old esteem,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\n\"On Saturday I corrected the last proofs of my essay towards a Numidian\ndictionary. Yesterday a friend sent me a scrap from Paris, in which R\u00e9nan\navows that until a Numidian dictionary is compiled they cannot begin to\ndecipher inscriptions in the _Canaries!_ I fancy the Canary language is a\nwide step off.\"\n\nEach succeeding year after 1882 Newman complains from time to time, in his\nletters to his friends, of increasing infirmities and physical\ndisabilities, which made travelling often exceedingly trying for his head,\nand rendered him more and more dependent on his wife. He had for a long\ntime suffered a great deal from his eyes, and consequently during the last\nfew years of his life writing letters became a physical weariness. He was\nalso subject to a sudden loss of brain power, when he found himself\ncompletely unable at times to speak consecutively.\n\n[Illustration: ANNA SWANWICK\nFROM A PORTRAIT PAINTED BY MISS V. BRUCE]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nLETTERS WRITTEN TO MISS ANNA SWANWICK\n(BETWEEN 1871 AND 1887)\n\n\nAnna Swanwick was one of the most remarkable women of her age--one of the\nmost intellectual, one of the most thoughtful as regards the social\neducational movements of her time, which was the early part of the last\ncentury. Yet there is a passage in a lecture delivered by her at Bedford\nCollege which reveals only too clearly the straitened and limited means at\nthe disposal of girls in those days who wished to climb the stairs of that\nHigher Education so easy to men, but then so very difficult of access for\nwomen. She says:--\n\n\"In my young days, though I attended what was considered the best girls'\nschool in Liverpool, the education there given was so meagre that I felt\nlike the Peri excluded from Paradise, and I often longed to assume the\ncostume of a boy in order to learn Latin, Greek, and mathematics, which\nwere then regarded as essential to a liberal education for boys, but were\nnot thought of for girls. To give some idea of the educational meagreness\nalluded to above, I may mention the fact that during my schooldays I never\nremember to have seen a map, while all my knowledge of geography was\nderived from passages learnt by rote.\" I quote this from one of the most\ndelightful memoirs I have come across for a long time: _Anna Swanwick; a\nMemoir and Recollections_, by Miss Mary Brace. [Footnote: Published by\nFisher Unwin.]\n\nBut no \"educational meagreness\" can keep the feet of some climbers off the\neducational ladder. It may be with slow, \"sad steps\" they \"climb the sky\"\nof the higher education. Nevertheless the effort is doggedly made. For in\nall great men, as in all great women, there is something-call it genius,\ncall it what you like--which _forces_ its way through, be the impediments\nwhat they may.\n\nAnna Swanwick, to whom the following letters were written at various\nintervals, was well known for her philanthropic and educational work among\nthe poorer classes, and also for her earnest endeavours for the larger\ndevelopment of women's work and education. A large part of her own\neducation in Greek and Hebrew was carried forward at Berlin. In 1830\nBedford College was opened. Miss Bruce tells us that Francis Newman and\nAugustus de Morgan, Dr. Carpenter, and other famous lecturers were among\nthe first to lecture there. I imagine it was here that the friendship of\nforty years between Anna Swanwick and Francis Newman began. The former was\nspecially impressed with Newman's method of teaching mathematics. I quote\nher words from Miss Bruce's _Memoir_:--\n\n\"I remember being particularly impressed by F. W. Newman's teaching of\nmathematics, including geometry and algebra; he saw at a glance if one of\nhis pupils in algebra was not able to follow his calculations, which were\noften very elaborate; on such occasions, instead of endeavouring to\nexplain the difficulty to a single pupil, thus keeping the entire class\nwaiting, he would interest them all by placing the subject in an entirely\nnew light, which was possible only to one who had a complete mastery of\nhis subject--one who, looking down from a mental height, could see the\nvarious paths by which the higher eminence could be reached.\"\n\nI cannot but mention here the supreme service Anna Swanwick was able to\nrender Newman at the end of his life. It was in the last letter which he\nwrote to her, when he was ninety-two, that these words occur. After\nstating that he wished \"once again definitely to take the name of\nChristian,\" he adds: \"I close by my now sufficient definition of a\nChristian, c one who in heart and steadily is a disciple of Jesus in\nupholding the prayer called the Lord's Prayer as the highest and purest in\nany known national religion.' I think J. M. will approve this. [Footnote:\nJames Martineau.] ... My new idea is perhaps with you very old.... Asked\nwhat is a Christian, I reply, one who earnestly uses in word and substance\nthe traditional Prayer of Jesus, older than any Gospel--this supplants all\ncreeds.\" This letter was written shortly before his death.\n\nSince I have been writing this memoir I had a letter from Mr. William\nTallack, who quoted these words of Mr. Garrett Horder with respect to\nFrancis Newman's final return to the Christian Faith. This fact had been\npublished in a paper in 1903.\n\n\"Not more than three or four years before Dr. Martineau's death I was\nsitting in an omnibus at Oxford Circus, when Dr. Martineau, accompanied by\nhis daughter, got in, and took seats by my side. After I had expressed my\npleasure at seeing them, he said, c I think you ought to know that the\nother day I had a letter from Frank Newman, saying that when he died he\nwished it to be known, that he died in the Christian Faith.'\"\n\nTo my mind no memoir would be complete with that knowledge left out--\nNewman's return to his former Faith.\n\nThe first letter in the collection before me concerns one of Newman's\nbrothers. Perhaps most of us can count a \"Charles Robert\" in our\nenvironment. Someone whose \"worm i' the bud\" of their character has so\ncompletely spoilt its early flower on account of the \"one ruinous vice\" of\n\"censoriousness,\" of perpetual nagging, and fault-finding developed to\nsuch a pitch that it has eaten out at last the fair heart of human\nforbearance and kindness which is the birthright of everyone. Such a\nperson makes the true, free development of others in his proximity a\nharder task than God intended it to be, for this reason: that the best\ncharacter cannot do itself justice if it is aware that all its sayings and\ndoings are capped promptly by wrong constructions placed there by \"the\nchiel amang\" them \"takin'\" unfavourable \"notes.\"\n\nSuch a one was Charles Robert Newman. At the date at which this letter was\nwritten his own family had found him so \"impossible\" that for thirty or\nforty years no intercourse had taken place between them.\n\n\n_To Miss Anna Swanwick from Frank Newman._\n\n\"45 Bedford Gardens, W.\n\n\"_Tuesday, 4th July_, 1871.\n\n\"My dear Anna,\n\n\"... I look forward with hope that after my whole life has been a constant\npreparation for doing--as yet very little--for the good of those who have\nhad fewer advantages than myself, I may perhaps be able in my very ripe\nyears to contribute something more; especially by aid of the noble women\nwho from all quarters spring up to the succour of their own sex and of the\npublic welfare: I trust I shall not permit _any_ literary tastes or\nfancies to withdraw my energies from this and similar causes.... But every\none of us who is to do anything worthy must forget self, and, above all,\nmust not cast self-complacent glances on what he is, or does, or has done;\nand, in truth, I have so deep a dissatisfaction with what I am and have\nbeen, that my poor consolation is to think how much worse I might have\nbeen.... I must add you evidently do not know that I have _two_ brothers.\nThe eldest, Dr. J. H. N.; the second, Charles Robert N., three years older\nthan myself, of whom we do not speak, because he is as unfit for society\nas if insane. He is a Cynic Philosopher in modern dress, having many\nvirtues, but one ruinous vice, that of perpetual censoriousness, by which\nhe alienates every friend as soon as made, or in the making, by which he\nejected himself from all posts of usefulness. ... He has lived now more\nthan thirty years in retirement and idleness. His moral ruin was from\nRobert Owen's _Socialism and Atheistic Philosophy_; but he presently began\nhis rebukes on Robert Owen himself. His sole pleasure in company seems to\nbe in noting down material for ingenious, impertinent, and insolent fault-\nfinding; hence no one can safely admit him. He formally renounced his\nmother, brothers, and sisters about forty years ago, and wrote to other\npersons requesting them not to count him a Newman ... because we were\nreligious and he was an Atheist. He had _all the same dear sweet\ninfluences of home as all of us_; yet how unamiable and useless has he\nbecome! still loving to snarl most at the hands that feed him. Is not this\nan admonition not to attribute too much to the single cause of home\nInfluences, however precious? I shall be happy to attend to your\n_Aeschylus_. Lovingly yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\n\"Weston-super-Mare,\n\"_30th July_, 1880.\n\n\"My dear Anna,\n\n\"... I am made very melancholy these two days by the news from\nAfghanistan, not that anything comes to me as new: I have dreaded it all\nalong, ever since I discerned that the Gladstone ministry would not_ act\non the moral principles which Mr. Grant Duff definitely professed, which,\nindeed, Mr. Gladstone so emphatically avowed in his book on _Church and\nState_, and in every grave utterance. Ever since Sir Stafford Northcote so\nboldly taunted the (then) Opposition, in the words: 'You call our policy\n_crime_; but will you dare to pledge yourselves to reverse it if you come\ninto power? No, you will not dare.' And none of the Opposition said\nfrankly, 'We _will_ reverse it'; it was clear to me that they had not the\nmoral courage. Accordingly I warned friends who asked my judgment, that it\nis _in the Russo-Turkish affairs_ the Liberals (so called) would reverse\n_the policy, but in Afghanistan and S. Africa_ they would act precisely as\nLord Beaconsfield would act; would accept the positions which they had\ncondemned; would appear to the natives as continuing the same course of\nwicked aggression; would do justice only _so far as compelled_, and _no\nsooner_; which is exactly what Lord Beaconsfield was sure to do.... We now\nsee that a new war opens upon us both in Afghanistan and, it is to be\nfeared, from the Basutos with the Liberal party in power, and their great\nleader to bear the main responsibility!! It is a frightful outlook.... We\nhad only to say frankly to the Afghan chiefs: 'We always opposed the war\nas unjust: we bitterly lament it: we cannot restore the dead or heal the\ncrippled, but _we will repay you whatever sum of money a Russian\narbitrator may award to you against us_. (!) We will withdraw from your\ncountry in peace as fast as we can, and leave you masters in your own\nland.'\"\n\n\nIt will be remembered that so far back as 1838, Sir James Outram\n[Footnote: Named by his great friend, George Giberne (later on Judge in\nthe Bombay Presidency), the \"Bayard of India.\"] did great services in the\nfirst Afghan War. It was thought by many that had he remained in the\nGhilzee country many of our disasters might not have occurred. But Lord\nEllenborough--one of the many mistakes placed by our Government in\nauthority in India during a critical time--never recognized in any way his\nservices.\n\n\"It is certain they would have seen this to be sincere, and would have\nbeen delighted to get rid of us without more bloodshed.... It is pretended\nthat it would be _cruel_ to leave Afghanistan without first securing to it\na stable government, when obviously we are without moral power there to\nadd stability. Our presence makes enmity among them.... Alas! once more I\nfind Mr. Gladstone fail of daring to act according to his own moral\nprinciples. He ought not to have accepted office.... It makes me very sad\nfor what must come upon England, and perhaps on all English settlers in S.\nAfrica, to say nothing of India and Anglo-Indians.\n\n\"I am, yours ever affectionately,\n\n\"F. W. N.\"\n\n\nThe next letter is dated 31st Dec., 1880, and treats mostly of agriculture\nin the fens, in connection with a writer on the subject in some current\npaper.\n\n\"He\" (the writer) \"says that if a general move were made in the fens to\nstamp out the weeds (which would require an immense expenditure of money\nin wages), 'very different results would be obtained from what we now\nsee.' No doubt they would. But what then? The landlord would raise the\nrent, and the farmers would have spent their capital without remuneration.\n_Nothing but a security against the rise of rent_ can encourage the\nfarmers to make sacrifices. He justly says ... that fruit might be more\nprofitable. But if a farmer plant a fruit tree, it becomes his landlord's\nproperty at once, though it may need thirteen or thirty years to come to\nits fullest value.... The writer treats a _lowering_ of rent as out of the\nquestion. Yet from 1847 up to about 1876 it was constantly _rising_. Now,\nforsooth! to go back is _impossible!!!_ And why, because _recent buyers\nhave bought at so high a price_ that they only get three per cent. They\nare to be protected from losing, and that, though many have bought at a\nfancy price to indulge other tastes than properly agricultural. Mr.\nPennington [Footnote: An old friend of Newman's.] told me he had farms\nunder his own management and despaired of not losing by them, unless he\ncould drive down the need of _paying wages_. This is what the farmers\nfind. Up to 1875 rents kept rising, and wages rose too, yet prices rising,\nthe peasants were not much better off. In 1873 the peasants claimed more\nstill, and the farmers could not give it. They are ground between two\nmillstones--higher rents and higher wages. This seems to me a fundamental\nrefutation of the peculiarly English system. _Fixity of rent is the first\nnecessity._ The landlord must not pocket the fruit of the tenants'\nlabour.\"\n\nThe following letter has to do almost entirely with politics, and with\nEnglish misrule of Ireland.\n\nIt will be remembered that from 1880, when Gladstone came into office,\nuntil 1885, when his Prime Ministership ended, wars were the order of the\nday constantly--wars in the Transvaal; war in Afghanistan; war in Egypt,\nand General Gordon left to die in Khartoum. Besides all these, that which\ncame upon us constantly, the care of countries nearer at hand over which\nwe tried experiments.\n\n\n\"Weston-super-Mare.\n\"Sunday night, _20th Feb_., 1881.\n\n\"My dear Anna,\n\n\"Many thanks for your kind interest in the approval of my writings.\n\n\"I have come to a pause in another matter. My Libyan dictionary is as\ncomplete as I can make it.... What next? I ask myself; for _to be idle is\nsoon to be miserable_. I do not quite say with Clough, '_Qui laborat,\norat_' No! An eminent vivisector may be immensely laborious. We must\nchoose our labour well, for then it may help us to pray _better_. But\nColeridge is surely nearer the truth: 'He prayeth well who _loveth_ well.'\nI put it, Qui _inferiora_ recte diligit, Superiorem bene venerabitur.\n\n\"But I turn to your question, What do I think of the Coercion Bill? It is\nhard to say little, and painful to speak plainly. I immensely admire _very\nmuch_ in Mr. Gladstone; so do you: of possible leaders he is the best--at\npresent! and it is a bitter disappointment to find him a reed that pierces\nthe hand when one leans on it. I fear you will not like me to say, what I\nsay with pain, that only in European affairs do I find him commendable. In\nregard to our unjust wars he has simply _betrayed and deluded_ the\nelectors who enthusiastically aided him to power.... He has gone wholly\nwrong towards Ireland, equally as towards Afghanistan, India, and South\nAfrica.... He knows as well as John Bright that Ireland is not only\nchronically injured by English institutions, but that Ireland has every\nreason to distrust promises.\n\n\"Those of William III in the pacification were violated; so were those of\nMr. Pitt in 1801.... The very least that could soothe the Irish and give\nthem hope is a clear enunciation _what_ measures of relief Mr. Gladstone\nis resolved _to propose_. But he is incurably averse to definite\nstatements, and seems as anxious as a Palmerston might be to reserve a\npower of shuffling out.... He tells the Boers of the Transvaal that if\nthey will submit unconditionally, they shall meet 'generous' treatment. If\nthe injured Basutos submit, their case will be _carefully considered_....\nNothing was to me more obvious than that as soon as he saw a beginning of\nunruly conduct in Ireland, he should have pledged himself to clearly\ndefined measures, and have insisted on the existing law against\nlawlessness. But 'Boycotting' is _not_ lawlessness. Lynch-law against\noppressive landlords or their agents cannot be put down by intensifying\nnational hatred.... Has the Coercion been wisely directed and reasonably\nguarded from abuse? I am sorry to say, flatly and plainly, No; and that\nMr. Gladstone himself, as well as Mr. Forster, seems to have gone more and\nmore to the wrong as the Bill moved on.... Mr. Forster's tone has been\nsimply ferocious, out of Parliament as well as in, and Mr. Gladstone has\nborrowed a spice of ferocity.... To imprison (for instance) Mr. Parnell,\nand _not tell him why_, may cause an exasperation in Ireland, followed by\nmuch bloodshed.... Meanwhile, Ireland is made more and more hostile, and\nforeign nations more and more condemn us.... It seems to be forgotten that\nwe have an army locked up at Candahar. _That a severe spring may be its\nruin_, deficient as it was known to be long ago in fodder and fuel, and\nlately of provisions also. Cannon are of little use when horses are\nstarved. And what may not happen in India, injured and irritated as it is,\nif that army were lost!... John Stuart Mill wrote that if we got into\ncivil war with Ireland about Landed Tenure, no Government would pity us,\nand 'all the Garibaldis in the world' would be against us....\n\n\"Your affectionate friend,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nThe following letter concerns the Transvaal war, and is dated March 2nd,\n1881:--\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Since Mr. Gladstone cannot have _changed his judgment_ concerning the\nBeaconsfield policy in Afghanistan, in India, or in South Africa, the only\ninference is that (from one reason or other which I may or may not know)\n_he is not strong enough to carry out his own convictions of right_. If he\nwas not strong enough to give back the Transvaal to the Boers, though he\npronounced the annexation all but insanity, when he entered office, and\n_had a power of stipulating_ on what terms alone he would be Premier, much\nless is he strong enough now. Not Tories only, but Whigs (to judge by\ntheir past) and the whole mass of our honest fighters, and certainly the\nCourt, will find it an unendurable humiliation to do justice _by\ncompulsion of the Boers_. Their atrocious doctrine is, that before we\nconfess that we have done them wrong, we must first murder enough of them\nto show that we are the stronger. It is awful to attribute sentiment so\nwicked to the Premier, or to John Bright and the rising Radical element of\nthe Ministry; but the melancholy fact is that they act before the public\n_as if_ this were their doctrine.... The Coercion Bill and its errors are\npast and irrecoverable.... How will it now aid us to hold up to the public\nMr. Gladstone's irrecoverable mistakes? That is what I cannot make out. He\nhas destroyed public confidence in all possible successors to the\nPremiership, if confidence could be placed in any. I know not one who\ncould be trusted to INSIST on stopping war and wasting no more blood. Yet\nthe longer this war lasts, the greater the danger (1) that all the Dutch\nin Orange State, in Natal, in Cape Colony will unite against us; (2) that\nan attack on us in retreat from Candahar, where Mr. Gladstone has\n'insanely' continued war, if moderately successful, may make even yet new\n'vengeance' of Afghans seem 'necessary to our prestige'--such are the\nimmoral principles dominant among Whigs as well as Tories; (3) any such\nembroilments may animate Ireland to insurrectionary defiance; (4) further\nAfghan fighting may lead to Indian revolt.... The nation has found that no\npossible Ministry will make common justice its rule. Penny newspapers make\nus widely different now from thirty or forty years ago. The masses _abhor\nwar_, and will only sanction it when we seem forced to it in defence of\npublic freedom. ... The internal quiet of France has stript Republicanism\nof terrors to our moneyed classes. Not the thing, but the transition to it\nis feared: with good reason, yet perhaps not rightly in an intelligent\npeople.\n\n\"Some sudden change of events may put off Republicanism yet for thirty\nyears; but great disasters may precipitate it.... We, the people, can do\nnothing at present that I see except avow with Lord John Russell (1853-4),\n'God prosper the Right' which now means 'May we be defeated whenever we\nare in the wrong.' This is the only _patriotic_ prayer.\n\n\"F. W. N.\"\n\n\nAgain, in October, Newman is reviewing Gladstone's political character,\nand regretting that it has not fulfilled its first high promise.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"We must make the best we can of all our public men, and eminently of Mr.\nGladstone, and be thankful for all we get from him. Yet I cannot help,\nwhen I remember his undoubtedly sincere religion and moral professions,\nexpecting from him _a higher morality_ than from Palmerston, Wellington,\nor Peel. Peel was a valuable minister, and better every five years. I\ncounted and count his loss a great one. Yet his first question in\ndetermining action or speech was, \"How many votes will support me?\" a\ntopic reasonable in _all minor questions_, but not where essentially Right\nor Wrong are concerned. I grieve if you rightly attribute to Mr. Gladstone\nthat he would have arrested Mr. Parnell earlier, only that he did not\nthink the English public _ripe_ for approving it. The public is now\n_irritated_ by Mr. P.'s conduct. If it is against law, he ought to be\nprosecuted by law, informed of his offence, and allowed to defend\nhimself.... The whole idea of _lessening crime_ by passing an Act to take\naway the cardinal liberty of speech enjoyed by Englishmen (and M.P.'s) and\ndeprive them not only of Jury, but of _Judge_ and _Accuser_, while\nREFUSING to prohibit evictions in the interval between the passing of the\nViolence Bill (coercive of guilt it is not) and the passing of the\nConciliation and Justice Bill, is to me amazing.... I rather believe the\nfact is that he\" (Gladstone) \"carried his Coercion Bill against the\nscruples and grave fears of all the most valuable part of his Cabinet.\nInstead of earning gratitude from Ireland, he has intensely irritated both\nthe landlords and the opposite party, and certainly has not diminished\ncrime, nor aided towards punishing it.\n\n\"I attribute it all to the fact that he has not understood that when\npressed into the highest post by the enthusiasm of the country, he was\nbound by _honour_ and common sense to carry out _his own avowed policy_,\nnot that of weak friends and bitter opponents. The attempt to _count votes\nbeforehand_ is fatal where great moral issues are involved.\"\n\nAnd again, in November:--\n\n\"Have we yet the measure of what we are to suffer from the continuance of\nthe Afghan war? I believe a million and a half per month does not exceed\nthe cost--that is, about fourteen millions _since Mr. Gladstone came into\npower_; but if the winter continue severe, the whole army may be lost, in\nspite of our bravery and military science. We seem to forget how the\nRussian winter ruined Napoleon, and in the case of the Transvaal how much\nour armies suffered in the war against our American colonists from the\nvastness of distances, and the skill of shooting almost universal to the\ncolonists.\n\n\"I regard Mr. Gladstone as the best Premier by far now possible to us....\nThere is no shadow of responsibility left in a cabinet if we do not impute\nall its errors to its _Head_; and I regard it as a terrible fact, pregnant\nwith possible revolution, that _he has betrayed the Electors_. The country\nhushed its many and various desires of domestic reform for one\noverwhelming claim, PEACE. They bore him into power on that firm belief.\nInstead of peace we have war--war which may spread like a conflagration.\nHis clear duty was (and John Bright's too) _to refuse to take office_\nexcept on the condition of instantly reversing all the wickedness and\ninsanity which he denounced when out of office. He and he only could have\nstayed these plagues. We are now hated for our acts, and despised for our\naffectation of Justice and Philanthropy.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"I am thoroughly aware that my judgment of Mr. Gladstone may be wrong, and\nto myself it is so painful that I expect a majority of his supporters will\ndiffer from it. But when I say he has increased--immensely increased--ALL\nHIS DIFFICULTIES, I marvel how you can deduce from my judgment that I\n_underrate_ his difficulties.... If Ireland be in chronic revolt, and\nIndia seize the opportunity, few Englishmen are likely to suffer less from\nit than I. Probably Mr. Gladstone, by the fear lest the Tories now seek to\nride back into power on the shoulders of Ireland, will resolutely make\n_household suffrage for the counties_ his main effort.\n\n\"But there the Lords can checkmate him.\"\n\nBefore quoting from the next letter before me, written to Anna Swanwick in\nFebruary, 1884, which treats of the best method of teaching languages,\nancient and modern, that practice should precede the scientific study in\nthis matter; and that the \"popular side should go first,\" I think a\nquotation from Newman's article (_Miscellanies_, Vol. V) on Modern Latin\nas a Basis of Instruction, would fitly come in here. The article makes a\ngreat point of popularizing the study of Latin. That it should practically\nbe made an interesting subject not devoid of romance and imagination. He\ncondemns the old fashion (still, alas! in vogue in many schools) of\ncommitting to memory an enormous amount of matter quite unworthy of being\nretained in the mind. He urges the need of a \"Latin novel\"--a Latin\ncomedy; one that would set alight the imagination of young scholars.\n\nIn Miss Bruce's _Memoir and Recollections_ of Anna Swanwick, there is\nmention of the fact that the latter often mentioned the insight she\nherself obtained in the intricacies of the Greek language through help\ngiven her by Frank Newman. She also quotes his words with regard to\ngeometry, showing that the same need in teaching it prevailed as with the\nstudy of Greek. That the imagination must be stimulated. A sense of beauty\nmust be cultivated. That the whole secret lay in the _way_ a thing was\npresented to the mind of the student. For unless the sense of beauty and\nsymmetry had been aroused in him, he would of necessity find far more\ndifficulty in retaining the, so to speak, statistical Blue-book of the\ngroundwork and rules of any science. Newman himself was an adept at\nputting a subject in an entirely new light, when some pupil failed,\nperhaps, to follow his calculations or explanations. In relation to the\nteaching of Greek, the following words of Miss Swanwick's (in the _Memoir_\nto which I have just referred) show how thoroughly she and Newman were in\naccord.\n\n\"Deeply interested as I was in the study of Greek, and intense as was the\npleasure of its acquisition, I yet hesitate to recommend it as a part of\nthe curriculum of boys and girls, unless it can be taken later, and with\nmore concentrated determination to master the extremely difficult grammar,\nthan is usually given to school lessons.... It is to be remembered,\nmoreover, that in the literature of Greece and Rome there are no words\nadapted expressly for the young. The ancient classics, written by adults\nfor adults, are beyond the intelligence of immature minds, whilst in\nregard to the moral lessons to be drawn from them, the superiority, in my\nopinion, is vastly in favour of more modern writers.\"\n\nAnna Swanwick's original desire to learn Greek was (Miss Bruce tells us in\nthe former's own words) \"to be able to read the New Testament in the\noriginal.\"\n\nI quote now from Newman's article:--\n\n\"Children can learn two languages, or even three at once; and this, if\nthese are spoken to them by different individuals, without confusion and\nwithout being less able to learn other things. Memory is aided because\nimagination connects the words with a person, a scene, or events; and,\nlittle by little, the utility of speech calls forth active efforts in the\nlearner.... In general the old method was one of repetition: _it dealt\nimmensely in committing Latin to memory_.... Nothing is easier to boys\nthan such learning, even when the thing learned is uninteresting... yet...\nmeans should be taken of making it interesting and instructive and\nrhythmical.... It seems to me that we want what I may call a Latin novel\nor romance; that is, a pleasing tale of fiction, which shall convey\nnumerous Latin words, which do not easily find a place in poetry, history,\nor philosophy.... If anyone had genius to produce, in Terentian style,\nLatin comedies worthy of engaging the minds and hearts of youth (for I can\nnever read a play of Terence to a young class without the heartache), I\nshould regard this as a valuable contribution.\" [Footnote: Mr. Darbishire\nsays in a letter to which I have had access: \"One of his\" (Newman's)\n\"special endeavours was to accustom his students to deal with Greek as a\nspoken language, as he and we did in reading Greek plays.\"]\n\nTo return to the letter.\n\n\n\"Weston-super-Mare,\n\"_16th Feb._, 1884.\n\n\"My dear Friend,\n\n\"The late Professor George Long (my predecessor in University College),\neditor of the _Penny Cyclopaedia_ was originally professor of Greek and a\nstudent of Sanskrit. He maintained that German, studied as it ought to be,\nprepared the mind for other work as effectively as could Greek, and, as\nDr. W. B. Hodgson (and I too) independently alleged, that the study of\n_modern_ languages and learning to _talk_ them ought to _precede_ the\nstudy of Greek. To make Greek the basis of an entire school and force it\non all is with me cruelty as well as folly. Five out of six women and men\nwould not learn it enough to _retain_ or _use_ it. If you place ancient\nlanguages and all that cannot be learned by _talking_ at the END, only\nthose will study who have a special object, and these will duly _use_\nthem. I think that is the only wise and _just_ way. Further, I think it a\ngrave mistake to teach the scientific _side_ of any language first, and\ntry to proceed through science to practice. The popular side should go\nfirst. Greeks talked rightly before Protagoras, but Protagoras first\ntaught that Greek had three genders.... _After_ a full acquaintance with\nthe substance of a language, its laws and relationships come naturally and\nprofitably. In a dead language we are _forced_ to bring on the science\nearlier: that is the reason for deferring such study till a riper age; and\nbest if delayed until _after_ learning several _modern_ languages (by\ntalking, if possible), the more different from one another the _better_.\nEnglish, German or Russian or Latin, and Arabic would be three very\ndifferent in kind.\n\n\"Our English Professor Latham used to talk much error, in my judgment, of\nthe supreme value to the intellect of studying FORM. This word was to\ninclude the 'accidence' of language with the fewest possible words;\nalgebra with the least possible arithmetic ... Logic without real\nproposition.... Now, in my belief, and that of _De Morgan_ and the late\nProfessor Boole, nothing so ruins the mind as to accustom it to think that\nit knows something when it can attach no definite ideas to the symbols\nover which it chatters.\"\n\n\nTo-day, what educational strides should we not make if we could but bring\nour present systems of teaching into line with these of Newman's!\n\nIt will be remembered that in March, 1886, Gladstone caused great\ndissension in his own party by bringing in his measure for giving Ireland\na statutory parliament. The bill was rejected at its second reading, and\nwhen Gladstone made his appeal to the country, the general election showed\nhe had lost its confidence. He had based his belief that Ireland was ripe\nfor some measure of Home Rule, on account of the fact that the election\nunder the new Reform Bill had proved that out of 103 Irish members 87 were\nNationalists.\n\n\n\"_5th May_, 1885\n\n\"My dear Anna,\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"The Irish question, as now presented, is in a very sad imbroglio. After\nour monstrous errors of policy and the infliction on Ireland of miseries\nand degradation unparalleled in Europe, to expect to bring things right\nwithout humiliation and without risks of what cannot be foreseen, seems to\nme conceit and ignorance. Evildoers _must_ have humiliation, _must_ have\nrisks, when they try to go right. Opponents will always be able to argue,\nas did Alcibiades to the Athenians: 'We hold our supremacy as a despotism;\ntherefore it is no longer _safe_ for us to play the part of virtue.' In so\nfar, I may seem to favour Mr. Gladstone's move; and I think I do rejoice\n_that it has been made_. Probably those are right who say, 'Henceforth it\nbecomes impossible to go back into the old groove.' I do not believe that\na Parliament elected on new lines will endure it.\n\n\"But neither would the Democratic Parliament in any case have endured it.\nA new civil war against Ireland seems morally impossible. Therefore Mr.\nGladstone is _ruining_ a measure which might have been good, by his\npreposterous dealing with it. Lord Hartington said (as indeed did John\nBright) the very truth, that the Liberal Party cannot so disown its own\ntraditions, and its wisest principles, as to allow an _individual_,\nhowever justly honoured, to concoct _secretly from his old and trusted\ncomrades_, a vast, complicated, and far-reaching settlement and make\nhimself sole initiator of it (as _I_ have kept saying, reduce Parliament\nto a _machine for saying only Yes and No_).... It is a vile degradation of\nParliament. But that is only a small part of the infinite blunder. He\npretends that everything has been tried and has failed, _except_ what he\nnow proposes.... In 1880 no one forced him to bring in an Irish measure:\nhe chose to do it, _and did it in the worst possible way,_ by treating the\nIrish members as ENEMIES, and refusing to consult them. [The Scotch\nmembers have _never_ been so treated on Scotch questions.]\n\n\"Down to last September Mr. Gladstone declared that the Irish members were\nmen, who, by a conspiracy of _rapine_, were seeking to _dismember_ the\nempire. He carried '(?)' against Ireland during his unparalleled\nsupremacy, acts of despotism unequalled in this country, and that, though\nthey _had no tendency to lessen crime_; and he joined them with\n_imprisonment against Mr. Parnell_. Only his monstrous incompetency to see\nright and wrong, made his well-intentioned measure all but fruitless. Peel\nand Wellington did mischief, long since deplored, in teaching the Irish\nthat England cared nothing for justice, but very much indeed for the\ndanger of a new civil war; but now Mr. Gladstone has been teaching them\nstill more effectually. In September last he denounced Parnell and his\nfriends as bent on dismembering the empire, deplored the danger of\nconsulting them, begged for votes to strengthen him _against_ them; but as\nsoon as the country, from various and very just discontent with his\nWARLIKE POLICY, and his utter neglect of our moral needs, showed in many\nof the boroughs their deep dissatisfaction, and he found Mr. Parnell\n_twice as strong_ as in the Old Parliament ... he gave notice that he was\nready to capitulate to Mr. Parnell. And he _did_ virtually capitulate; Mr.\nParnell _understood_ him, and defeated Lord Salisbury, and Mr. Gladstone\nin accepting the power _to which Mr. Parnell invited him,_ insulted all\nhis trusting comrades by keeping them in total ignorance of his scheme,\nwhile he concocted it by consultation with the very men whom just before\nhe had _maligned_ as conspiring to _break up_ the empire.\n\n\"Such conduct from a Tory minister sounds to me more extreme than anything\nI ever read of in English history; and from a pretended _Liberal_ leader\nwould have seemed incredible, if predicted. I suppose he was _predestined\n(vir fatalis)_ to break up his Party.\n\n\"I shall indeed rejoice and praise God if Mr. Gladstone's wonderful folly\ndo_ break down this ... _system of legislation._--There's a long yarn for\nyou!!\n\n\"Ever your affectionate\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nIn the next letter, in November of the same year, Newman complains of\ntemporary paralysis in his left-hand fingers and stiffness in that arm \"as\nthough it had a muscular twist.\"\n\nThe actual putting on of an overcoat now becomes no slight undertaking,\nand he finds that reading now tires his eyes much more than does writing.\nHe touches on the Burmese war, \"which seems likely to be even worse than\nthe Egyptian and Sudanese iniquity in its results to us.\" And he adds, \"We\nhave now without any just cause of war, or even the pretence of any,\ninvaded this province, which is subject and tributary to China, and\nlawlessly act the marauder upon it, claiming it as ours, and treating the\npatriots who oppose us as rebels and robbers. The Emperor of China now\nfinds our frontier, if we succeed, pushed up to his own, and, whenever\nconvenient to him, he can send in his armies against us, especially if\nIndia were to revolt.\"\n\nIn October, 1886, matters in Bulgaria were at their highest tide. At last,\nafter all her efforts, since 1356, at independence from the hated power of\nGreece, when \"Almost\" she and Servia were \"persuaded\" to form a great\nSlavonic State together, she seemed near attainment of her constantly\nprolonged efforts.\n\nIn 1872 the Bulgarian Church was again able to break her fetters, which\nshe abhorred, which bound her to Greece. Then, in 1876, the atrocities\ncommitted by the Turkish inhabitants of Bulgaria took place. The Porte,\nwhen besought by the Constantinople Conference to make concessions,\nrefused point-blank. Then Russia stepped in and declared war, and proposed\nthemselves to make a Bulgarian State. England and Austria promptly refused\nto lend themselves to this scheme, and a Berlin Congress was summoned. The\nBerlin Treaty in 1878 arranged the limits and administrative autonomy of\nthis State, and the Bulgarians chose Prince Alexander of Battenberg,\ncousin of the Grand Duke of Hesse, and he became in 1879 Alexander I of\nBulgaria. Eventually the recognition of him by the Porte as Governor-\nGeneral of Eastern Roumelia followed. In 1886 Russia made herself felt\nunexpectedly. Alexander was kidnapped by order of the Czar and carried to\nRussia.\n\nThe upshot of it all was that, though he returned to Bulgaria, yet he felt\nit was in vain to struggle against Russian animosities, and so abdicated.\n\nThe letter following shows Newman to be in failing health and under\ndoctor's treatment:--\n\n\n\"Weston-super-Mare,\n\"_7th October,_ 1886.\n\n\"My dear Anna,\n\n\"... My brief London visit which ought to have come off is forbidden\npositively, and I doubt not wisely, by medical command, _not_ because I am\nill, _but_ because I had formidable threatening of illness, like a black\ncloud which after all does not come down. The threat consisted in my left\nhand losing all sense and power. This is now the sixth day. On the third I\nregained power to button, though clumsily, and to use my fork. Of course I\nam ordered to use my _brain_ as little as possible, and in future to\nchange my habits. I must leave off all letters and other writing much\nearlier in the evening. But frequent short walks I hold salutary to my\nbrain; and my feet have not failed me.\n\n\"... You ask what I think of the Bulgarian outrage.... In the present\ninstance the one thing primarily to be desired, and eminently difficult to\nattain, was cohesion of the little Powers. As of old, Sparta and Athens\ncould not coalesce, and therefore after weakening one another they ill-\nresisted Philip, and were overpowered by Alexander armed from Macedonia\nand Thrace, and under-propt by gold from Asia; so now the little States--\nServia, Bulgaria, Roumania, Greece--each envied the other, perhaps was\nready for hostility, but all looked up to Russia with more than fear.\n\n\"But this atrocious kidnapping of a reigning Prince has given just _the\nexternal compression which was wanted_ to make the little States desire\nunion, and the greater Powers to think that such union is for European\nbenefit. Not only has it reconciled Servia and Bulgaria, late in actual\nwar, but it has elicited public outcry in Roumania for federation with\nthese two States. Whether Greece can lay aside her jealous enmity against\nBulgaria is not yet clear. Her ambition is to acquire Macedonia and\nConstantinople ... perhaps ... Albania.\n\n\"... To me it seems a wonder that the Greek statesmen do not see that\nConstantinople is too critical a spot for the European Powers to yield up\nto any secondary State. If it is to be under European protection, Greece\nwould find her power in Constantinople merely nominal....\n\n\"The brutality of the Czar not only drives the little Powers to desire\nunion, but makes the great Powers ashamed of it, and it seems, though\nreluctantly, they will oppose him.\n\n\"_This is the first time that a Hungarian statesman has initiated European\nmovement._ If in Europe they are forced to displease Russia, so much the\nmore will they wish to keep Russia in better humour by not thwarting her\nprojects in Armenia, which projects I believe to be just, philanthropic,\nand necessary under the circumstances; since the inability of the Sultan\nto rescue the Armenians from marauders has been proved, and _no_ Power but\nRussia can do the needful work....\n\n\"It is to be feared that Germany cannot add any real strength to control\nRussia, while Russia knows that the insane vanity of French politicians is\npreparing a war of vengeance against Germany. Until the masses of the\npeople have a practical constitutional plebiscite to _veto_ war\n_beforehand,_ it seems as though horrors which seem dead and obsolete must\nrise anew. _Perhaps_ this is the lesson which the populations all have to\nlearn. The earliest great triumph which the old plebeians of Rome won was\nthe constitutional principle that wars could not be made without previous\nsanction of the popular assembly. England, alas! has not yet even demanded\nthis obvious and just veto. The men whose trade is war, whose honours and\nwealth can only be won by war, will make it by hook or by crook, while\ntheir fatal and immoral trade is honoured.\n\n\"Affectionately yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nIn April, 1887, the Irish question was again to the fore, and part of the\nletter from which I quote shows clearly that Newman was in favour of some\nform of Local Government for Ireland, though not of the same kind as was\nbeing pressed forward by Mr. Parnell, who had urged on his countrymen\nagrarian agitation and boycotting as the screw which was to force the hand\nof the Home Government.\n\n\n\"My opinion is unchanged (1) that Grattan's Parliament was foolishly,\nmischievously, and immorally subverted by English double-dealing; (2) that\nin one hundred years things are so changed in Ireland and _in Rome_ that\nwe cannot go back to that crisis and heal old wounds by reinstating\nGrattan's work without making new wounds; (3) I deeply blame Orangemen in\nBelfast as (apparently) bent on promoting animosity, and on convincing us\nthat they will rather rush into civil war than endure a Parliament in\nDublin supreme over all Ireland: but however much this may be suspected as\nthe bluster and cunning of a minority in Ulster, to ignore it totally may\nbe unjust as well as unwise. And besides, I think that Ireland needs the\npractice of Local Government, varying locally, before that of a Central\nIrish Parliament. This forbids my desiring a complete triumph to Mr.\nParnell.\n\n\"You are aware that I have long desired Provincial Chambers for all three\nkingdoms, and can see nothing to forbid them now for Ireland if Mr.\nGladstone were to take that side. If he did it would be carried against\nMr. Parnell by a vast majority of votes. No mere political measure can\ncure famine and rackrent or insecure tenure; but if the agrarian evil be\nappeased, no hatred of England on the part of Irish leaders will suffice\nto make Ireland discontented. If Mr. Gladstone fixedly opposes, if he says\n'Honour compels me'--his Midlothian defence of the Egyptian war!--I should\nnot the less say he had made a wrongful treaty. But 'a fac is a fac':\n_someone_ hitherto makes this settlement impossible. If now the Tories\nmiscarry, apparently Gladstone will come in again, and not Oedipus can\ntell us whether he will dissolve Parliament.\n\n\"It is supposed that he will; and Mr. W. S. Caine, whose prediction in\nthis matter I cannot underrate, warns Mr. Gladstone that to dissolve\n_again_ will bring on him redoubled failure,--an immense lessening of\nsupporters.\n\n\"The new voters, at the last election, had not had time to learn a\nthousand things. After such a transformation of the constituencies, I not\nonly _expect_--I _desire_--the break-up of the Liberal Party. Little by\nlittle they have adopted the Tory idea of 'follow your leader': never\nthink for yourself. In the Parliament, in the Newspapers, in Arguments of\nForeign War, at the Hustings, they treat it as 'Treason to the Party' not\nto do whatever the Premier says they _must_ do, or he will resign and\nwreck the party.... I see only one sunbeam through the clouds ever since\nthe fatal Egyptian war; and that is the recent Peace-Union of _Germany,\nAustria-Hungary and Italy_. I look on it as the inauguration of the future\nEuropean Confederacy which is to forbid European wars, and become a\nforcible mediator. Under its shelter Roumania, Servia, and Bulgaria seem\nlikely to consolidate a union of defence; and as soon as all the Powers\nunderstand that the Triple Alliance is based on permanent interests, the\nAlliance will not need to keep their armaments on foot; to _train_ them,\nas the generations grow up, will suffice. The royalties everywhere will\nstruggle for actual armies: the burdened peoples will murmur.\n\n\"Meanwhile we need long patience, I suppose, while Irish rent wastes to\nsmaller and smaller worth; and one new election will suddenly precipitate\nthe struggle. _I_ do not fear that any Irish success will make Irishmen\ndesire the burden of undertaking their own military and naval defence.\n\n\"Affectionately yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAs regards Newman's opinions on one of the national questions which so\nclosely concern us to-day--the Drink Traffic--they are very clearly and\ndefinitely stated in an article he wrote in the year 1877, and which\nappeared in _Fraser's Magazine, in re_ Sir Wilfrid Lawson's Bill.\n\nHere again decentralization was the key-note, as he firmly believed, of\nthe remedy.\n\n\"The palace-like jails which now disgrace our civilization, and cause\nexpenses so vast, are chiefly the fruit of this pernicious trade.... What\nshadow of reason is there for doubting that such sales as are necessary...\nwill be far more sagaciously managed by a Local Board which the ratepayers\nelect _for this sole purpose_, than either by magistrates... or by an\n_irresponsible_ and _multitudinous_ Committee of Parliament? Finally, a\nBoard elected for this one duty is immeasurably better than the Town\nCouncils, who are distracted by an immensity of other business....\n\n\"Such a Board should have full power to frame its own restrictions, so as\nto prevent the fraud of wine merchants or chemists degenerating into\nspirit shops....\n\n\"To secure sufficient responsibility, no Board should be numerous: _five_\nor _seven_ persons may be a full maximum, and no Board should have a vast\nconstituency. Therefore our greatest towns ought to be divided into areas\nwith suitable numbers, and have Boards separately independent. With a few\nsuch precautions, the system of elective Licensing Boards, which can\nimpose despotically their own conditions on the licences, but without\npower to bind their successors in the next year, appears to be a complete\nsolution of the problem....\"\n\nHe adds, that to Sir Wilfrid Lawson \"is due more largely than to any other\npublic man the arousing of the nation\" in the matter of the Drink Traffic,\n\"To him our thanks and our honour will be equally paid, though the name of\nanother mover be on the victorious Bill\"--whatever it may be.\n\n\"Noble efforts for a good cause are never thrown away, are never\nineffectual, even when the success does not come in the exact form for\nwhich its champion was contending. It may hereafter be said: 'Other men\nsowed--we reap the fruit of their labours.'\"\n\nI quote now from the letter to Anna Swanwick, in which he refers to this\nquestion in 1887:--\n\n\"Unless at a very early day the causes of Un-Employ be removed, we must\ncalculate on frightful disorder. Evidently two measures are indispensable.\n\n\"1. To stop our land from going out of cultivation.\n\n\"2. To stop the demoralizing waste of 135 millions per annum on pernicious\ndrink.\n\n\"Only a most stringent change of law, perhaps very difficult to pass, can\neffect the _former_ and when passed, the good effect cannot be\ninstantaneous. The _second_ topic has been before the nation for thirty-\nfour years; could be passed, if there were a _will_ in _either_ ministry,\nin a single fortnight, and when passed, the benefit would be sensible in a\nsingle year. Yet these topics are indefinitely postponed. The Tories do\nnot even talk of them. _Some_ 'Liberals' round Mr. Gladstone are eager for\nthe stopping of Drink Bars, but the eloquent leader _talks_ (in general)\nrightly, but never _acts_.\n\n\"Alas! He showed his heart in bringing a Bill to enact that every Railway\nTrain should have (at least?) one travelling carriage with a Drink Bar.\nWhen it is told, people will not believe it.\"\n\nThe final letter from Francis Newman to Anna Swanwick, from the collection\nso kindly lent me by Miss Bruce, is dated 17th April, 1897, \"15 Arundel\nCrescent, Weston-super-Mare.\"\n\nIt is not written by himself. By that time he was too feeble to be able to\nwrite, and of course it was only a few months before his death. This\nletter was written in response to one from Anna Swanwick. To me, I must\nfrankly own, it breathes of the past tragedy, of those doubts and fears by\nwhich Newman's religious life had been beset. Even now, notwithstanding\nhis statements to his two lifelong friends, Martineau and Anna Swanwick,\nthat he wished it to be known that he died in the Christian faith, the\nuncertainty by which, according to the following letter, he was very\nevidently governed as regards the question of immortality, suggests a\nsubmissive mind indeed, but one devoid of the splendid force of conviction\nas regards his faith in \"the life of the world to come.\"\n\nAnna Swanwick always declared, we are told, that his was a \"deeply\nreligious nature,\" yet throughout the greater part of his life he was\nunable to take hold of the dogmas of Holy Scriptures. He was always trying\nto make a \"new\" religion, compounded of all the best parts of the faiths\nprofessed in various parts of the world. Yet even were this done it might\ninterest, but could never become, like the Christian Religion, once for\nall delivered--a faith to be _sure_ of, a faith Divinely inspired, not\nman-made.\n\n\n\"My dear Friend,\n\n\"I have read your letter this morning with deep interest and thanks. I do\nnot intend to oppose it at all, but to add what it now seems to need.\nFirst, that I have always dreaded to involve another mind in my own doubts\nand uncertainties; only when I saw death not far off I thought it cowardly\ntowards one who has shown me so much love to leave you ignorant of my last\ncreed. For this reason alone did I send you my inability to maintain\npopular immortality.\n\n\"Next, it is not amiss to let you know the talk which passed between me\nand the Rev. James Taylor--Martineau's co-partner. He asked me my own\nbelief concerning known immortality, and I replied that the Most High\nnever asked my consent for bringing me into this world, yet I thanked Him\nfor it, and tried to glorify Him. In like manner He never asked my leave\nto put me after my death in this world into any new world, and if He\nthought fit to do it I am not likely to murmur at His will. But not\nknowing His will, nor what power of resistance He allows me, I do not\nattempt to foresee the future. I seem to remember J. J. Taylor's remark,\nthat he thought I went as far as anyone could be expected to go. And now,\nmy dear Anna, I still wait to know how far I am straying from the man whom\nyou and I are expecting something from--Dr. Martineau.\n\n\"Accept this kind remark, and be sure that I can use, and do use,\nconcerning you, what a certain Psalmist says of the Most High: 'I will\npraise Him as long as I have any power to praise in my soul.'\n\n\"Yours while I exist\n\"(You will not ask more of my weakness),\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nOne wonders--but that wonder remains unsatisfied--what \"that something\"\nwas which he and Anna Swanwick were then \"expecting\" from Martineau.\nProbably it was some statement as regards religion which Newman longed for\nfrom the man who had been permitted to help him now in his old age (when\nhe distrusted more and more his own old judgments and former convictions)\nonce more on to the old paths, led by that \"kindly Light amid the\nencircling gloom,\" which now was fast closing in upon him.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nTHE STORY OF TWO PATRIOTS\n\n\nEngland possesses, as a rule, a memory of decidedly insular proportions\nand proclivities. On the tablets of our country's memory are chalked up\nmany names which have figured in the history of her own concerns, or at\nany rate in concerns with which she has some connection. Perhaps it will\nbe said that this is inevitable. Perhaps it will be said that this way\nPatriotism lies. Perhaps it will be said that our interests as English\ncitizens and citizenesses are bound to be local, or we could not impress\nthe seal of our empire upon other nations' memories.\n\nAnd if it _is_ said, it is no doubt in great measure true. It is\ninevitable that we remember, in sharp unblurred outlines, the names and\ndeeds of our own great men. It is this way that the soil of Patriotism is\nkept well manured for fresh crops of doughty deeds. We _are_ bound to\nimpress our individuality, as a nation, upon other countries; for if we\ndid not, we could never exist for any length of time as an empire at all.\n\nBut when all this is owned up to, there still remains another great\nnecessity which can never with safety be disregarded. And this is the\ncultivation of our--so to speak--_foreign_ memory. We cannot afford to\npamper our insularity. It is true it must exist, but it is equally true\nthat English interests can never be--at least, _ought_ never to be--the\nsum total of our mental investments. Patriotism is a fine thing. It is an\neminently inspiring thing. But it is also a thing that needs to take walks\nabroad to keep itself in good mental health. There is a certain sort of\ncosmopolitanism without which no nation's life can be complete--nay,\nwithout which it cannot go on at all.\n\nIt is the cosmopolitanism of recognizing greatness outside our own\nborders. The cosmopolitanism of owning that there are as good fish in\nforeign seas as ever there were in the English Channel. The\ncosmopolitanism of a human brotherhood, whether it hails from the Sandwich\nIslands, from France, from Finland, or from Hungary; which recognizes as a\nsalient truth, big with vital issues, that, after all is said and done, it\nis not the soil which matters, but the man whose feet are upon it now, at\nthis present day, though by birth he may own natal allegiance to a far\ndistant shore.\n\nThere are two names to-day which are practically forgotten by modern\nEngland. Yet it is only half a century ago that the men who owned them\nwere making a gallant stir for patriotism's sake.\n\nHow many Englishmen to-day remember the story of Kossuth and Pulszky? Yet\nfifty years ago their names sounded loudly enough in the political arena.\nFifty years ago they had struck the drum of fame with a boom which\nreverberated through many a European country.\n\nYet here is a curious instance of the uncertainty which attends a nation's\nmemory in regard to foreign heroes. Some quite unaccountable factor seems\nto rule their choice of whose achievements shall be nailed to the door of\ntheir memories, like British trophies of old, and which shall be\ncompletely forgotten. Garibaldi and Kossuth were patriots of the same\ndecade--one of Italy, the other of Hungary. Yet to-day in England the \"red\nshirt\" of the Italian patriot still casts a flaming glow on the English\nmemory, while the struggle of Kossuth for his country is almost dead to\nus, as far as our remembrance of it is concerned.\n\nNevertheless in the history of his country, what Kossuth achieved for her\nof independence and freedom was in no way less fine than Garibaldi's\nexploits.\n\nIn Francis Newman's _Reminiscences of Two Wars and Two Exiles_, the story\nof the Hungarian reformer and _patriot_ stands out clearly before us. He\ngives as his reason for writing it that when, in 1851, Kossuth and\nPulszky, his brother agitator, came to England, he himself became their\nclose friend. He says: \"When ... Kossuth and Pulszky quitted England in\n1860, Pulszky told me they were glad to leave behind in _me_ one\nEnglishman who knew all their secrets and could be trusted to expound\nthem.\" He goes on, however, to say that he was never able to be of so much\nservice to them as Mr. Toulmin Smith, \"a constitutional lawyer ... and a\nzealot for Hungary.\"\n\n1848 was the year when the affairs of Hungary were at their most crucial\npoint. For long the situation had been growing more and more strained\nbetween Austria and Hungary. Austria had been trying her hardest to force\nHungary into entire subservience to herself--to force her to give up her\nseparate individuality as a nation and become fused into the Austrian\nempire. But Hungary made a gallant stand against all these attempts which\naimed at destroying her independence. She had always been a constitutional\nmonarchy, with power of electing her own kings. Austria had always\npractically been considered to be a \"foreigner\" as far as Hungarian laws\nand offices were concerned.\n\nThe London Hungarian Committee in 1849 quoted Article X, by Leopold II, of\nthe House of Hapsburg, in 1790, which definitely stated that \"Hungary with\nher appanages is a free kingdom, and in regard to her whole legal form of\ngovernment (including all the tribunals) independent; that is, entangled\nwith no other kingdom or people, but having her own peculiar consistence\nand constitution; accordingly to be governed by her legitimately crowned\nking after her peculiar laws and customs.\"\n\nThis statute, however, was no sooner made than fresh attempts were made to\nnullify it. Hungary's needs, as a country, were many. Her taxation\nrequired alteration; her peasants had still feudal burdens to bear,\ninstead of being freehold proprietors of land. Religious toleration was\nnot enforced, and free trade was an unknown quantity, for Austria insisted\non the produce of Hungary being sent only to her market. Fresh roads and\nbridges and agricultural improvements were imperatively necessary, but the\nneed was passed by, by Austria.\n\nTo every nation, as to every individual, when the hour of worst need\nstrikes, the hand of the man or woman who brings rescue is upon the latch\nof the door. In the present instance Kossuth was in readiness to redeem\nhis country from the yoke of Austria.\n\nIn March, 1848, the Opposition in the Hungarian Diet, with Kossuth at\ntheir head, carried a vote \"that the Constitution of Hungary could never\nbe free from the machinations of the Austrian Cabinet until Constitutional\nGovernment was established in the foreign possessions of the Crown, so as\nto restore the legal status of the period at which the Diet freely\nconferred the royalty on the House of Hapsburg.\" This vote paralysed the\nAustrian authorities.... The Hungarian Diet immediately claimed for itself\nalso a responsible ministry.\n\nPrompt measures were now taken by the Hungarians to restore the old status\nof the country, and laws were made which conferred upon the peasants\nfreeholds of land and all other reforms for which they had for so long\nbeen agitating.\n\nThe London Hungarian Committee, to whose paper I have before referred,\ntells us that before the French Revolution had broken out this Bill had\npassed both Houses. \"The Austrian Cabinet, seeing their overwhelming\nunanimity, felt that resistance was impossible\"; consequently this Reform\nBill of April, 1848, was considered by all Hungarian patriots as their\nMagna Charta.\n\nNevertheless it was their fate very shortly after to appreciate the truth\nof this hard fact, that it is one thing to make a Charter and another\nthing to keep it. Austria had many ways up her sleeve of breaking the\nspirit of the letter. First she saw to it that Hungary had no properly\nequipped home regiments for her defence, and next she dissolved the\nHungarian Diet, and again tried to fuse Hungary into the Austrian Empire.\nThen at last the Hungarians determined at once, by force, to end the\ncontemptible, practical joke which Austria was engaged in playing off upon\ntheir country. They gathered an army together, but their utmost efforts\ncould only raise one not half the size of that of their opponents, and\nconsequently the result of the battle was defeat for themselves. Later on,\nwhen Kossuth had managed to collect more arms and men, battles on a much\nlarger scale were fought; and after the Austrians had been defeated more\nthan a dozen times, the whole of their armies were driven ignominiously\nout of Hungary. It was after this series of victories that Kossuth was\nmade his country's governor, and the whole nation declared as one man that\nthe House of Hapsburg had for ever forfeited any claim to the Crown.\n\nIt was now that, had England attempted mediation for Hungary (according to\nFrancis Newman), \"we should have saved Austria from the yoke of Russia,\nand have at least _put off_ the Crimean war,\" because, when Russia had\ncome to the assistance of Austria in her final difficulties with Hungary,\nafter she had been driven out of that country, \"if England and France had\nnot fought it, nothing short of an equivalent war must have been fought\nagainst Russia by other Powers ... because the security of _all Europe_ is\nendangered by the virtual vassalage of Austria to Russia... for Austria is\nnow so abhorred in Hungary that she cannot keep her conquest except by\nRussian aid.\" [Footnote: _Reminiscences of Two Wars and Two Exiles._]\n\nIn 1848 Kossuth's envoy, Pulszky, was sent to England, and, quite ignorant\nof the wheels within wheels which hampered the political movements of Lord\nPalmerston, was amazed that he himself found a repulse awaiting him at the\nEnglish Minister's hands. Lord Palmerston asserted that the rights or\nwrongs of Hungary were practically a dead letter to England, who had never\nthought of that country as existing apart from Austria. He considered \"a\nstrong Austria was a European necessity\"; but notwithstanding all he said\nthen and later, the impression made itself felt on men's minds that there\nwas a \"power behind the throne\" in all his speeches, and none knew what\nthat hidden power was. To-day we all know that it was the foreign\ncounsellorhood of Baron Stockm\u00e2r, who advised Prince Albert in those days.\nAs Newman says: \"It is now open to believe that Stockm\u00e2r and his Austrian\npolicy ... sometimes drove Palmerston to despair, and our diplomacy into\nheartlessness.\"\n\n[Illustration: LOUIS KOSSUTH]\n\nThis elucidation of the whole puzzle throws fresh light on that attitude\nof Lord Palmerston which so completely mystified Kossuth.\n\n\"I cannot understand,\" he said, \"what is the policy of Palmerston's\n_heart_. He talks one way, yet acts another way--always against the\ninterests and just rights of Hungary.\"\n\nKossuth's next step was to take refuge in Turkey, and here he at once set\nto work to learn the language, and succeeded so well that he wrote a\ngrammar, which was afterwards used in the Turkish schools. It was said to\nhave been due to Lord Palmerston, by the way, that the Sultan refused to\ngive him up to Austria and Russia. But at any rate the Sultan seemed to\nowe the decision which guided this refusal in large measure to his own\nloyalty to those who had sought shelter with him during civil war. At any\nrate, Kossuth reported that he certainly said, \"I will accept war rather\nthan give up the Hungarian fugitives.\" Eventually an American ship\nconveyed Kossuth out of Turkey, and he landed at Marseilles. Of course, by\nthen the monarchy had been overthrown in France, and Louis Napoleon-with\nwhom Kossuth was later on to be closely connected--was President.\n\nIn October, 1851, Kossuth crossed to England. Newman tells us that though\n\"he was enthusiastically received by the whole nation,\" yet that \"he was\nslandered, feared, despised, and disliked by those esteemed highest and\nnoblest in England.\" But, at any rate, he was given a hearty welcome in\nAmerica, for he did not stay long in England when he saw that those in\nauthority did not warmly espouse his cause.\n\nIt is necessary here to remember that in 1851 Louis Napoleon had stepped\non to the top of the Republic, whom he had previously served as its\nPresident, and had made himself Emperor of the French. It is necessary\nalso to remember that there was a very general sense of alarm throughout\nEngland as to his plans regarding an invasion. He was thought to be\ncollecting a fleet destined to attack us. But, later, it was proved that\nwe had been exciting and disturbing ourselves quite unnecessarily. Louis\nNapoleon wanted something of us, it is true. But that something was\nalliance.\n\nBy this time Kossuth was back in England. One day, Francis Newman says,\n\"Kossuth called suddenly on me with an English Blue-book in his hand, and\nabruptly said: 'We foreigners look to you to explain your own Blue-books.\nPlease to tell me what does this strange sentence mean?' I read carefully\nthese words from the despatches of the Western Powers to the admirals of\ntheir fleets in Constantinople: c You must clearly understand that you are\nnot sent to fight against the Emperor of Russia, but to save the Sultan\nfrom _religious enthusiasm and fatal auxiliaries_'! He pointed out these\nlast words.... '_Religious enthusiasm_ is the diplomatic phrase for\nTurkish patriotism; _fatal auxiliaries_ mean Hungarians.... Because\nAustria dreads lest exiled Hungarians fight in the Turkish ranks, and the\nobject of the Western Powers is to please Austria and not to aid\nTurkey.... They are angry with the Turks for defending themselves against\nRussia.'\" [Footnote: Reminiscences of Two Wars and Two Exiles.]\n\n[Illustration: This certificate is dated the year after Kossuth's first\nvisit to England, and is in possession of Edward G. Sieveking, Esq. of the\nfirm of Sieveking, Podmore, and Wright, Gracechurch Street, E.C.]\n\nIn 1848-9 the Whigs and Tories in England mistook the whole meaning of the\ndisturbances which were going forward abroad. Macaulay (whom Newman\nquotes) distinctly asserts that in Hungary and Italy \"kings were fighting\nin the cause of civilization, and nationalities were rising to destroy it\nin the cause of anarchy.\"\n\nComment on this is, of course, quite needless when one remembers how\nmisinformed were the English ministers as to the nature of the struggle\nfor liberty which was then going forward in both countries, and how\ntreacherously and cruelly the people had been treated by those in\nauthority over them: and what efforts had been made constantly against\ntheir rights as citizens. In 1854 Kossuth was again doing his best to\nrouse interest on behalf of his country in England. He called on Newman to\nenquire what would be the best and quickest way of collecting\nsubscriptions. He wanted for immediate national use \u00a35000. Newman referred\nhim to a printer who \"was a Zealot for Hungary,\" and who would supply him\nwith the names of the richest men who had \"spoken vigorously for Hungary.\"\n\nKossuth proceeded to write out a circular to be sent to these Englishmen,\nasking for subscriptions. A little later Newman found out that the result\nof this fishing in English waters was \u00a3400, and he had wanted \u00a35000 to\nenable him to carry out his projects for Hungary!\n\nThe following letter from Francis Newman to Professor Martineau (about\nwhose friendship with him I shall have more to say later) is dated\nNovember, 1854, and concerns his opinions _in re_ the Crimean War:--\n\n\"As to the war, while it is always thought rash to have any strong\nmilitary convictions, I have always believed that if they would go\nstraight to Sebastopol early in the season they would take it with little\ndifficulty. We have been juggled partly by Austria, partly by the too\ngreat age of our military men, partly by clashing counsels of allies. The\nfortification of Gallipoli I regarded as stupid infatuation: our old\nmilitary men said it was necessary for _safety!_ We lost all our time\nwhile Russia had her hands full on the Danube, we let in Austria to hinder\nthe Turks pursuing the retreat, we delayed ten weeks longer to make\npreparation, and landed, leaving all our preparations behind. This _delay_\nhas been the mischief.... The climate is now my fear, not the enemy. But I\nlook on all this as a part of the providential or fatal necessity which\ndetermines that war shall not be decided by regular armies. If we _will_\ndo things in a 'slow and sure' way, Russia will beat us, for she cares\nnothing for the lives of her men; to us it is agony. But to yield is to\nmake her omnipotent. I expect, therefore, that the harder we fight, and\nthe poorer our success, the more will Austria show Russian sympathies, and\nthe more will the Western Powers be forced to call up Poland and\nHungary.... I suppose nothing but severe suffering and vain effort will\nreconcile Louis Napoleon or the English aristocracy to the revolution in\nEurope, which alone can permanently cripple Russia.\n\n\"Ever yours affectionately,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nAnd in August, 1855, he wrote again:--\n\n\"I do not think you see truly the _treachery_ of our Government (I cannot\nuse a weaker word), nor know truly what Kossuth has always demanded. To my\nfirst question, 'Do you expect us to drive Austria into hostility?' he\nreplied (probably in November, 1853), 'Certainly not; but I claim that you\nshall not _try to hinder_ our fighting our just and necessary battle\nagainst Austria.' This is the turning point. We did try to hinder it,\nhoping thereby to seduce Austria to our side. To whisper to Austria the\nwords 'H. P. I.' would not have been to stir up those countries to\ninsurrection, but to _compel Austria not to threaten Turkey with her\narmies_. Our Government encouraged her in it, and aided her to occupy the\nPrincipalities, forcing the Sultan to take pliable Ministers.... We reap\nthe bitter fruit, as Kossuth from the beginning told us we should. I,\nhowever, still hope that we shall regain a morally right position, and\nthat if we fare the worse Hungary may be the better; for _then_ Austria\nmight have been neutral, now she will be our enemy.\"\n\nKossuth suffered greatly in his political aims and endeavours from lack of\nfunds. Indeed, from his first journey to England until he finally gave up\ncoming over here, he was terribly hampered by want of money. Newman, too,\nwas out of pocket owing to his efforts to push forward the Hungarian\ncause. I have before me now a letter from Kossuth written in January,\n1854, from 21 Alpha Road, Regent's Park, to E. Sieveking and Son, members\nof my family, who were keenly interested in Hungarian politics, and who\ntransacted many business arrangements for Kossuth from time to time while\nhe was in England. The letter is on behalf of a friend of his, a Mr.\nErnest Poenisch, and is written in German:--\n\n\n\"Honoured Sir,\n\n\"Would you not do me the kindness to give a favourable reference about the\nhonourability [_sic_] of Mr. Ernest G. Poenisch if anyone should happen to\nmake enquiries of you about him?\n\n\"Mr. Ernest Poenisch is a merchant in the city, a German by birth, and was\na merchant of importance, and as he often has commercial business of\nimportance to look after for me, you will be doing to me myself, a\nkindness if you would give him a good reference in a general way, should\nopportunity occur.\n\n\"Renewing my request to you, I sign myself,\n\"Respectfully yours,\n\n\"L. Kossuth.\n\"To E. Sieveking and Son.\"\n\n\nIn June, 1855, Francis Newman writes to Dr. Martineau, in answer to a\nletter from him:--\n\n\n\"I do not write in support of the oppressed nations _because_ 'I have\nconfidence in the stability and morality of a continental democracy,' but\nbecause the _foreign_ kings who now trample nations down _neither have nor\npretend to have_ any right but that of armies; it is a pure avowed robber-\nrule, essentially in morals, and all will extol the nations as patriotic\nwhenever they throw it off. ... Certainly I maintain that Hungary and\nPoland are nations; so in fact is Italy: but Austria is only a Court and\nArmy, not a nation. We have had public relations with Hungary as a nation;\nwe violated our duty to Hungary in 1848-9; and complain we are still\nallowing Austria to get the benefit of our wrong. So also to Poland, I\nfeel we have grossly neglected our duty, and still neglect it.... We know\nthat Hungary (Poland, Italy) is in the right; but though called on to say\nso, we will not say it; nor even mediate, _for_ it will lead to\nrepublicanism. Again, I call it immoral to argue: 'We know that Austria is\ngiving Turkey just cause of war; but we must _not allow_ the Sultan to\nresent it by declaring war; _for_ it will give the nationalities an\nopportunity of throwing off the Austrian yoke.'... Then, my dear friend,\ndo you forget that I approved of the _French_, and disapproved of the\n_Austrian_ alliance?... Not to ally with Louis Napoleon is not to join him\n_against the French nation_; while to ally with Francis Joseph was to join\nhim _against the French nation_, which his armies are trampling down.\nAgain, we did not catch Louis Napoleon engaged in a scheme with Nicholas\n(Emperor of Russia) to dismember Turkey, and bribe Louis Napoleon to join\nus by the promise or hint that he should still get his slice of Turkey. We\n_have_ done this to Austria, and have used our severe pressure on the\nTurkish Government to get Austria admitted into the Principalities.... I\nfear this summer will be as deadly to our army as the winter was; my only\ncomfort will be, that I shall make sure that Austria will the clearer show\nher true colours.\n\n\"Hoping you are all well, I am,\n\n\"Ever yours affectionately,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\n[Illustration: FACSIMILE OF LETTER FROM KOSSUTH TO MESSRS. SIEVEKING\nJANUARY, 1854]\n\n\"Hungary and Poland are nations; so in fact is Italy: but Austria is only\na Court and Army, not a nation.\" Here is practically the gist of the whole\nmatter, as far as Francis Newman is concerned. Throughout all his writings\none comes again and again upon this note. \"The People! The People!\" is his\never-recurring thought. What are \"the People\" suffering; what are _their_\nneeds, their wrongs which call for justice? The People is the living\nnation; the Court and the Army may be inevitable adjuncts of a nation's\nbeing, as things at present are constituted; but they are artificial\nadjuncts; the People are the very life essence of the Nation, its real\nmotive power. Let their voice be heard, and the soul of empire at once\nsprings into being.\n\nIn the next letter from Newman to Martineau, 9th June, 1856, from which I\nshall quote, it is shown that our Colonial Office was enraged against\nKossuth because he had \"mischievously _hindered_ the Austrian Government\nfrom getting troops to put down Italian insurrection.\" Newman goes on to\nshow how the treachery of Austria in her dealing with other nations was a\npotent fact, and he adds, \"Hungary was bound\" (according to Kossuth's\nviews) \"to assist Austria against foreign attack, and therefore against the\n_King of Sardinia_; but in the interval, before this could come to any\npractical result, the intrigues of the Austrian Court with the Serbs were\nbrought to light; Austrian officers with the Emperor-King's commission in\ntheir pockets were made prisoners from among the Serb ranks, and the\ninternal danger of Hungary, as well as the treachery of the Court, made it\nsimply impossible to carry out, or wish to carry out, the Protocol. But\nKossuth was still the King's Minister, and could not say this openly.\nUnless he would have taken the first step to civil war, he was bound to\nthrow a thin veil over it in public speech and action. The measure which\nhe then promoted was ... that no Hungarian soldier should leave the\ncountry until the internal rebellion was thoroughly subdued. That no\nHungarian regiments should fight against Italians until the Italians had\nhad from Austria the offer of national institutions and freedom under the\nAustrian Crown, putting them on a par with the Hungarians.\"\n\nNothing could have been fairer than these conditions, and this was very\nshortly recognized when it became known that Latour and the Court were\nemploying all their energies for long after this date in stirring up the\nSerb rebellion. Yet they were shameless enough to complain of Kossuth\nhaving incited the Hungarians to revolt. Writing the next day to Dr.\nMartineau, Newman openly avows his belief that \"every nation in the world\nis grasping and unjust in its foreign policy in exact proportion to its\npower, _England not being at all an exception_.\" The italics are my own.\nHave we not proof positive of this before our very eyes to-day? We cannot\nlook at India and say \"no,\" for by our charter of 1833 we bound ourselves\nover to hold India only until the education, which we had made possible\nfor them, should enable the Indians to take a share in the government of\ntheir own country. But when we look at the India of to-day, we cannot but\nplead guilty to not having kept that charter honestly before our eyes.\nThere is but _one_ office to which natives are admitted on equal terms\nwith Englishmen to-day!\n\nTo go back to the letter:--\n\n\"England has no great European army, and cannot _covet_ and subdue any\nportion of the European continent. That is no great credit; but in Asia,\nwhere she is strong and her neighbours weak, she is as grasping and unjust\nas Russia, Austria, France, or the U.S.... Lord Palmerston had never heard\n(or pretended never to have heard) of the peace of Satmar, and that\nEngland was mediator of it between Austria and Hungary. I think it is not\nmere knowledge, but higher morality, which is the first need of policy on\n_both_ sides the Atlantic.\"\n\nIt is now that Louis Napoleon comes on the scene as regards the beginnings\nof his connection with Kossuth. Newman says that it was in 1856 that the\ncloser friendship between Napoleon and Cavour (Sardinian Minister) had\nbegun. Not very long after it was borne in on the mind of Cavour that\nKossuth would be an invaluable ally in the plans of future conquest which\nthey were then preparing.\n\nLouis knowing that Kossuth was in sore need of funds for his political\nenterprises, sent a messenger to him to intimate that he would join forces\nwith him; that _he_ would supply him financially with all he would require\nin the way of ready cash. Kossuth was not averse from receiving in good\npart Napoleon's advances, though he offered temporary resistance. He saw\nclearly that if France were to help Italy, Austria would be weakened,\nNewman tells us that when Napoleon announced in 1858 that he was about to\nmarry Clotilde, daughter of the King of Sardinia, Kossuth at once said to\nhim: \"I have always resisted Napoleon's overtures, but I expect now that I\nshall be forced to visit him in Paris, because I now see that he is\nresolved upon war against Austria. This Piedmontese marriage is evidently\nhis pledge also to Italians that he means to drive Austria out of Italy.\"\n\nThen, in 1859, a few inimical words which Napoleon spoke to the Austrian\nambassador showed very clearly to what quarter the political wind in\nFrance had veered. \"War was felt to be intended, and Russia was no longer\na support to Austria behind.\"\n\nIn March, or a little later, Kossuth and Pulszky were invited to Paris,\nand were met, very cordially, at the station by Prince Napoleon, cousin to\nthe Emperor. Later, Louis Napoleon himself spoke with them, and said very\nfrankly that he had never had any special idea of assisting Hungary, but\nthat in case he could not settle affairs in Italy, as regarded his war\nwith Austria, and he should find himself obliged to send his army into\nCroatia, he wanted advice with respect to many details regarding this\nprovince, which he knew that Kossuth could give him. Newman was the\nrecipient of Kossuth's communications concerning this secret interview\nwith Napoleon. And he told him that besides needing his advice about\nCroatia, he wanted him (knowing he had influence in England) \"to drive\nLord Derby out of office.\" I quote Napoleon's words as recorded by Newman.\n\n\"The French army is very formidable; but I cannot pretend that in it I\nhave such superiority to Austria that I may expect easy or certain\nsuccess. My only clear superiority is on the sea. As Louis Philippe\nbefore, so have I from the first carefully nursed my fleet. Hereby I\noverride Austria in the Adriatic--a most critical advantage.... I cannot\nbe sure but that without declaring war, or giving warning, he (Lord Derby)\nmay all at once strike a blow which will annihilate my fleet, and then\nwhat could compensate me? If you can find any way of moving discontent\nagainst this ministry, I want you to cripple or eject him.\"\n\nNewman adds that Kossuth did not tell him what reply he himself gave to\nall this.\n\nEveryone knows the sequel to this. After Lord Derby had resigned in March,\nLord Palmerston took office. In May the Austrians were defeated; and this\ndefeat was followed by more disaster for them, and the end of the whole\nmatter resolved itself into a peace between Francis Joseph and Louis\nNapoleon.\n\nThen it was that the latter proclaimed freedom from Austrian supremacy to\nall Italy; and _now_ came the end for which Kossuth had struggled, and\nlonged, and waited. Napoleon despatched a messenger to him asking what\ndemands Kossuth wished now to make. His prompt answer was delivered thus\nto the envoy:--\n\n\"Sir, I have two demands on your master: _First_, he must extract from the\nEmperor Francis Joseph an amnesty for every Hungarian or Croatian soldier\nwho has taken military service under the King of Sardinia. _Secondly_, no\nman thus amnestied shall ever be pressed into the Austrian army.\"\n\nA fortnight went by, and Kossuth heard nothing from the Emperor. Then,\nwhen at last the news came, it was almost too good to be true. Francis\nJoseph had agreed to both stipulations.\n\nIn August, 1860, Francis Newman, writing from Keswick, touches on the\nprogress in success made by the Italian patriot, Garibaldi.\n\n\"I do not think you can be dissatisfied with Garibaldi's progress. Louis\nN. _could_ have stopt [sic] him, and ruined his hopes for ever, by one\nword to Austria as soon as Garibaldi landed in Sicily. On the contrary, he\nhas sternly forbidden Austria to meddle at all in Italy, and has allowed\nCavour to proclaim in Parliament that L. N.'s greatest merit to Italy is\n_not_ the great battle of Solferino, _but_ his having avowed in his letter\nto the Pope _that priests shall no longer rule in Italy_.... When Hungary\nis free, all views will change, and perhaps France also.\"\n\nKossuth and Pulszky, who had visited England constantly between the years\n1851 and 1860, finally left our shores for good in the latter year,\nKossuth for Italy, for he took no further share in politics, and Pulszky\nfor Hungary, where he became Finance Minister to Francis Joseph's new\nconstitutional monarchy.\n\nBefore finally leaving England, Kossuth gave to Newman his own \"reading\"\nof the real character of Louis Napoleon. He said: \"Louis Napoleon is a man\nat whom, on account of his _coup d'\u00e9tat_, [Footnote: Louis Napoleon's raid\non the French citizens, in violation of his promises, in order to make\nhimself supreme.] I shudder, and it may seem a duty to hate him. Yet I am\nbound to say, not only has he been wholly faithful to us, but every time I\nhave been closeted with him I have come away with a higher opinion, not\nonly of his talents and sagacity, _but also of his morals_.\" The italics\nare mine. It seems difficult for the outsider to-day quite to sign to this\npoint of view, when one remembers Louis Napoleon's deception and his\nbroken honour and cruelty. There is a very enlightening and suggestive\npassage in one of Robert Louis Stevenson's books, \"To travel happily is\nbetter than to arrive.\" In Kossuth's case the reverse was true. He\ntravelled towards his goal unhappily, but he \"arrived,\" and that was a\nreward which is not given to every patriot who gives his life to win his\ncountry's freedom.\n\nIn _Hungary in 1851_, by Charles Loring Brace, there are many keenly\ninteresting details about Kossuth. Mr. Brace made a tour in Europe,\nchiefly on foot, during the spring of 1851, and met Kossuth in Pesth; his\nmother was then living there. \"To say that Kossuth is beloved here seems\nhardly necessary after what I have seen. He is idolized. Every word and\ntrait of his character is remembered with an indescribable affection ...\";\nbut they all acknowledged, he added, that he did not possess the necessary\ngifts for a revolutionary leader. Still, he moved his countrymen in so\nstirring a manner that they would have followed him anywhere. \"He\n'agitated' the whole land, and there is not a Bauer in the villages or a\nCsikos (wild cattle driver) on the prairies, they say, who does not\nremember as the day of days the time when he listened to those thrilling\ntones ... as they spoke ... of the wrongs of their beloved Fatherland.\"\n\nThis is a short account by a journalist who knew him personally, and was\npresent at the time, of the manner in which Kossuth was received in\nScotland during his visit to Britain:--\n\n\"In travelling from Edinburgh to Perth, Kossuth was received at every\nstation by vast crowds of people, including many ladies, with vociferous\ncheers and waving of hats and handkerchiefs. This was particularly the\ncase at Stirling, where hundreds crowded up to the carriage in which he\nsat to grasp his hand.\"\n\nOne day it was suggested that Kossuth, Colonel Ibaz his aide-de-camp, and\nthe journalist should go for a drive up Kinnoul Hill, near Perth. \"We soon\ngot into a rough country road winding among the farms. At one place the\ncarriage came to a stand while a gate had to be opened to allow it to pass\nthrough. At this gate stood a tall, venerable-looking farmer, with long\nwhite hair and beard ... who might have served as a painter's model for an\nold Scottish Covenanter. He stood ready to open the gate.... He had, of\ncourse, heard of Kossuth's invitation to lecture in Perth, and at once\ndivined that the carriage might contain his hero, as all visitors to Perth\nascend the Hill of Kinnoul.... In a very deep and solemn voice he said ...\n'I reckon that Loois Koshoot is in this carriage. Am I richt? Whuch is\nhim?' Kossuth leaned forward and said in a very gracious manner, 'Yes, he\nis, good man. I am Louis Kossuth.' Whereupon the venerable man reverently\ntook off his bonnet, came close up, grasped Kossuth's hand in both his\nown, and said, 'God bless you, sir, an' may He prosper you in your great\nwaurk to free yer kintra frae the rod o' the oppressor. May He strengthen\nye and croon ye wi' victory....'\n\n\"Colonel Ihaz was a bronzed, stern-looking officer, perhaps ten years\nolder than his chief; yet with all his military stiffness and sternness he\nwas quite capable of relaxing into ordinary human feelings and becoming\nquite a facetious old fellow under favourable conditions. He could speak\nvery little English. He enjoyed the humour of some Scottish stories and\nanecdotes I told, and which Kossuth translated for him. He was greatly\npleased and amused when I initiated him into the art and mystery of\nconcocting a tumbler of whisky toddy as a proper and orthodox finish to\nthe evening.... He thoroughly appreciated the beverage, smacking his lips\n... and exclaiming with gusto, 'Toddo is goot. Toddo _very_ goot.'\" He\nmentions that Kossuth was keenly interested in Scottish ballads and\nstories, etc., and he actually learnt _one_ ballad by heart, \"which for\nthrilling passion, and power, and sweetness ... were never equalled by\nhuman voice. His appeals ... were addressed exceedingly often to the\nreligious feelings of his hearers. In fact, this tendency of his is\nperhaps one great secret of his power over the people of Hungary--for the\npeasantry of that land, beyond that of almost any other, are remarkable\nfor a simple, reverent piety.\"\n\nWhen, after the deliverance of Hungary from the yoke of Austria, Kossuth\nwas made Governor, Brace says that he considers he belonged, by reason of\nhis talent for organization and finance, to the highest rank of statesmen.\nHe had not \"the unrelenting, tremendous force of a Cromwell or Napoleon,\nor the iron will of a Jackson....\" But he has shown that a man \"could be a\nmilitary Dictator without staining his hands either in the blood of his\nrivals or of his friends.\"\n\n\"One of the privates in an Austrian regiment stationed in Vienna, himself\na Hungarian, was overheard by his officer to say 'Eljen Kossuth!' He was\nordered 'five-and-twenty' at once. It appears when a man is flogged in the\nAustrian army he is obliged by law to thank the officer. This the\nHungarian refused to do. Another 'five-and-twenty' were given him. Still\nhe refused. Again another flogging; and the Hungarian, as he rose,\nmuttered his thanks with the words, 'My back belongs to the Emperor, but\nmy heart to Kossuth.'\"\n\nIn regard to Kossuth's manner of delivery in his great public speeches,\nMr. Brace says: \"His opening words, they say, were like Hungarian national\nairs, always low and plaintive in the utterance.... But gradually his face\nlighted up, his voice deepened and swelled with his feeling,\" and there\ncame forth tones which thrilled his hearers with a strange rousing power.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nFOUR BARBARISMS OF CIVILIZATION\n\n\nIn every civilization there will always be found, sheltering under its\nwall, evil things not yet brought to book--not yet revealed in their true\nnature, but still dragging back the wheel of true progress and the\nbetterment of humanity. Yet though they come \"in such a questionable\nshape,\" it is often not until someone ahead of his or her age, pulls them\ninto the open glare of another point of view, and thus shows up all their\nhidden moral leprosy, that the arrow of condemnation is driven full-tilt\nat them from the stretched bow of a Higher Criticism.\n\nIn Francis Newman's _Miscellanies_, Vol. III, four of these evil things\nare dragged by him into the open daylight of a mind far ahead of its age,\nand these four are: Cruelty to Animals; Degradation of Man, as brought\nabout by the drink traffic; War, as the great throw-back to Civilization;\nPunishment as understood in England, and our own methods of reform as\nregards the treatment of misdemeanants.\n\nTo take the first of these--Cruelty to Animals. Of course there are three\nkinds: Legalized cruelty, cruelty caused by thoughtlessness, and cruelty\ncaused in order to give pleasure to men and women. Of the first--well, of\ncourse this has to do with vivisection, said to be carried on for the\nadvancement of science and for the sake of alleviating the sufferings of\nhumanity.\n\nAs regards the first reason, men who know what they are talking about are\npretty generally agreed that science has _not_ largely benefited by\nvivisection. As regards the second, it is by no means sure that anything\ncan be proved of direct use to mankind from discoveries made by doctors\nand scientists after operating on animals. \"What sort of tenderness for\nman can we expect from surgeons who can thus teach by torture, or from\nstudents who can endure to listen?\" Here Francis Newman puts his finger on\na very significant factor in the case--that of the barbarizing, the\ndeteriorating of the mind that cannot touch the black pitch of torture and\nnot be defiled.\n\nEveryone will remember the words of Lord Shaftesbury, one of the greatest\nmen of his day: \"I would rather be, before God, the poor victim in the\ntorture-trough than the vivisector beside him.\" And it is this point also\nwhich is of importance in the vivisection question--not the point of view\nalone of the animal tortured, but as well the inevitable effect on the\nvivisector. For there are some things undeniably which, when done, do not\nleave the man who does them where he was before in the moral scale.\n\nAs Archdeacon Wilberforce says: \"If all that is claimed by vivisectors\nwere true--and I absolutely disbelieve it--the noblest attitude would be\nto refuse physical benefit obtained at the cost of secrets stolen from\nother lives by hideous torture.\" These words exactly express the attitude\nof all thoughtful men and women who feel the impossibility of accepting\nhelp at the cost of such torture to the lower creation by what the\nArchdeacon very aptly calls the \"barbarities of science.\"\n\nWell may Francis Newman say: \"When we ask by what _right_ a man tortures\nthese innocent creatures, the only reply that can be given is, because we\nare more intelligent. If in the eye of God this is justifiable, then a\njust God might permit a devil to torture us in the cause of diabolic\nscience.... To cut up a living horse day after day in order to practise\nstudents in dissection is a crime and abomination hardly less monstrous\nfrom his not having an immortal soul. An inevitable logic would in a\ncouple of generations unteach all tenderness towards human suffering if\nsuch horrors are endured, and carry us back into greater heartlessness\nthan that of the worst barbarians.\" The bill in 1876, of which the chief\naim was to amend the law, to regulate better the doings of vivisectors,\ninsisted on the fact that a licence from the Home Secretary was to be a\n_sine qu\u00e2 non_ in the case of all who practised these experiments upon\nanimals. But experience of the way in which this law works shows quite\nclearly that very inadequate inspection takes place, because in so many\ncases inspectors and vivisectors play into each other's hands.\n\nOf the other kinds of cruelty, those caused by thoughtlessness and in\norder to minister to the pleasure of men and women are very many and very\npresent to us. I use the word \"thoughtlessness,\" but perhaps it would be\nnearer the truth to say lack of power to realize, for thoughtlessness can\nno longer be pleaded by those women who persist in wearing aigrettes, and\nother plumage of birds. The barbarous method has been too often described\nto them by which these aigrettes are procured: how the plumes are torn\nfrom the males of the small white heron; how, this appalling cruelty\nperpetrated, the birds are left to die on the shore. Women of fashion\ncannot but be aware how wholesale this savage slaughter of the innocents\nis; that each bird only contributes one-sixth of an ounce of aigrette\nplumes; that we are told that thousands of ounces of plumes are sold by\none firm during the course of one season alone. It is not too much to say\nthat each woman's bonnet in which these plumes (so barbarously procured)\nfigure, is a veritable juggernaut car. It is not alone for fashion's sake\nthat we perpetrate these barbarisms, however, for what can be said in\ndefence of cruelties practised upon animals for the sake of man's stomach?\nOf the method in vogue now of stuffing capons by means of an instrument\nwhich forces food down their throats relentlessly in order to make them of\ngreat size and of tender flesh? or of calves being slowly bled to death\nthat their flesh may be white? What of the horrors which precede the\nmaking of _p\u00e2t\u00e9 de foie gras_? The name of these atrocities is legion,\nhowever, and it is useless to enumerate them here. Fashion loves to have\nit so, and the ordinary diner does not trouble his head about the terrible\nordeal of the animal which has preceded the delicacy for himself. But,\nputting his dinner aside, the Englishman's sport is often not far removed\nfrom barbaric.\n\nLook at coursing! What can be the nature that can take _pleasure_ in\nseeing an absolutely defenceles animal let out in a confined space, with\nno chance of escape, no fair play at all, nothing in front of it but\ncertain death whichever way it turns? What can be the nature which can\n_enjoy_ the death-scream of the agonized hare as the dogs' fangs dig into\nthe quivering flesh? Coursing is nothing more nor less than an absolutely\ndegrading sport to the beholders.\n\nThere is no _sport_, in the right acceptation of the word, in it at all.\nAt any rate, there is far more of the element of real sport in fox-hunting\nor in stag-hunting, especially in those districts where one is told that\nthe stag practically enters into the spirit of the game, when, after a\ngood run, it pauses, and is helped into the cart which is to take it into\n\"home cover\" again! Be that as it may, at least there is some fair play to\nthe quarry. In coursing that is an unknown quantity.\n\n\"The accomplished Englishman shoots for sport. Sport, being a mental\nimpulse or appetite, is insatiable, and therefore far more deadly than\nhunger.... A boast is made that ninety millions of rabbits are reared for\nthe consumption of our nation. Ninety million rabbits sent out at large to\nnibble the young shoots of the growing crops--each of whom destroys and\nwastes ten times what a tame rabbit would eat in a hutch--are boasted of\nas an increase of our supplies! If twenty million of these reach the town\nmarkets, it is much; how many beside are cruelly massacred with no profit\nto man! and how many beside, with unhappy hares, foxes, rats, stoats, and\nweasels, are held for days and nights in lingering torture by horrible\nsteel traps? All this goes on in the midst of refinement, without\nprohibition from men or remonstrance from women. It is a fruit of the\nmodern English system of game preserving;... and the artificial love of\nsport which cruel Norman tradition has fostered in the stolid Anglo-Saxon\nrace.\" [Footnote: \"On Cruelty\" (_Miscellanies_, III, by Francis W.\nNewman).] It is an unassailable truth that if you look for the last\nremains of barbarity in a civilized nation you will find them in their\nsports. But I confess that to me it is difficult to justify a _woman's_\nlove of sport when it is combined--before her very eyes--with the\nsuffering of an animal. Yet I heard only the other day of a woman who\nboasted that she had been among the few \"in at the death\" one day in fox-\nhunting, and that when the brush was given to her, her face was _spattered\nwith the blood of the fox_.\n\nTo turn to another \"barbarism of civilization\"--the subject of the Drink\nTraffic.\n\nNewman's words about this come with startling appositeness to-day, when we\nare all eager as regards the pros and cons of the new Licensing Act, and\nwhen all the publicans in the country are watching anxiously in fear of\nthe ruin it may spell for themselves. Thirty years ago Francis Newman\nflung these words broadcast into the country:--\n\n\"Parliament ignominiously sits on the beer barrel. The thirty-three\nmillions a year\" (which was the revenue in 1877 derived from \"complicity\nwith distillers and brewers\"), \"are to every Ministry like the proverbial\nwolf which the woodsman holds by the ears. To keep him is difficult, to\nlet him go is dangerous. Their position is becoming worse than\nembarrassing when the best _men_ of every class, and _all the women_ who\nsee the public miseries, condemn the deadly policy of bartering national\nmorality for payments to the exchequer.... The mode in which those in\npower fight to retain the public immoralities proclaims the quality of\ntheir motives. As one example out of several, see with what tenacity the\nSunday sale of intoxicating drink in Ireland is kept up, after it is\nvisible that Ireland disapproves, and after the English Parliament has\nvoted with Ireland. _Trickery_ is here the only right word; but _trickery_\ncannot in the long run support any cause. In this matter, as in several\nothers, national indignation is ripening. Many old ways will have to be\nreversed, among which the treatment of the drink traffic has quite a\nleading place.\"\n\nHe then goes on to treat in detail of the pros and cons of Sir Wilfrid\nLawson's Bill, and its principle of Popular Local Control; also of those\nof Mr. Joseph Cowen's Bill on the same subject, both belonging to the year\nin which he wrote his article on \"Local Control of the Drink Traffic.\" And\nhe proceeds to consider the two alternatives: the Permissive Popular Veto,\nand the Popular Control by an unfettered Licensing Board.\n\nLater on Newman propounds his own opinion as to where the true remedy lies\nfor the shocking state of public morality in connection with the drink\ntraffic. Almost invariably his remedies for social evils are based on\nspecialization. In this case he advises Licensing Boards in large towns.\nHe urges that each Board should have full power to frame its own\nrestrictions, that \"no Board should be numerous: _five_ or _seven_ persons\nmay be a full maximum\"; that each Board should be elective, \"without power\nto bind their successors in the next year.\" \"What shadow of reason,\" he\nasks, \"is there for doubting that such sales as are necessary and\ninevitable will be far more sagaciously managed by a Local Board, which\nthe ratepayers elect _for this sole purpose_, than either by magistrates\nwho are irresponsible and do not suffer sensibly from the public vice, or\nby an _irresponsible_ or _multitudinous_ Committee of Parliament? Finally,\na Board elected for this one duty is immeasurably better than the Town\nCouncils, who are distracted by an immensity of other business.\"\n\nIt is not difficult to see that his suggestion for a local Licensing Board\nhas a great deal that might be said for it. His idea as regards a Ward-\nMote to settle difficulties in local self-government in the same way would\ndeal first hand with difficulties. In both cases these local boards would\nobviate the necessity for the despatching of endless little Private Bills\nto a Parliament which really has not time to deal effectually with them.\nFrancis Newman certainly taught a truth which only gets more insistent as\nyear succeeds year, that specialization is indeed the word of all others\nwhich holds within its letters in great measure \"the healing of the\nnations,\" the simplifying of their puzzles.\n\nAs regards the rights and wrongs of making war, Newman asks, \"Why does\none murder make a villain, but the murder of thousands a hero?\" And again,\n\"Why do princes and statesmen, who would scorn to steal a shilling, make\nno difficulty in stealing a kingdom?\"\n\nBefore calling this, as many an Englishman would not hesitate to do, a\ntopsy-turvy morality, let us realize that sayings such as these really\ngive us the true values of things as nothing else could. For there are\nmore sins \"in heaven and earth than are dreamt of\" in a nation's\nclassified immoralities. Stealing a shilling is a recognized immorality,\nand as such the law of the land punishes the thief. Stealing a kingdom,\nhowever, is one of those national achievements which men justify to\nthemselves as a patriotic feat, or, it may be, a necessity of empire, and\nit is not classified among punishable offences at all. And then it is\nnecessary to remember that many things that are indefensible when only a\nfew do them, seem to become, by an extraordinary method of reasoning,\nregarded as allowable when so many people do them that a spurious public\nopinion and a decadent fashion is born, which shelters them and prevents\nthe light of an unbiassed judgment from showing up their shortcomings in\nmorality. One has only to read up old records of the eighteenth century to\nsee how slavery flourished in England among otherwise honourable men, and\nhow public opinion condoned, nay, justified it to realize that public\nopinion regarded as _vox populi_, is often many spiritual leagues away\nfrom being _vox Dei_.\n\nNewman's point of view regarding war and extension of territory was not\nthe popular one:--\n\n\"There are many who believe that the time will come when no weapons of war\nshall be forged, and universal peace shall reign.... We also believe that\na time will come when men will look back in wonder and pity on our present\nbarbarism; a time at which to begin a war--unless previously justified by\nthe verdict of an impartial tribunal, bound in honour to overlook what is\npartially expedient to their own nation or party--will be esteemed a high\nand dreadful crime.\n\n\"The 'Governments' will never initiate such institutions until compelled\nby public opinion and by the inevitable pressure of circumstances, nor is\nany nation in the world yet ripe to put forth such pressure; otherwise it\nwould not be difficult to devise a supreme court, or rather jury, which\nwould put a totally new moral aspect on war.\" [Footnote: _Ethics of War_,\nFrancis W. Newman.]\n\nHe goes on to say that a great many wars might have been avoided by us if\nwe had been willing, which we are not, to submit to arbitration; and he\nurges that war should be \"declared _in the Capital... with the formal\nassent of Lords and Commons_.\"\n\nUnder the present system, as he points out, when war is declared against\nany country, it is not a necessity, as it was in the fourteenth century,\nthat Parliament should be applied to for consent and approval when the\nKing of England wished to make war. Later, Henry V asked Parliament what\nit would advise in \"matters of foreign embroilment\"; and when the King of\nFrance wanted to make peace with him, he would do nothing in the matter\nuntil his _Parliament_ had told him \"what will be most profitable and\nhonourable to do in the matter.\"\n\nBut to-day, in arranging to make war or to make peace, it is the Cabinet--\nthe two or three in the inner Chamber--who take all responsibility upon\nthemselves. As often as not their decision is largely influenced by party\nquestions--and the questions do _not_ depend on the morality of the war,\nwhether the reason for it is a just one or no. \"It is the singular\ndisgrace of modern England, [Footnote: _Deliberations before War_, Francis\nNewman, 1859.] to have allowed the solemn responsibility of war to be\ntampered with by the arbitrary judgment of executive officers; ... the\nnation permits war to be made, lives by the twenty thousand or fifty\nthousand to be sacrificed, provinces to be confiscated, and permanent\nempire over foreign subjects established, at the secret advice of a\nCabinet, _all of one party, acting collectively for party objects_, no one\noutside knowing how each has voted.\" Yet \"the whole nation is implicated\nin a war, when once it is undertaken, inasmuch as we all have the same\nnational disgrace, if it is unjust; the same suffering, if it is tedious;\nthe same loss, if it is expensive\"; and all the time, \"according to the\ncurrent morality of Christendom, two nations may be engaged in deadly\nstruggle, and _neither be in the wrong_.\"\n\nNewman attributes this present method of deciding war or peace by means of\nthe Cabinet, rather than the voice of the people as expressed by their\nrepresentatives in assembled Parliament, to the \"anomaly of the East\nIndian Empire.\" Then, when the Board of Control was formed in 1784, \"the\norders to make, or not to make war, went out direct from the Board of\nControl; that is, really, from the ministry in Downing Street. Two, or\neven one, resolute man had power to make war without check.\" The fatal war\nwith Afghanistan in the eighteen-thirties which cost us so dear in the\nmatter of men and fame, was settled in England by \"secret orders of two or\nthree _executive_ officers of the Queen, without previous debate in\nParliament.\" It is necessary to remember, when thinking of the barbarisms\nwhich war brought in its train, not a hundred years ago, that what Newman\ncalls, very justly, \"the atrocious system\" of paying our soldiers and\nsailors _head-money_ for the numbers killed by them, was only done away\nwith about sixty years ago.\n\nBut it is impossible even to touch here upon the unthinkable miseries\nwhich are inevitably suffered by thousands of innocent men, women, and\nchildren whenever that Barbarism of Civilization, War, marches through a\nland. Apart from all the devastation that marks its advent, no one can\nknow how indescribably far the real moral and industrial progress of\ncivilization is retarded by even what we consider a _small_ war. As Newman\nsays: \"No one can wonder at the rise and progress of an opinion that war\nis essentially an immoral state.\"\n\nIn connection with Punishments as understood in England, and Penal\nReformation, [Footnote: _Corporal Punishments and Penal Reformation_,\nFrancis Newman, 1865.] he owns that \"it has hitherto been most difficult\nto discover what due punishment of felony will not demoralize the felon.\"\nAnd of course, undoubtedly, that _is_ the crux of the whole matter. But\nthere is no one in England to-day but will agree that some change in our\nprison system is imperatively needed. Only the other day a woman,\nthoroughly qualified to judge, declared that the inevitable effect of\nprison life on women was to make them lose their self-respect. It was a\ndegradation and nothing else. Now a punishment practically loses its whole\npoint if it is simply a lowering, without any building up; while apart\nfrom any other considerations, to herd, without due specialization, a\nnumber of criminals and misdemeanants (for that last is the true\ndescription of very many who are punished by this system of incarceration)\ntends, in many instances, to increase, by \"evil communications,\" the\nnumbers of those who are in for a first offence only, and would not, but\nfor the enforced bad influence of others in prison, offend again. Newman's\nconclusion of the whole matter as regards prisons is irrefragable: \"In\norder to _prevent_ crime, the institutions which generate crime must be\nremodelled.\" He urges upon the nation's consideration that for a great\nmany cases which now fill our prisons (thereby adding enormously to the\nnational expenses) there is a very simple punishment, which has been\ncondemned from many modern points of view as being degrading to the\nsufferers and brutalizing to the inflictors.\n\n\"The infliction of flogging,\" he argues, undeniably answers in these\ncases, both as a sharp and effectual punishment, and also as a deterrent\nfrom future misdoing. \"To us it appears an obvious certainty, that\nwhatever punishment is believed to be righteous--whether the whipping of a\nchild, the shooting of a soldier, the constraint of the treadmill, or\nwhatever else--is wholly free from the least tendency to brutalize the\nofficers who inflict it.\" As to the wisdom of this statement, one would\nthink, there could be no question. He quotes our old laws as regards the\npractising of public floggings, and adds, \"We cannot hesitate to believe\nthat all outrages on women ought to be punished by the severest\nwhippings.... Dastardly offences against the weak and the weaker sex\neminently call for this punishment; and in such offences may be included\nthe seduction of a woman.\" That offences against the body should be\nvisited by punishment _on_ the body is beyond all doubt just. Had we been\nin the past, or were we at the present moment, as eager as we ought to be\nfor defence, for justice, to be given to the citizeness as equally as to\nthe citizen, there would not be so many wrongs done to the weaker sex as\nnow is the case in England. Newman strongly condemns long sentences and\ntransportation, not so much on account of the prisoner, (though for him\nthe long term of \"doing time\" with other criminals exercises in most cases\na distinct low moral tone upon himself) as on account of his wife and\nfamily, if he is married. These people are left without news of him, and\nwithout their legal means of subsistence during his absence. His wife\noften indeed, practically becomes a pauper.\n\n\"It is vain to talk of the evil of 'degrading' a criminal by flogging him,\nif we degrade him by penal labour, subjecting him to a very ignominious\nand tedious slavery. It is vain to say that whipping demoralizes, until we\nhave a system of effective and severe punishment, clearly free from this\ndanger.... A felon destined to long penal servitude cannot fulfil a\nfather's duties, and no one is so weak as to imagine that his commands\nconcerning his children deserve respect.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLegislation must deliberately study this problem, not wink at it.\"\n[Footnote: _Corporal Punishments and Penal Reformation_.]\n\nPerhaps when it does, something more stringent will be determined on\nconcerning our regulations as regards the marriage of criminals: those\nwith insanity or inherited disease strongly marked on their family\nrecords; and those who have shown the tendency to the latter in their own\npersons.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nSOME LEGISLATIVE REFORMS SUGGESTED BY LECTURE AND ARTICLE\n\n\nFifty years ago Newman was cutting and polishing his diamond scheme of\nlegislative decentralization till its facets flashed to the lighted\nintellects of the world a thousand messages--a thousand clear-cut\nsuggestions for the welfare of his country and the betterment of its\nlegislation, as he firmly believed. He was never tired of urging it on the\nnotice of his fellow men, never tired of pleading for it as a solution of\nmany social difficulties, as a setting of many dislocations of our local\nsystems. Perhaps there was no more earnest apostle of decentralization\nthan was Francis Newman. But at the same time, to be fair to him, it\nshould be said that, first, he threw light upon the old paths, and,\nsecondly, showed where modern obstructions lay which seemed to him to\nhinder true progress. At all costs the fact must be kept well in view, he\nbelieved, that the paths were made for the men, not the men for the paths\n--a fact which is not always so well remembered as it should be to-day.\nFifty years ago he published an article in _Fraser's Magazine_ on\n\"Functions of an Upper House of Parliament.\" Eight years later he gave a\nbrilliant lecture [Footnote: In the Athenaeum, Manchester.] on\n\"Reorganizations of English Institutions.\" In this last he touched only\nbriefly upon the former subject because of a notice by the metaphysical\nrailings of his lecture that he was \"to keep to the path,\" and not speak\ntrenchantly on the question of the Upper House, because it would not have\nfound an appreciative audience there!\n\nTo begin, however, first upon the article which came out in 1867. He\naffirmed that the House of Lords does, by its veto, exercise a very\npowerful, though unseen, influence over the administration of the country.\nHe insisted on the urgent need of its becoming \"a real, supreme, judicial\ncourt for maintaining the rights of the princes of India, and an\nauthoritative expounder of the treaties which have passed between us and\nthem.\" It will be seen why this step is called for when we recall the fact\nthat in 1833 the Home Government signed a treaty in which it was\ndefinitely agreed that the professions in India should be open to the\nnatives--a promise which has never been kept.\n\nNewman goes on to say, \"Until India can have its own Parliament, it needs\nto find in England such protection as only our own Upper House can give\nit.\" He places before us the possibility of economizing the time--to-day\nso terribly overcrowded--of the House of Commons by letting domestic\nlegislation, \"which is in no immediate relation to executive necessities,\"\nproceed from the Upper House. That in that House it could be so adapted\nand so regulated, that when it came back finally to the House of Commons\nno otherwise inevitable delay need occur. Thus \"the Commons would have for\ntheir chief business Bills connected with immediate administrative\nexigencies, _and private Bills would be cast upon local legislatures_\" (a\nmeasure for which he was, as we know, constantly pleading). He reminds us\nthat the Roman executive was successful and prompt in the methods at which\nthey aimed, _because_ \"the Senate guided and controlled it, _prescribed\nthe policy and required the execution_.\"\n\nIn his \"Reorganization of English Institutions\" he insists very strongly\non the great need of such a scheme of decentralization as the formation of\nProvincial Chambers--in other words, the dividing the country into local\ngovernment centres which should send delegates, chosen delegates of tried\nmen, \"virtually its ambassadors to Parliament, with instructions and a\nproper salary, for a three years' term; but reserving the power to recall\nany delegate earlier by a two-thirds vote, and to replace him, like an\nambassador, by a successor.\" Now, here comes in Newman's proposed drastic\nchange--a change which, in the opinion of those of us who have seen at\nclose focus the evils of our present system of canvassing for votes, could\nnot be condemned as a change for the worse.\n\nFor each delegate sent up to Parliament \"would be elected without\ncandidacy and without expense ... confusion and intrigue would be\nlessened.... There would be no convulsive interruptions of public\nbusiness.\" Many questions very naturally rise in our minds when we fairly\nface this plan. Newman feels so confident, besides, that it would \"settle\nour harassing Irish difficulties.\"\n\nThe \"old institutions of the shires are known only to students of ancient\nlaw,\" says Mr. Toulmin Smith, one of the greatest authorities of his\ncountry's old records, documents, etc. \"They have been overridden by\njustices of the peace, county lieutenants, and other functionaries....\nFrom this general decay of local institutions centralization has grown\nup.\"\n\nFrom this \"decay of local institutions,\" Newman points to what he\ndesignates as the \"Trades' Union\"--the Cabinet (the \"Secret Diplomacy\"),\nwhich has, he declares, superseded the old Privy Council.\n\n\"Since William III became king, parliaments of Scotland and Ireland have\nbeen annihilated, and no subsidiary organs have replaced them.... Our\npopulation is four times as great as William III knew it; yet the people\nare more than ever divorced from the soil and cramped into town....\" Now,\n\"Parliament is too busy for domestic local reforms; it has to control the\naction of the whole Executive Government, Central and Local.... It has\nsole right to direct public taxation.... It has to control the action of\nthe ministry towards foreign Powers.... It has a similar function towards\ncolonies ... and the Army and the Navy.... It is responsible for all\nIndia\" (population then two hundred and forty millions).... \"It is the\nonly court of appeal to Indian princes who believe themselves wronged\" (by\nthe king's representatives).... \"No other authority can repeal bad laws,\nor enact new laws for the general public.\" But were we to _return_ to the\n\"legislative courts of our shires,\" Newman protests, which existed before\nour present systems of Parliament, all the inevitable delays and\ncongestions which now occur to prevent the dealing with and passing of\nimperatively necessary reforms would be done away with _in toto_.\n\nLong ago Lord Russell said that for any great measure a ministry needs \"a\npopular gale to carry the ship of State over the bar.\" \"Hence all our\nreforms, working against a stiff current, sail over the bar fifty or one\nhundred years too late.\"\n\nThis, then, briefly stated, was Francis Newman's plan of dealing with the\naccumulation of business, etc., which beset the House of Commons as\nmatters stand at present.\n\nThe whole of Great Britain, he urged, should be divided in provincial\nchambers for local legislation. He proposed ten for England, four for\nIreland, two for Scotland, and one for Wales.\n\nThese local powers \"must be to the central like planets round a sun....\nAll unforeseen business would fall to the central power, which in all\ncases would undertake: public defence, communications with foreign Powers,\nprincipal highways, shores and harbours, Crown lands, national money and\nweights, and national taxes.... Our impending Church and State question\nwill be solved in this island, with least convulsion, if local variety of\nsentiment be allowed free play.\" [Footnote: Perhaps then we should be rid\nof the anomaly which allows a Prime Minister, of whatever religious\ndenomination, to choose Bishops for the Anglican Church.] Newman proceeds\nthus to describe further his suggestions with regard to the working of the\nprovincial courts: \"Each electoral district to send one member to the\nProvincial Chamber; household franchise, of course, would be the rule, and\nI trust women householders would not be arbitrarily excluded.\" They would\ndeal directly, and on the spot, with local pauperism in the provincial\ncourts. That, in itself, would be one great gain. For pauperism cannot\neffectively be dealt with except by local legislation. Some system such as\nRuskin's, with powerful local legislation, could not fail to end the\ntrouble which is at the present moment making a tremendous drain on the\npockets of the law-abiding citizen of this country, in that system of\nworkhouses, which besides being subversive of the very idea of home-life\namongst our poor, degrades the non-worker, and rankles as a lasting shame\nin the hearts of those whom misfortune alone has driven to that last\nresource of the unfortunate. Were one able to follow the example set us,\namong cities, by Leipsic (where the word pauperism is absolutely non-\nexistent), we should have effectually turned the corner out of the ill-\nkept vagrant road into which Henry VIII first led us, when \"pauperism\"\nbegan to be a sore in the midst of England's healthy body of citizens.\nNow, it is a self-evident fact that \"pauperism,\" which is a living drag on\nour social wheel, can _not_ be dealt with other than by rigorous local\ngovernment. Cases could then be dealt with personally; the whole area\nwould not be too gigantic for this; but, of course, it is a moral\nimpossibility to generalize in dealing with this subject.\n\nAfter all, this is not, as Francis Newman insists, a new departure in any\nway. He points to other countries to show that as a fact, centralization\nhas been gradually establishing itself in England, though in other times\ndecentralization was a very potent force in our midst, and a success.\n\nIn 1875, Newman quotes the following countries as regards their local\nlegislatures: \"Look ... at Switzerland. Environed by ambitious neighbours\nfar superior in power, her institutions have well stood the severe trial\nof time. She has her Central Diet and Ministry, vigorous enough; but also\nin her several cantons she has local legislatures, each with well-trained\nsoldiers, simply because every man is bound to learn the use of arms, as\nEnglishmen used to be; therefore they need no standing army.... Italy also\nhas local legislatures which belonged to independent States--Sicily,\nNaples, Piedmont, Tuscany, and so on--besides her National Parliament....\nIn Hungary notoriously the national spirit has been maintained for three\ncenturies and a half ... solely by the independent energy of the local\ninstitutions.... The seven united provinces of Holland similarly prove the\nvitality of freedom and good order when free local power is combined with\na strong centre.... And on a far greater scale we have... an illustrious\nexample in the United States--a mighty monarchy and a mighty republic....\nThe American Union started in that advanced stage. It is a cluster of some\nthirty-seven States, each with its own legislature, for all which, and for\nthe outlying territories, the Federal Parliament also legislates. Contrast\ntheir condition with ours. Only of late has their population outrun ours.\nThey have thirty-eight legislative systems: we have one only. Surely our\nsystem is a barbarous simplicity. France ... goes beyond us. Nay, our\nIndian centralization is worse still. No virtue, no wisdom in rulers can\nmake up when the defect of organs lays on them enormous duties.\"\n\nFinally, Newman urges for provincial chambers that they should be on the\n\"scale of petty kingdoms,\" and not of mere town populations. \"All parts\nand ranks of the local community are then forced to take interest in local\nconcerns. Each province becomes a normal school for Parliament, and a\nladder by which all high talent of poor men may rise.\"\n\n\nSHOULD NOT THE CONSENT OF THE NATION BE OBTAINED BEFORE MAKING WAR?\n\nThis was a question constantly in Newman's mind. That, and the answer.\n\nEveryone is doubtless aware that he wrote a very great deal upon the\nsubject, and spoke a great deal also. In the third volume of the\n_Miscellanies_ he has four or five articles on this great question. The\nfirst was printed in 1859, the second in 1860, the third 1871, and the\nfourth 1877. Then in \"Europe of the Near Future\" (1871) he treats it at\ngreater scope, chiefly in regard to the Franco-German War. In\n\"Deliberations before War\" (1859) Newman takes the two points of view from\nwhich the question of war is as a rule regarded--the Moral and the\nInternational. The first considers if a war is a just one or no, and\nconsiders the prosecutor of an unjust war as neither more nor less than a\nrobber. The International (or second) \"looks only to the ostensible marks\nwhich make a war 'lawful'--that is to say, 'regular.'\" As Newman very\nrightly says, however, there is a third point of view, which he calls the\n\"National.\" I shall quote his words regarding this third view. \"Inasmuch\nas the whole nation is implicated in a war, when once it is undertaken--\ninasmuch as we all have the same national disgrace if it is unjust, the\nsame suffering if it is tedious, the same loss if it is expensive--it is\nan obvious principle of justice ... that every side of the nation should\nbe heard to plead against it by its legitimate representatives.\"\n\nI cannot forbear saying that at the present moment of writing this last is\nimpossible, for those who often suffer most from a war--at any rate\nlongest--are the women, and there is no legitimate representation for this\nlarge body of the community. Thus, even if the men of the nation could\n\"plead against\" a war, the women would have no voice.\n\nNewman urges that there are many among us who firmly believe that a time\nis coming when no destructive weapons will be made, and \"universal peace\nshall reign.\" He believes himself, he says, that \"a time will come when\nmen will look back in wonder and pity on our present barbarism, a time at\nwhich to begin a war--unless previously justified by the verdict of an\nimpartial tribunal, bound in honour to overlook what is partially\nexpedient to their own nation or party--will be esteemed a high and\ndreadful crime.\" These are strong words, but they are not too strong, for,\nlooked at by any thoughtful man or woman, war is an anomaly. It proves\nnothing by reason; it simply acts by brute force, and by sheer superior\nstrength the victor, at the sword's point, drives defeat down the throat\nof the defeated. But the arbitrary destruction of thousands of men on each\nside who slay each other at the word of command (often for no reason that\nconcerns their own welfare, but only on account of some political\nquarrel), is, from the point of view of civilization, of morality, of\nhumanity, without reasonable defence. It throws civilization, land\ndevelopment, education back incalculably. Indeed, when one regards the\nmatter _au fond_, one sees that nothing could hinder the _true_\ncivilization, the _true_ humanity, more than does war. It _is_ barbaric;\nthere is no other word for it. It _is_ the great flaw that runs throughout\nthe whole garment of humanity.\n\nNewman reminds us that it is only within very recent years \"that the\natrocious system of paying _head money_ to soldiers and sailors for the\nnumbers they kill, was abolished by us.\"\n\nJohn Stuart Mill very rightly said \"that our force ought to be as strong\nas possible for defence and as weak as might be for offence,\" only that it\nis so very difficult sometimes to tell which is which.\n\nIn the _Ethics of War_, Newman argues that \"there is nothing more\nfundamental to civilized warfare than that no war shall be commenced\nwithout a previous statement of grievances, and demand of redress--a\ndemand made to the Sovereign himself; and that _only after_ he has refused\nredress, and when in consequence war has been solemnly declared, with its\nmotives and aim, shall hostilities be begun. In dealing with great Powers\nwe anxiously observe these forms.... But it is our Asiatic wars which have\nbrought out the formidable fact that the Cabinets claim to discard the\nauthority of Parliament altogether.... There is no more fundamental\nprinciple of freedom ... than that no nation shall be dragged into a war\nby its executive, against its will and judgment.... Nay, if even a\nmajority of every class in the nation desired war, yet they have no right\nto enter into it without first hearing what the minority has to say on the\nother side. This is the essential meaning of deliberative institutions.\"\n\nMr. Toulmin Smith, whose weighty words bring to bear on the subject the\nwitness of an England of medieval days, says that in the fourteenth\ncentury it was a positive rule that \"_consent_ of the Great Council, and\nafterwards _of the Parliament_, _was necessary_ to a war or to a treaty.\"\nIn his _Parliamentary Remembrances_ he gives many precedents, both from\nthe histories of England and Scotland, showing that no peace was made, no\nwar was made, without Parliament being summoned. Henry V, he says, would\nnot enter \"matters of foreign embroilment\" (war with France, for instance)\nwithout the consent of Parliament; and when the French king wished for\npeace, Henry replied that peace needed to \"be allowed, accepted, and\napproved by the three Estates of each kingdom.\" The same process was gone\nthrough with regard to the French king and his Estates of France. Newman\nquotes Rome, whose citizens went through a long formality before making\nany war, the King and Senate \"consulting the College of Heralds for\nerudite instructions as to minute ceremonies. For perhaps four centuries\nthe discipline of the army was admirable; its decline began from the day\nwhen a general (Gen. Manlius) first took upon himself to make war at his\nown judgment, trusting to obtain a bill of indemnity.\"\n\nLivy tries to force on us the belief that the Romans were never\naggressive; that they only conquered the world in self-defence. And it is\ntrue that here would come in difficulties in the way of carrying out John\nStuart Mill's _obiter dictum_ as regards wars of defence and of offence,\nfor many plausible reasons have been constantly brought forward for\naggressive wars: to take one only, it is not always easy to say what is\n\"defence\" and what \"offence.\" One may see some other country assuming a\nwarlike attitude towards ourselves, and it might very possibly be allowed\nto come within the bounds of the word \"defence\" if we were prepared to\nstrike the initial blow before our enemy--to all intents and purposes,\nsave for the actual throwing of the glove--were fully prepared as to\narmaments, etc. It is well known how earnestly Richard Cobden, the\nManchester Apostle of Free Trade, was one of the most prominent champions\nof peace; he who, for championing the cause of the Abolition of corn\nduties for the sake of his poorer countrymen, when he and others pushed\nforward the \"Anti-Corn Law League\" (which was passed in 1846), lost all\nhis own private funds, and his business was ruined, simply because his\ntime was _all_ given not to his own affairs, but to the service of his\ncountry. Mr. Cobden, as Newman reminds us, \"was entirely convinced that\nEuropean wars could be stopped by a general agreement to abide by\narbitration.\" Indeed, he prevailed on the Ministers of his day so far\nthat, when the Russian War ended in 1856, \"Lord Clarendon, in the name of\nEngland, initiated some important clauses, of which one avowed that the\nPowers who signed the treaty would never thenceforward undertake war\nwithout first attempting to stay and supersede it by arbitration. England,\nFrance, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey all signed this treaty, yet in a very\nfew years the solemn promise proved itself to be mere wind.\" He goes on\nsay, \"When passions are at work, superior might, not unarmed arbitration,\nis needed to control them.\"\n\nCobden always declared that no one need fear Russia's strength because of\nher climate, her vast wildernesses, her frozen seas, her great\nunwieldiness. It is seen, therefore, that the sort of arbitration planned\nout by Cobden did not work. It must, according to Newman, be an armed one.\nIt is clear that it is not possible to agree _in toto_ with the Quaker\nmethod of opposing war, and the most thoughtful Quakers will hardly urge\nit perhaps to-day. War, for defence of one's country, is a present\nnecessity. What, then, are Francis Newman's proposed remedies? For in the\nbeginning of this chapter I stated that he, very definitely, had his\nanswer to the great question as regards the nation: its veto or agreement,\nwhenever war is proposed. First of all, before giving these however, let\nus look for a moment at the plan pursued in such case in modern England.\nThis plan he always set himself against with all the force of personal\nconviction: \"It is the singular disgrace of modern England to have allowed\nthe solemn responsibility of war to be tampered with by the arbitrary\njudgment of executive officers: ... this same nation permits war to be\nmade; lives by the twenty thousand or fifty thousand to be sacrificed ...\nat the secret advice of a Cabinet, _all of one party, acting collectively\nfor party objects_, no one outside knowing how each has voted.... The\norders to make or not to make war went out direct from the Board of\nControl--that is, really from the Ministry in Downing Street. Two, or even\none resolute man had power to make war without check.... If Earl Grey is\nright, and a Cabinet must be a _party_, this is a decisive, irrefragable\nreason why a Cabinet must _never_ exercise the function of deciding on\nPeace or War. The recent [Footnote: He is writing in 1859.] overthrow of\nthe East India Company has swept away all the shams which have hidden from\nEngland that the Ministry in Downing Street worked the Indian puppet....\nParliament should claim that public debate shall precede all voluntary\nhostilities, small or great ... to protest in the most solemn way that\nhenceforth no blow in war shall be struck until the voice of Parliament\nhas permitted and commanded it.\"\n\nThen, in Newman's article \"On the War Power,\" he goes on to say: \"In\nregard to the difficulties as regards arbitration, and also as regards the\nvoice of the people being made a _sine qu\u00e2 non_, whenever a proposal for\nwar emanates from the powers that be: When an evil is undeniable, serious,\nunjust in principle ... (referring to secret diplomacy), a remedy must\nexist. Where there is a will there is a way: nay, many ways.\"\n\nThen he declares that these (following) measures have commended themselves\nto him. The full discussion in Parliament by representatives of the\npeople; the determination that nothing shall be settled by secret\ndiplomacy as regards war until the whole matter has been thoroughly\nthreshed out. In more than a few ways, _Vox populi, vox Dei_ is still\ntrue.\n\nNext he puts before us the advisability of an _armed_ arbitration.\n\n\"If we look to a great central European Power as having for one of its\nfunctions to repress wars and enforce arbitration, it is evident that a\nlarge increase of force is necessary beyond all that is at present in\nprospect. If wars voluntarily taken up for noble objects must be sustained\nout of spare energy, much more does the place of that Power which is to\nforbid wars require a great superfluity of energy. To be able to do this\nwithin the limits of a great federation is in itself a mighty\nachievement.\" [Footnote: Europe in the Near Future, F. W. Newman.] And\nagain: \"Apparently the only way in which European wars can be suppressed\nis by the successive agglomeration of free men, living under and retaining\ntheir separate institutions, into powers which have no interest in war,\nbut much interest in peace; until unions reach such a magnitude as to be\nable to forbid wars of cupidity, and offer a high tribunal for the redress\nof international grievances.... If all parts of a mighty union have their\nproportionate weight in questions of war and peace, no partial and vicious\nexpediency can actuate them in common. Justice alone is the universal good\nwhich can unite their desires and efforts, or make them collectively\nwilling to undergo sacrifice.... The wider the federation, the more benign\nits aspect on the whole world without, especially if the populations\nabsorbed into it are heterogeneous in character, in pursuit, and in\ncultivation.... A federation resting on strict justice, conceding local\nfreedom, but suppressing local wars and uniting its military force for\nnational defence, is economic of military expenditure in time of peace in\nproportion to the magnitude of the populations federated.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nDECENTRALIZATION AND LAND REFORM\n\n\n\"If law be centralized, it always lingers far behind men's needs.\" This\n_obiter dictum_ of Francis Newman's, spoken nearly sixty years ago,\nstrikes one as more true to-day even than when he originally gave voice to\nit. For if there is one thing truer than another, it is that half the\nwrongs to which we are heir to-day, are due to centralization. This may be\ndue in part, no doubt, to the enormous increase of population; but\ncertainly one overwhelming reason is that class with class has lost in\nvery great measure all sense of cooperation, all sense of sympathy, all\nsense of their real intimate connection and relationship with each other.\nInstead of provincial legislature, we have our one parliamentary centre,\ninstead of treating our own local matters ourselves, we hale them up\nbefore a central bureaucracy--a bureaucracy already so overcrowded with\nbusiness that it is absolutely and practically unable to deal with all the\nquestions which come up for settlement. So that instead of imperative\nlocal matters being dealt with first hand, private bill after private bill\nswarms through the doors of Parliament, and it becomes a veritable\nimpossibility to go into detail with respect to the pros and cons which\nthey bear upon their pages, much less grasp the whole drift of the\nquestion with justice in its entirety.\n\nFar wiser was the old system of provincial legislature, in which the\npeople were really represented, a system in which personality counted for\nmuch and men were brought into familiar and friendly relations with each\nother, not kept apart by the rubicon of red-tapeism, and liable to have\nthe door of the Closure slammed in their faces at some critical juncture\nof discussion, and the subject shelved. It is true that since Francis\nNewman's day we may have made some effort after local councils, but it is\nalso true that these local councils do not really bring class and class\ntogether. Each class is by no means adequately represented in them, nor is\nit the council's object that this should be the case. To compare the\nEngland of to-day--the agricultural England, at any rate--with the England\nof the past, brings all true thinkers to the same conclusion, that class\ndemarcations are as insistent, as absolute as ever they were, even in the\nculminating early Victorian days. [Footnote: \"We must mainly refer our\npractical evils to the _demoralization_ of the State which the restoration\nof the Stuarts caused.... Then began the estrangement of the Commonalty\nfrom the Church of the aristocracy.\"--Francis Newman.] One has but to go\nabroad to be convinced how \"classy\" we are as a nation, for class\nprejudices and insularity are produced by provincial England, and\nindigenous to the soil, and alas! this crop never fails. There are,\nunfortunately, no lean years. There are, it is true, plenty of\norganizations in which the more fortunate class tries to ameliorate the\nlot of the less fortunate one, plenty of organizations in which the more\ncultured class tries--often devotes its whole life to this trying--to make\nbetter conditions for the less cultured one, and all honour and praise is\ndue to self-denying work of the kind, but it is not enough. The truest,\npurest Christian socialism [Footnote: I use the word in its truest ancient\nsense.] requires that helper and helped meet on absolutely equal ground;\nthat there is banished that indescribable stalking figure which follows\nclose in the wake of most meetings between rich and poor in England, the\nGentleman-hood (or Lady-hood, for I have seen that often quite as\ninsistently in evidence) of the class which, so to speak, \"_stoops_ to\nconquer,\" the limitations of the less fortunate classes, in its work for\nthe people.\n\nI remember coming across the word \"gentleman\" interpreted in a far\ndifferent sense in an old fifteenth-century book. Many words change their\nmeaning with time, but this word has changed from its fifteenth-century\ninterpretation more than any. The sentence ran thus: \"Jesus Christ was the\nfirst Gentleman.\" Anything further from the original conception of its\nmeaning as set forward in this sentence than our English idea of what is\nmeant to-day by \"gentleman\" it would be difficult to find. For He went\namong the people as one of themselves, was born among them, and was\neducated as they were. There was no hint of patronage, no suggestion of\nany social demarcation. He Who was the world's Redeemer was yet a\nSocialist [Footnote: I cannot but add here that, in my opinion, the much-\nabused word \"Socialist\" has changed in character in the same way as the\nword \"gentleman,\" and the modern interpretation is very far from being the\ntrue, admirable, original thing signified.] in the highest and best sense\nof the term.\n\nWe have come far since those days, but we have not come beyond the need to\ndeprive birth and riches of some of that arbitrary power by which they\nhave assumed more authority than is their due in the matter of\nlegislation, influence, disposal of land, and economic local conditions in\nthe provinces.\n\nAs regards decentralized government and the \"immense importance of local\nliberties,\" I cannot do better than quote first from the preface written\nby Francis Newman to his lectures on _Political Economy_, when he issued\nthem in a printed form in 1851:--\n\n\"Of the immense importance of local liberties, and their actual\ndeficiencies among us, I became fully convinced during six years'\nresidence in Manchester; but it is only from Mr. Toulmin Smith's works\n(the most important political work, as to me appears, which the nineteenth\ncentury has produced in England) that I have learnt the immense resources\nof the Common Law of England, and that nothing but the arbitrary\nencroachments of Parliament at this moment hinders a vigorous local\nlegislation and local government under the fullest local freedom which can\nbe desired.\"\n\nThe lectures themselves, notably the twelfth, are in my opinion a counsel\nof perfection which we should do well to follow to-day in very many\nrespects. For instance, he urges very strongly that \"every town in\nEngland, and every county, ought to have the feelings of a little State,\n_as in fact it once had_\" [the italics are my own]. \"Our own history for\nmany centuries shows that this is quite consistent with the existence of a\ncentral power--a Crown Parliament--_for all purposes truly national_; and\nif the action of the central power were strictly limited to such things,\nthe provinces would, now more than ever, have abundant room for high\nambition.\" He shows how all organization has been lost in large provincial\ntowns, even though meetings are held from time to time, and men _seem_ to\ncome together for counsel and combination of ideas; the only really fixed\n\"moral union\" being that narrow tie of family life which does but make a\nnumber of separate entities in the big whole of citizenship. There is no\ncorporate union which makes each citizen the charge, to all intents and\npurposes, of his neighbour. Each family holds together. It rises and falls\nby itself. It holds to its heart no innate real sense of responsibility of\na wider citizenship. That is lost--undeniably lost.\n\n[Illustration: TOULMIN SMITH\nENLARGEMENT FROM A PHOTO. BY KIND PERMISSION OF MISS TOULMIN SMITH]\n\nThe question arises naturally: When was this splendid link of \"Each for\nAll\" broken and mislaid? For nothing is more imperatively necessary among\nthe ranks of workers to-day.\n\nMr. Toulmin Smith tells us: \"The link which has been broken and mislaid was\nthe \"English Guild\" (or \"gild,\" as seems the more correct spelling). He\ntells us--and it is generally conceded that he is our great authority on\nthis subject--that as a system of practical and universal institutions, a\nEnglish Guilds are older than any kings of England.\" [Footnote: \"They were\nassociations of those living in the same neighbourhood, who remembered\nthat they had, as neighbours, common obligations.\"] And as another\nauthority on medieval life--Dom Gasquet--says: \"The oldest of our ancient\nlaws--those, for example, of Alfred, of Athelstan, and Ina--assume the\nexistence of guilds to some one of which, as a matter of course, everyone\nwas supposed to belong.\"\n\nThere were of course trade (or handicraft) associations and social guilds.\nDom Gasquet describes thus their object: \"Broadly speaking, they were the\nbenefit societies and the provident associations of the Middle Ages. They\nundertook towards their members the duties now frequently performed by\nburial clubs, by hospitals, by almshouses, and by guardians of the poor.\"\n[Footnote: \"Poor laws had no existence in medieval England, yet the\npeasants did not fear and die of starvation in old age. The Romans had no\npoor laws ... until the destruction of small freehold.\"--Francis Newman.]\n\"Not infrequently they are found acting for the public good of the\ncommunity in the mending of roads and in the repair of bridges.... The\nvery reason of their existence was to afford mutual aid.\" [Footnote:\nParish Life of Medieval England.] They were in very deed, as Mr. Toulmin\nSmith describes them, institutions of \"local self-help.\" And everyone who\nknows anything of the subject is aware that they \"obviated pauperism,\nassisted in steadying the price of labour, and formed a permanent centre.\"\nAlso it has been proved that they acted as the lever which effectually\nmade citizenship more together as a whole, bound together by common need\nand common responsibilities.\n\nThis sense of oneness of interest of \"Each for All,\" then, we have\nunfortunately as a nation lost. And with the loss have gone many of the\npeople's rights and privileges both with regard to local self-government,\nlocal liberties, and co-operation.\n\nNow the question arises how are we to recover what was so necessary to the\npublic well-being? And Francis Newman is ready with an answer.\n\n\"To recognize little states in our towns and countries would be the first\nstep of organization; I believe it would be an easy one.... If each town\nhad full power to tax itself for public purposes, a thousand civilizing\nameliorations would be introduced.... If local institutions had been kept\nup in energy, the unhealthy buildings which now exist could never have\narisen; there is at present an Augean stable to cleanse.... Look at the\nsellers in the street, look at the cab-drivers and their horses on a rainy\nday; what can be more barbarous than their exposure?... Nothing surely is\nmore obvious than that in a city where thirty or forty thousand persons\nlive all day under the sky, having no power to shelter themselves, there\nought to be numerous covered piazzas, market-places, and sheds for\ncabriolets. By such means, to save the poor from rheumatism and\ninflammations, would be cheaper than to raise their wages, if that were\npossible, and would confer far more direct benefit on them than the\nremoving of taxes.\"\n\nHere is indeed the mind of a modern Hercules in its strong, rational\nsuggestions as to how this particular \"stable\" must be swept out. It is a\nstriking illustration of how far we have come since the days of the\nmedieval guilds, this lack of grasp on our part of the particular needs of\nparticular sections of the community. For were our local self-government\nin working order and thoroughly representative, it is not to be thought of\nfor a moment that such a lack of shelters and proper appliances for the\nlabouring man and woman would be in such evidence amongst us as now is the\ncase. For look at England as she is, in respect of unsettled, rainy and\nstormy weather: her spells of wintry weather, her spring changes: one day\nwarm, and the next, constant spells of snow, sleet, and bitter driving\ngusts of wind. Where do the loafers of our streets go? Where do the\nunemployed, hanging about at the street corner in search of a job, go\nduring some pelting shower which drenches whoever remains to face it in\nless than three minutes? The centre of the street, and the streaming\npavements clear almost at once, but where does the \"man in the street\"--\nthe woman--the child go? Certainly they do not go into a shelter put up by\nGovernment for their protection, as a rule. There are, in provincial\ntowns, no shelters sufficiently large to accommodate them.\n\nI have often talked to the inspectors--to take a case in point--of\nprovincial trams. These men have to wait, to stand about at corners of\nstreets or cross roads great part of the day. Many of them suffer in no\nsmall degree from this constant standing about in all weathers.\n\nThen again, there is no provision made for the drivers of the trams. It\nwould be quite possible to provide seats for them, as is often done in\nmotor buses, but the same reason holds good for this not having been\nthought of, as is in evidence with regard to the lack of street shelters.\n\nThere is not sufficient co-operation in the local government. When the\nguilds died out, no local arrangements took their place. In other words,\nthe local government, of whatever nature it is, is not sufficiently\nrepresentative. The men who work upon the road, day in day out, have not\nsufficient opportunity of saying, in open meeting of their fellow\ncitizens, where their particular trade shoe pinches. It is, as old Sir\nThomas More said very truly, the matter of the rich legislating for the\npoor, which is at fault.\n\nHere, then, is the remedy suggested by Francis Newman: \"The stated meeting\nof a number of people in a _Ward-mote_ would make their faces familiar to\none another, and give to the richer orders a distinct acquaintance with a\ndefinite portion of the vast community. Out of this ... meeting for\ndiscussion of practical business in a _Ward-mote_ ... would rise numerous\nother relations.\"\n\nHere men would meet--men drawn from every class--and could voice their\ncomplaints, their difficulties, their desire for improved conditions of\nwork. Only in this way could local government become really a help to its\nneighbourhood. Only in this way could men consult on the best way of\nimproving economic conditions, frame their own amelioration of existing\nlaws, and send them up to the Imperial Parliament for consent or veto.\n\nThen it would probably follow that some measure of land reform would be\nthe natural result of such local government. Perhaps it is over the land\nthat the Plough of Reform needs most urgently to be driven. More than\neight centuries ago the first idea of parks began in this country. Then it\nwas that in the selfish desire for private property the dwellings of the\npeople were swept away to make room for those of game for royal sport.\nLater this method was adopted by Henry VIII's baronial retainers, who\nejected the tenants from their estates for the sake of trade profit--\nprofit to be gained by exporting wool from the large sheep farms into\nwhich they made their private estates.\n\nBut the system of large tracts of land in a small country, such as our\nown, being bought up for private property, and made into parks or game\npreserves, is of course at the root of very many economic evils which have\nlargely helped to cause pauperism and unhealthy conditions of life for the\nagricultural labourer. If rich men may add, without the law stepping in to\nlimit amount, land to land as their pocket makes it possible, it follows,\nas a matter of course, that more of the rustic population must move into\nthe towns: and that more and more crowding and over-competition are the\nresult later on.\n\nNewman--the man who was always boldest where there was a cause that needed\nfighting for, or fellow citizens who were powerless to right their own\nwrongs, and who required someone to voice them--spoke out his views on\nthis subject, unhesitatingly. \"That a man should be able to buy up large\ntracts of land, and make himself the owner of them--to keep them in or out\nof culture as he pleases--to close or open roads, and dictate where houses\nshould be built ... this is no natural right, but is an artificial\ncreation of arbitrary law; law made by legislation for personal\nconvenience ... certainly not for the benefit of the nation.... I find it\nstated that in 1845 the Royal Commission estimated that, since 1710, above\nseven millions of acres had been appropriated by Private Acts of\nParliament.\" (This was because of the enormous extension of claims made by\nlords of the manors.) \"It is certain that wild land was not imagined to be\na property in old days. The moors and bogs, and hillsides and seacoast\nimposed on the baron the duty of maintaining the King's peace against\nmarauders, but yielded to him no revenue.... Supplies open to all ought\nnever to have been made private property.... Vast private estates are\npernicious in every country which permits them. It was notorious to the\nRomans under the early emperors how ruinous they had been to Italy....\nThere they wrought out, among other evils, emptiness of population, and\nextinction of agriculture.\" He represents that it was really due to the\nbreak-up of the feudal system in the Tudor times which was responsible for\nthe \"chronic pauperism\" and multitude of \"sturdy beggars\" of later\ncenturies. And the reason is a very patent one. If more and more land is\nswamped in private enterprise, private revenue, it is a _sine qu\u00e2 non_\nthat peasant proprietorship must get less and less. There is not, in\neffect, enough land to go round. Newman points out that, as regards land\ncultivation, we are behind France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Hungary;\nthat a hundred years ago there were far more small freeholds in England\nthan is now the case; that England is a \"marked exception in Europe in the\nland tenure.\" \"We know not whither beside England to look for a nation of\npeasants living by wages, and divorced from all rights in the crops which\nthey raise.\"\n\nAs Henry Fawcett said long ago, these wages of English labourers will not\nallow of the least provision to be made either for the sickness or the\nfeebleness of old age. They have, at the close of a life of hard toil,\nnothing but the workhouse to live in, the road to beg in or sell in that\nout-at-elbow, trade, the modern \"chapman's.\"\n\nLook at the average labourer of our own day. He has, as Newman clearly\npoints out, \"more than enough to do in rearing a family, and has no better\nprospect in his declining years than rheumatism and the poorhouse, perhaps\nwith separation from his wife, or at least a miserable dole of out-door\nrelief.\" [Footnote: We have gone some way since these words were written\nin our Old Age Pensions.] Here he puts his finger on the very spot where\none thoughtless cruelty of bureaucratic legislation is most shown. For\nmany faithful servants of the State come in their last extremity to this\ndestiny. This irony of legislation shone out lately in its true colours\nwhen it was discovered that, of over a thousand survivors of the Indian\nMutiny, a large proportion, who were invited to the demi-centenary\ncelebration dinner, came out of workhouses where they, who had served\ntheir country so well in the days of their youth, had been forced to spend\ntheir old age.\n\nThere is no doubt that Francis Newman's remedy for the economic evils of\nthe people is the right one. To develop rural industry, to come back to\nthe land, is the hope for England's future. \"It is essential to the public\nwelfare to multiply to the utmost the proportion of actual cultivators or\nfarmers who have a firm tenure of the soil by paying a quit-rent to the\nState.... The soil of England ought to be the very best investment for\nrich and poor, pouring out wealth to incessant industry, and securing to\nevery labourer the fruit of his own toils.\"\n\nAnd in this way, he urges, can this suggestion be carried to its definite\nconclusion. The revival of small freeholds, the re-institution of peasant\nproprietorships, are the ways out of the block at the end of the way where\nthere is at present a deadlock in regard to the peasants' individual\nadvancement. It is well known how admirably this system has worked in\nFrance, where millions of peasants have profited by the law in favour of\nsmall freeholds, and its regulation that such land shall always be divided\nequally among the children of the landholder. It is well known how largely\nIndian revenue was drawn from the rent paid by small cultivators in the\nDekkan. It may be taken as an invariable consequence that the measure\nwhich really profits the citizen profits the State too.\n\nI remember seeing among some old papers dating back to the early quarter\nof the nineteenth century, an account showing that tobacco planting was\nreally started somewhere in the Midlands by two or three Englishmen, and\nit was found that the soil was thoroughly adapted to the culture of\ntobacco. Indeed, the venture proved a complete success. Then the\nGovernment of that day, fearing later consequences to the import trade,\npromptly intervened and put a stop to the home cultivation. But the fact\nremains that it had been proved, by a definite experience, that there\n_was_ an opening for this industry in England.\n\nIt was suggested to me only the other day how many more cider-growing\ndistricts, for instance, might be with advantage started in the provinces.\nFor the truth of the matter, when we look at it fairly and squarely, is\nthat the home country can give rural work to many more of her inhabitants\nthan she is allowed to do at present; that, as Newman was always\nsuggesting in his lectures, the labourer should be given an interest in\nthe land; that he should be encouraged in trying to make a crop as good as\npossible by adopting some modification of the M\u00e9tayer Culture; that he\nshould have _rights_ in the land; be associated in the profit accruing to\nhis overlord; that if the wages of a farm labourer were small, yet that he\nshould be given, perhaps, one-twentieth of the produce; and that he should\nbe encouraged to invest what saving might be possible to him in the farm\nor trade. Newman was not in favour of the Savings Bank, as we understand\nit in this country. He thought that associated profit and investment of\nsavings in the employer's land or trade would work far better in the long\nrun, and lead to keener fellowship between labourer and master.\n\nTo-day his plan, as it seems to many, stands very good chance of success,\nif given a fair trial among the right sort of Englishmen. I am aware that\nthese last four words sound vague, but I have a very clear idea of what\nthey mean myself! Newman thought that if a co-operative society began by\nbuying a moderate-sized farm, and divided it into \"portions of six to ten\nacres, they might find either among their own members or among other\ntradesmen known and trusted among them, persons rich enough to provide\nseed and stock, and thus to live through the first year on such holdings,\nand willing (later) to occupy them for themselves or for their sons. The\nbeginning is the great difficulty.... The first thing of all is to show,\non however small a scale, that such a cultivation can succeed.... If once\npeasants see peasant proprietors they will have new motive for saving.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nVEGETARIANISM\n\n\nThe London Vegetarian Society was founded in 1847. When Newman joined it,\ntherefore, it was, so to speak, in its childhood. It will easily be\nunderstood, therefore, that much amazement was excited (as is shown by the\nfollowing letters), by his fellow guests at some large dinner parties at\nwhich he was present, when Newman withstood valiantly the long siege of\nsavoury dishes at his elbow; and it seemed as if, though present in body,\nhe was absent in appetite. This amazement was scarcely lessened when,\nafter passing seventeen dishes, at length he threw the gates of his\npersonal fortress open before some small omelet (prepared specially for\nhim by the cook), and that, practically, formed his entire dinner!\n\nTo Newman's mind the theory of Vegetarianism was proved. He published some\n_Essays on Diet_; and was always an exponent of its rational claims on\nmankind.\n\nSince the days when he wrote up the subject, many people have come over to\nhis way of thinking, and the way is made easy for those who wish to follow\nits _obiter dicta_ for health.\n\nBut it is quite as keenly a subject for debate now as formerly among a\nlarge proportion of men, though perhaps few among anti-vegetarians would\ndispute the point that there are, and must be, certain conditions involved\nby anti-vegetarianism which can hardly be evaded, or defended. One of\nthese conditions, of course, is that it is not always possible to detect\nsome diseases in flesh sold for food: and that these diseases are\ncommunicable to man; another, the degrading spectacle of the slaughter-\nhouse; another, the presence in our midst of the butcher's shop, with all\nits revolting display: [Footnote: I have not forgotten that M. Zola\ncontended that the atmosphere of a butcher's shop conduced to the best and\nmost healthy complexions of those who served in it!] another, as Mr.\nJosiah Oldfield points out to us, that \"horticulture ... would employ an\nenormously greater amount of labour than does stock-raising, and so tend\nto afford a counter current to the present downward drift, and to\ncongested labour centres.\" Mr. Oldfield urges also that \"all elements for\nperfect nutrition in assimilable forms are found in a proper vegetarian\ndietary.\"\n\nI have not opportunity for finding out in what years Newman took up this\npractical dietary of vegetarianism for himself, but I think it must have\nbeen towards the latter end of his life. Mention will be found in the\nReminiscences contributed by Mrs. Bainsmith, the sculptor, relating to his\nbringing across occasionally, when she and her father and mother lived\njust opposite the Professor's house at Weston-super-Mare, some\nparticularly delicious vegetarian dish (concocted by his own cook), which\nhe had thought his friends could not fail to appreciate.\n\nThe following letters have been kindly sent me for reproduction by Mr. F.\nP. Doremus in connection with Newman's views on Vegetarianism:--\n\n\n_To Mr. F. P. Doremus from Professor Newman._\n\n\"_21st Sept._, 1883.\n\n\"Dear Sir,\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"I _deliberately prefer_ the rule of our Society and by preference adhere\nto it. But I have never interpreted it as severely as I find some to do.\nOn some occasions, in early years, when I could get no proper vegetarian\nfood, I have eaten some small bit of ham fat (as I remember on _one_\noccasion) to aid dry potato from sticking in my throat. I do not interpret\nour rule as forbidding _exceptional_ action _under stress of difficulty_.\nBut when I found what a fuss was made about this, and saw that many people\ntook the opportunity of _inferring_ that a simple act implied a habit, I\nsaw that it was unwise to give anyone a handle of attack....\n\n\"I can only say that I interpret our rules conscientiously, and obey them\naccording to my interpretation faithfully. I do not see in our profession\nany vow or engagement comparable to that about _never tasting_\nintoxicating drink. If my wife, who is not a professed vegetarian (though\nin practice she is all but one), asks me to taste a bit of flesh and\nsee... whether it is good, I find nothing in our rules to forbid my\ngratifying her _curiosity_. In that case I do not take it _as diet_ to\nnourish me nor to gratify me. My words of adhesion simply declared that I\nhad abstained from such _food_ for half a year, and _I intended to abstain\nin the future_. Of course this forbids my _habit_ or any _intention_ to\nthe contrary; but I deprecate interpreting this as a vow or as a trap and\na superstition. One who feels and believes as I do the vast superiority of\nour vegetarian food, never can desire, unless perhaps in some abnormal\nstate of illness, the inferior food....\n\n\"Faithfully yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\n\"_1st Oct._, 1883.\n\n\"Dear Sir,\n\n\"... On reading yours anew after some ten days or less, I think I ought to\nnotice what you say of an unknown publisher.\n\n\"I cannot remember that for twenty years I have ever eaten in the company\nof any well-known publisher (anyone known to _me_ as a publisher) except\nMr. Nicolas Tr\u00fcbner _before_ I joined the Vegetarians, and _one other_\nmore recently. The latter was in the house of a lady friend who always\nanxiously humoured me by providing a _special dish_ for me.\n\n\"Her cook was not skilful in _our_ cookery, but did her best. I remember\ndistinctly who was present on this occasion with this respected publisher.\nIt was a luncheon with meats. I ate at the same table, and it may very\neasily have escaped his notice that a different dish was handed to me.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"I have several times sat at this friend's table with a large number of\nguests. I remember once counting that seventeen dishes were handed to me.\nI dined on my own food to the great marvel of those near me....\n\n\"I have always maintained that the main reason for proclaiming any _rule_\nof diet is, that the outsiders may be afforded facts to aid their own\njudgment; and that our engagement has no other element of obligation than\nthat we shall not vitiate the materials of such judgment.\n\n\"Therefore also I have advocated several grades--for instance, an\nengagement allowing of _fish_ as food (which many will take who will not\ngo our length), and another in which absence from home (where one cannot\narrange the cookery) is an exemption. I rejoice also in the Daniclete\nrule. Provided that it is KNOWN what is the diet, we give valuable\ninformation.\"\n\n\n\"_14th Oct._, 1883.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"I knew that the publisher to whom you referred could only be Mr. Kegan\nPaul, who met me some few years back at luncheon in the house of my\nfriends the Miss Swanwicks: that until _you told_ me his name, I thought\nit better not to write to him. But thereupon I wrote and explained to him\nthat my friend Miss Anna Swanwick knew perfectly that I could not accept\ntheir hospitality (as I have habitually done for a week or more at a time)\nif they expected me to partake of any food inconsistent with the rules of\nour Society. I long ago furnished her with some of our recipes, and she\n_showed her cook_ always to make a _special_ dish for me. At one of their\ndinner parties I remember the amazement of guests at my passing _all_ the\ndishes, as at first it seemed, until my own little dish came. I told Mr.\nKegan Paul that _he must have mistaken_ what was in my plate (perhaps\ncrumb omelette _browned over_--which I remember the cook was apt to give\nme) for some fish of which he and others were partaking. I have no doubt\nthat this was the whole matter....\n\n\"I am sincerely yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nThe closing letter in this series is evidently an answer to some questions\nfrom Mr. Doremus as regards Newman's portrait, and as regards the\nincidents of his life.\n\n\"My life has been eminently uneventful.\" When one remembers in how many\nquestions of social reform, of theology, of written matter, Newman had\nbeen concerned, this short sentence strikes one's eyes strangely enough.\nFor what is an \"event\"? Surely it does not mean only something which is a\ncarnal happening: a material outbreak in some form or other which occurs\nbefore our eyes? Surely there are far greater spiritual \"events\" than\nphysical ones? And of _this_ kind of event Newman's life had been full.\nOriginality of thought, of conception, of aim, is the Event which takes\nprecedence of all other. And these events were strewn like Millet's\n\"Sower\" from side to side of his path: to take the true Latin significance\nof the word, they _came out_ from him.\n\n\n\"_31st July_, 1884.\n\n\"Dear Sir,\n\n\"Your letter has been forwarded to me from home to this place\n[Keswick].... Messrs. Elliot and Fry (Baker Street, Portman Square),\nrecently by pressure induced me to let them take my photograph. In fact\nthey took four, in different positions, all judged excellent, all of\ncabinet size. Each, I believe, costs 2/-. I have none at my disposal. With\nor without my leave, anyone can publish them in any magazine. Now, as to\nmy biography--my life has been eminently uneventful. There is nothing to\ntell but my studies, my successive posts as a teacher, and the list of\nbooks, etc., from my pen, _unless one add_ the effects of study on my\nCREED, which more than one among you might desire _not_ to make prominent\nin the _Food Reformer_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Can I assent to the request that I will myself write something? Others\nmight wish to know in how many _Antis_ I have been and am engaged!!\nCertainly more than you will care to make known will go into two pages of\nyour magazine.\n\n\"I am, sincerely yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nTwo letters to Dr. Nicholson from Newman I think may be given here: one in\nApril, 1875, and one in June, 1881, as both bear strongly on the\nvegetarian question:--\n\n\n\"25 _April_, 1875.\n\n\"My dear Nicholson,\n\n\"How time flies! Bearded men, active in moral and political questions,\ntell me they know nothing of the Austro-Hungarian events, because they\nhappened when they were children.\n\n\"One of them asked me to give a lecture on Austria and Hungary of the\nPast, as he was curious and totally ignorant.... We are overrun with every\nkind of meeting, and the public are sated....\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Happily every day is too short for me, and I cannot have time on my\nhands.... I do not know whether you have attended the movement against\nvivisection, which is becoming lively. It has long been a dire horror to\nme. I rejoice to see that Sir W. Thomson, [Footnote: Sir William Thomson,\nborn 1843, was late President of the Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland;\nExam. in Surgery, Queen's University and Royal College of Surgeons,\nIreland.] and other scientific men, desire a severe restriction to be put\non it. I agree heartily with those who say we have no more RIGHT to\ntorture a dog than to torture a man; but I fear that to move at present\nwith Mr. Jesse for the total prohibition will only give to the worst\npractices a longer lease of life.\n\n\"Our vegetarianism is becoming more active with the pressure from the high\nprice of butcher's meat. Not that we make many entire conversions, but\nplentiful well-wishers and half-converts, and a great increase in the\nbelief that _too much_ flesh meat is eaten, and that the doctors are much\nto blame for having pressed it as they press wine and ale, calling it\n'generous' food. At the same time it is remarkable that the argument\nagainst slaughter-houses and for tenderness to tame animals plays a more\ndecisive part, especially with women, than economic and sanitary\narguments.... I am ever in experiment on something. At present it is on\ncacao butter and vegetable oils. We esteem the cacao butter for _savoury\ndishes_ very highly. Messrs. Cadbury sell it 'to me and my friends' for\n1s. a lb. In pastry and sweets the chocolate smell offends most people;\nbut my wife likes it. It is too hard to spread on cold meat.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"The gardens are becoming sprightly. I have not had success with new\nvegetables, viz. German peas, celery, turnips, Belgian red dwarf beans.\nThe drought last summer was bad. No _warm rain_ in spring last year.\n\n\"Ever yours heartily,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nThe following is quoted from the second letter I mentioned:--\n\n\"I send to you a Penny Vegetarian Cookery Book herewith. Surely I was a\nVegetarian when I last was with you? I began the practice in 1867. But let\nme recite: (1) At breakfast and the third meal I need nothing but what all\nfleshmeaters provide. (2) At dinner the utmost that I need is _one_\nVegetarian dish, which may be a soup. (3) If it so happen that you have\nany _really solid_ sweet puddings that alone will suffice. (4) For the\n_one_ Vegetarian dish good _brown_ bread and butter is an acceptable\nsubstitute, or rather fulfilment. But I confess I am desirous of\npropagating everywhere a knowledge of our peculiar dishes, which teach how\nto turn to best account the manifold and abundant store of leaves, roots,\nand grains, besides pulse.\n\n\"My wife is fully able to impart practical knowledge: to please me, and\nsee that others please me, she has given great attention to Vegetarian\ncookery for many years back....\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\nNATIVE REPRESENTATION IN INDIAN GOVERNMENT\n\n\nIt is rare indeed that an Englishman looks at India as Francis Newman\nlooked at it. Fifty years ago--probably longer--he put his finger on\nexactly the spot which to-day is the crux which most puzzles and baffles\npoliticians. In social and intellectual questions his were the clear-\nsighted, far-focussed eyes that reached beyond the measures of most men's\nminds. He saw clearly, fifty years ago, that India was drawing ever closer\nand closer to an inevitable terminus. That she was beginning to recognize\n--every year more definitely--her ultimate destination: was beginning to\nrealize, too, that her foreign rulers were aware also of that terminus,\nbut were not very anxious that she should reach it. Nay, were practically\nrather jogging her elbow to prevent her becoming so conscious of the\ndirection in which the tide of affairs was drifting.\n\nNevertheless it is becoming more and more patent to everyone who really\nstudies the question impartially that things are not what they were fifty\nor sixty years ago; that a critical juncture is drawing ever nearer and\nnearer--a juncture which inevitably will mean great changes for the\ngoverned and the governors.\n\nEven the slow-moving East does move appreciably in half a century, when\ncentres of education are doing their best to train Indians in European\nideas of civilization, in European ideas of government, and of the\nauthority which learning gives. We cannot expect to educate and yet leave\nthose we educate exactly where we find them; for with education comes\ninvariably, inevitably, the growth of ideas planted by it--their growth,\nand no less invariable fruition. To show someone all that is to be gained\nby reaching forward, and then to expect him not to reach, but to remain\nquiescent, is the act of a fool.\n\nWe have, as a nation, so taken it for granted that India is our own to do\nas we like with, that it is perhaps not a pleasant reminder which faces us\nas we cast our thoughts back to the initial steps taken by ourselves in\nthe days which preceded the formation of the Honourable East India\nCompany. It bids us realize that at first, as Francis Newman says in his\n_Dangerous Glory of India_, \"neither king, statesmen, nor people ever\ndeliberately planned from the beginning or desired such an empire. It\nbegan as a set of mercantile establishments which took up private arms for\nmere self-defence.... The Honourable East India Company was glad to\nlegitimate its position by accepting from the Grand Mogul the subordinate\nposition of a rent-collector; indeed, from the beginning to the end of its\npolitical career it was animated by a consistent and unswerving\ndisapproval of aggression and fresh conquest.\"\n\nSince that time, however, the English dominion spread rapidly. Since that\ntime we became more and more aware of what a splendid field lay ready for\noccupation by our surplus population. Since that time we have moved\nforward through a vast country that formerly, through lack of European\nways of civilization and co-operation, practically lay at our feet. It is\ntrue that we have done much--very much for India. It is impossible for\nanyone to deny that. We have brought to her doors European civilization;\nmodern points of view; the miracles of new discoveries in science;\ninventions for making the wheels of life move easier; opportunities for\ncultivating and selling her land's produce, and for its quick transport.\nWe have lifted her up--yes, but here is where the mental shoe pinches--we\nhave insisted on preventing her from reaching her full stature. We have\ntrained her sons to be able to work side by side with ourselves in various\nofficial duties; and then when they are desirous--as is indeed only the\ninevitable consequence of their education--of entering the lists side by\nside with Englishmen, they find there is no crossing the rubicon which\nofficially divides the two nations.\n\nIt is true that many Anglo-Indians stand aghast at this idea that they\nshould cross it, but it is only those who are unaware that, as a general\nrule, education and environment combined come out as top dog over heredity\nin most instances in which it plays a part. It is only those who, when\nthey go out to India, take, as it were, England with them, and fail to\nrecognize how far Indian points of view and power of dealing with things\nhave progressed. It is only those who have forgotten--if indeed they ever\ntruly realized it--that it is a point of honour that such a proceeding\nshould be carried out, if we, as Englishmen, remember all that the notable\ncharter of 1833 bound us to do.\n\nFor the charter of 1833 [Footnote: During Lord Grey's ministry.]\ndefinitely promised that native Indian subjects of the English Government\nwere to be admitted on equal terms with English subjects _to every office\nof State_, except that of governor-general or commander-in-chief. Not only\nthat, but the solemn proclamation of the late Queen was issued in 1858,\npledging the word of Sovereign and Parliament that the \"sole aim of\nBritish rule in India was the welfare of the Indian people, and that no\ndistinction would be made between Indians and Europeans in the government\nof the country, on the grounds of race, or creed, or colour.\"\n\nAs Francis Newman says very clearly, it is a \"task which we have\nvoluntarily assumed-to rule India, which means\" (the italics are his) \"_to\ndefend it from itself in infancy, to train it into manhood_.... It\npresupposes that the people gradually get more and more power until, like\na son who comes of age, the parental control is discontinued.... We cannot\ntake the last steps first, nor can we abruptly and recklessly resign our\npost....\"\n\nThe Hon. M. G. K. Gokhale, in a keenly interesting paper read before the\nEast India Association in the summer of 1906, states very definitely the\npoint of view of educated Indians as regards our unfulfilled pledges of\nnearly eighty years since. He says: \"Until a few years ago, whatever might\nhave been thought of the pace at which we were going, there was no general\ndisposition to doubt the intention of the rulers to redeem their plighted\nword. To-day, however, the position is no longer the same.... There is no\ndoubt that the old faith of the people in the character and ideals of\nBritish rule has been more than shaken.... Half a century of Western\neducation, and a century of common laws, common administration, common\ngrievances, common disabilities, have not failed to produce their natural\neffect even in India.... Whatever a certain school of officials in India\nmay say, the bulk of educated Indians have never in the past desired a\nseverance of the British connection.... \"But, he adds: \"It is a critical\njuncture in the relations between England and India.... The educated\nclasses in India ... want their country to be a prosperous, self-\ngoverning, integral part of the Empire, like the colonies, and not a mere\npoverty-stricken bureaucratically-held possession of that Empire.\"\n\nFifty years ago Francis Newman was urging with all the force in his power\n--and no one in his day was more farsighted in detecting just that social\nreform which would make more and more insistent demand for a hearing, as\ndecade followed decade--that it was to our own interest as a nation, as\nwell as the only honourable course open to us, to open up public offices\nin India to the educated native. It need not, he showed, be done otherwise\nthan with caution, and gradually \"many variations\" were \"imaginable; many\ndifferent ways might succeed, if only the _right end in view_\" was\n\"steadily held up, namely, to introduce, fully and frankly, _into true\nequality with ourselves_\" [Footnote: To \"exclude natives from all high\noffice,\" Sir Charles Napier said once emphatically, \"is what debases a\nnation.\"] (again the italics are his) \"as quickly as possible, and as many\nas possible, of the native Indians whose loyalty could be counted on....\nLord Grey and his coadjutors, in renewing the charter of 1833, understood\nmost clearly that nothing but an abundance of black faces in the highest\njudicature, and intelligent Indians of good station in the high police,\ncould administer India uprightly.... Every year that we delay evils become\nmore inveterate and hatred accumulates. To train India into governing\nherself, until English advice is superfluous, would be to both countries a\nlasting benefit, to us a lasting glory.\"\n\nNow, what are the \"evils\" which \"every year become more inveterate\" in our\nmethod of government in India? Perhaps one of the most palpable is the\nstrongly centralized bureaucracy. Another, is the constant change of men\nin chief office every five years. Another, is that all competitive\nexaminations are held in London. Mr. Gokhale very rightly urges that it is\na great deal to require of an Indian that he should have to come all the\nway to England for these examinations _on the chance_ of passing, and\nsuggests their being held simultaneously in India and in England. Another,\nis that the field of law is the only officialdom open to the Indian, yet\nthat there he is found capable of rising to the highest post. Another,\nthat we have not pushed forward the education of the masses as far as we\nreasonably might if we had worked hand in hand with the educated classes.\nMr. Gokhale tells us that to-day seven children out of eight are growing\nup in ignorance, and four villages out of five are as yet without a\nschool-house.\n\nThere are other drawbacks to this system of foreign bureaucracy, which can\nonly be briefly touched on here, but certainly Newman was right when he\ncondemned that mistaken, high-handed measure of the autocratic East India\nCompany--their destruction of all the local treasuries, and the manner in\nwhich these funds were diverted into the central treasury. Thus, as he\npointed out very clearly, no moneys were left for the repair of roads,\nbridges, and tanks, etc. As he remarks, \"In comparison with this monster\nevil, all other delinquencies seem to fade away.\"\n\nAs everyone probably is aware, Newman lost no opportunity in pressing home\non the minds of his countrymen that it is decentralization that is so\nurgently needed; and that not alone in India, but in our own country as\nwell. Repeatedly he urged that if Government is administered from one\ncentral bureaucracy, it follows inevitably that the business to be dealt\nwith bulks so enormously that it is literally impossible to deal, in\ndetail and with complete understanding, with the rights and wrongs of\ncitizens at a distance in the provinces and remote parts of a big empire.\nConsequently, he was always trying to show how far more successfully local\nself-government--a local ward-mote, for instance--would deal with\nprovincial matters in England. That every town should be, as it were, a\nlittle State, with all classes represented in it, and matters dealt with\nlocally should only come up to the Central Parliament for veto or for\nsanction. In the same way he recommended strongly that in India every\nfacility should be given to \"voluntary (limited liability) companies to\nexecute roads, works of irrigation, etc....\" That country districts should\nbe given local treasuries, as well as towns.\n\nIn \"English institutions and their most necessary reforms,\" Newman\ndeclares and reiterates that this lack of local treasuries is a \"hideous\nblunder,\" and adds, \"every coin in every province is liable to be spent in\nsome war.\" He urges other changes, which have come to pass in some\nmeasure, such as a Viceroy, a \"prince of the blood royal,\" sent out to\n\"receive their occasional homage.\" But there again lack of cooperation\nwith the natives, lack of real understanding between us and them, have, as\neveryone is aware, worked havoc when a man [Footnote: It is impossible to\nforget in this connection what the _Tribune_ called our \"Curzonian\nstatescraft\" in the recent past.] without the necessary insight and\nsympathy into the people's points of view and ways of thought has been\nsent to posts of supreme authority.\n\nThere have been men of splendid capabilities for understanding and\nsympathizing with these points of view, men such as Sir James Outram, the\nBayard of India; Sir John Malcolm, Lord Elphinstone, Sir George Russell\nClerk, Lord Lawrence, Ovans, and many others, who helped forward the\nbetter understanding between England and India very greatly; and of these,\nOutram suffered grievous misrepresentations at the hands of his\nGovernment, Clerk was put aside, and Ovans had to stand his trial in\nEngland for an absolutely unjustifiable charge.\n\nWhenever the question of co-operation and sympathy comes up, as from time\nto time it does, between Englishmen and Indians, whether it is fifty or\nsixty years ago, in Newman's day or now in the year of grace 1909, with a\nfew honourable exceptions, the answer is identically the same. It is\npractically an unknown quantity. The East and West have not really met.\nStill the ranks of the service are absorbed by Englishmen; still, as all\neducated Indians protest, the \"true centre of gravity for India is in\nLondon\"; still India is unrepresented in the Viceroy's Executive Councils,\nand in Customs, Post, Survey, Telegraph, Excise, etc., and also in the\nCommissioned ranks of the Army; still, because district administration is\nto all intents and purposes not in existence, there is no compulsory\neducation for boys _and_ girls, though most educated Indians are very\nstrongly in favour of it.\n\nIt is not, it cannot be, because our eyes, as a nation, have been shut to\nthe fact of what the faults of our own administration have been in years\ngone by. If no one else had trumpeted them abroad, at least one man spoke\nout the whole truth and nothing but the truth about it in the last\ncentury: Francis, the great Social Reformer--Francis Newman, who was no\ntime-server, no prophesier of smooth things; but, as much as in him lay,\ndesired more than anything else to lay the whole unvarnished truth before\nhis fellow men, things that concerned the weaker members of the community.\nIn lecture after lecture he turned things to the \"rightabout-face\" which\nhad hitherto been done _sub ros\u00e2_ in India. He did in effect pull down the\nvery rose tree which had acted as such an efficient shelter. His bull's-\neye lantern always cast an uncompromising glare upon those sometimes very\n\"shady\" doings of our countrymen which characterized their treatment of\nnatives in the early Victorian era, and--occasionally perhaps, even since.\n\nNo one has forgotten, for instance, the words of Mr. Halliday, Lieutenant-\nGovernor of Bengal, when he described our police as a curse to India in\n1854.\n\nNewman reminded his countrymen that in 1852 a petition had been sent to\nthe House of Commons from Lower Bengal, \"among other grievous complaints,\"\nwhich \"stated that by reason of the hardships inflicted on witnesses, the\npopulation\" were averse from testifying to the ill-doings and tyranny of\nthese police.\n\nAgain, as regarded the courts of law in India, Newman reminded us of the\nrevelations contained in that volume by the Hon. Mr. Shore concerning our\nGovernment (the book which was withdrawn 1844).\n\nIt was there stated definitely that, until the days of Lord William\nBentinck, Persian was the only language used in these courts.\nConsequently, as neither judge, nor clerk, nor litigating party, nor\nperson accused, nor his witnesses understood it, it constantly happened\nthat the case was a veritable _reductio ad absurdum_. No one knew what was\nhappening until at last the man--if it was a case of murder--was shown\nthat the case had gone against him by being shown the gallows!\n\nIt is true _nous avons chang\u00e9 tout cela_, in these days, and the\nvernacular tongue is used instead, but now it is the judge who doesn't\nalways know accurately what is going on, for he cannot always understand\nwhat the witnesses are saying! As Newman says very shrewdly: \"If self-\nconfident, he trusts his own impressions; if timid, he leans on the\njudgment of his native clerk; if formal and pedantic, he believes all\nclear and coherent statements. His weaknesses are watched, and it is soon\nunderstood whether he is to be better managed by fees to the clerk, or by\nthe forging of critical evidence, in cases for which it is worth while.\nVery scandalous accounts have been printed in great detail ... and one\nthing is clear, that those Englishmen who have looked keenly into the\nmatter and dare to speak freely, believe justice to have a far worse\nchance in such tribunals than before native judges.\"\n\nFrancis Newman tells us that his own eyes were opened to the prevailing\nstate of things in those days, by \"a very intelligent, and widely informed\nindigo-planter.\" He told him that when he first began indigo-planting, his\npartner had given this emphatic rule of conduct: \"Never enter the\nCompany's Courts!\" And to his own amazed question as to what course of\naction was to be pursued when a difficulty arose, he clearly and openly\nexplained. \"If a native failed to pay us our dues, we never sued him, but\nsimply publicly seized some of his goods, sold them by auction, deducted\nour claim from the proceeds, and handed over to him the balance.\" There is\nsomething almost humorous in this travesty of an _amende honorable_ for so\nhighhanded a measure!\n\nOne may in very deed be thankful that since the day of all these\nhappenings, Indians _have_, as Mr. Gokhale tells us, \"climbed in the field\nof law, to the very top of the tree,\" and can now deal out first-hand\njustice to their fellow countrymen.\n\nI think I cannot give a fitter close to this chapter than by quoting\nNewman's suggestions as to measures of urgent importance with regard to\nour Indian Empire, which were made a little over forty years ago.\n\n\"The establishment of an Imperial Court in India to judge all causes....\nThe mark of a 'tyrant' (according to the Old Greeks) was his defence by a\nforeign body-guard: _we_ bear that mark of illegitimate sway at present.\n\n\"To make India loyal, to save the yearly sacrifice of health or life to\n10,000 young men, now the miserable victims of our army system, is so\nurgent an interest, that I put this topic foremost. Too much importance\ncan hardly be given to it. Each soldier is said to cost us \u00a3100; hence the\npecuniary expense also is vast. But until we restrain ourselves from\naggression, all attempts permanently to improve our millions at home must\nbe fruitless.... Our task is to rear India into political manhood, train\nit to English institutions, and rejoice when it can govern itself without\nour aid.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII\n\nVOTES FOR WOMEN\n\n\nThere is always a large percentage of people who range themselves on the\nside of the majority in regard to any question of the day. They range\nthemselves there not because of any principle involved, but simply and\nsolely because they consider this mode of action expedient. And they feel\nfar safer, far happier, taking the flabby, muscleless arm of Expediency\nthan in venturing into unknown difficulties behind the uncompromisingly\nstiff figure of Principle. But there are others-thank God for them!--who\nhate the shifty, cunning eye of Expediency far too much to have anything\nto do with him. These others would far rather be in the minority in\nchampioning some good cause than with the \"expedient\" majority.\n\nThese others are the pioneers of civilization. Sometimes--to-day we have\nmany cases in point as regards the social crusade of brave women against\ntaxation without representation--they are martyrs as well as pioneers. But\nthe splendid spirit of knight-errantry, which shone so vividly with the\nfire of enthusiasm in medieval days, is still abroad in our midst to-day.\nA few militant personalities fight for a great cause, a great principle--\nthe raising of a better moral tone amongst us, the betterment of the lives\nof their fellows. Newman was one of these. His sword was always in the\nthickest of the fight when it was a fight against some social injustice to\nhis fellow citizens. Forty years ago and more he spoke out in championship\nof woman's rights. So long ago as 1867 he led the movement which tilted at\nsocial wrongs, social injustices dealt out to the sex. It is a movement\nwhich has taken, as I said, more than half a century to make its way to\nthe position it holds to-day. It has been opposed bitterly almost every\ninch of the way by men who love expediency, and turn their backs on the\nprinciple of the thing; which is fair play for women. Nevertheless,\nEngland is a country which prides herself on her keen sense of justice and\nfreedom.\n\nIf Newman had done nothing else, his work for this movement would be\nunforgettable; his words were so outspoken, his way of dealing with the\nsubject so broad-minded. In one of his articles he urged the following on\nhis fellow men:--\"Readers of History, and Lawyers, are aware that women's\nwrongs are an ancient and terribly persistent fact.... Why has our law\nbeen so unjust to women?--Because women never had a voice in the making of\nit, and men as a class _have not realized the oppression of women as a\nclass_\" (the italics are my own). \"Men have deep in their hearts the idea\nthat women _ought_ to be their legal inferiors; that neither the persons\nof women nor their property ought to remain their own; that marriage is\nnot a free union on equal terms; and that the law ought to favour the\nstronger sex against the weaker. It is remarkable that our law is more\nunjust to women than that of the great historically despotic nations, and\nin some important respects less favourable than that of the Turks. All\nthese things point out that _equality of the sexes in respect to the\nParliamentary Franchise_ is essential to justice. The conscience of men is\nopening to the truth....\" \"Readers of newspapers cannot be ignorant of the\nmiseries endured by wives from brutal husbands. In ordinary decorous\nfamilies, sons at lavish expense are trained to self-support. The\n_daughters_ in one class have nothing spent on their education; in\nanother, are educated as elegant ornaments of a drawing-room, where they\nlive in luxury for a parent's delight; yet when he dies, and their youth\nis spent, they are often turned adrift into comparative poverty,\nincompetent for self-help. When complaint is made of this, the ascendant\nsex graciously tells them, 'they ought to marry,' and this in a country\nwhere women are counted by the hundred thousand more numerous than men;\nwhere also men do not universally accept the state of marriage. Meanwhile,\nthe law is made as if to dissuade the woman from such a remedy. If she\ndare to adopt it, it instantly strips her of all her property, great or\nlittle; [Footnote: Since then some amendment of the wrong has been done by\nthe \"Married Women's Property Act.\"] and if she earn anything, authorizes\nher husband to seize it by force. In the Marriage Service, the husband, as\nif in mockery, says, 'With all my worldly goods I thee endow': while the\nlaw allows him to gamble away her whole fortune the day after the\nmarriage, or to live in riotous indulgence on _her_ money, and give to her\nthe barest necessaries of life.... He may maliciously refuse her the sight\nof her own children.... And if to gain one sight of them she return to his\nhouse for two days, the law holds her to have 'condoned' all his offences\nhowever flagrant.\"\n\nMr. Haweis many years ago said a very significant thing. He said that the\nbest--if the rarest--men had always a good share of the woman nature in\nthemselves. Francis Newman was one of these men. He understood the woman's\npoint of view without any telling. He knew instinctively, intuitively, the\nmental cramp, the moral inability to rise to her full stature, which is\ninduced by man's perpetual effort to fit her into a measured mould\nprepared by himself. He knew that if \"a man's reach must exceed his grasp,\nor what's a heaven for?\" what a hell faced the woman who could not even\n_reach_ forward to fulfil all the many aims which she was conscious were\nstirring within her, longing for attainment. He had seen women, his\ncountrywomen, shake the bars behind which they faced their world for the\nvery passion of revolt against these man-set limits, which kept them in on\nevery side. He knew that, of all hard fates, perhaps few are more bitter\nthan to feel the power and ability within you to do some work as well as\nanother does it, and yet to have no freedom to use that power. To be\nforced, by man-made laws, to wrap up your talent in the napkin of legal\nred-tapeism, when everything within you, perhaps, urges you to turn it to\ngood account.\n\nLet us look for one moment at some of the legal disabilities of women to-\nday. Perhaps some of us are hardly aware to what an almost incredible\ndistance they reach.\n\nMr. Henry Schloesser, barrister-at-law of the Inner Temple, [Footnote: In\nhis pamphlet published by the Women's Social and Political Union.] very\nexplicitly explains how they affect women. \"At Common Law the father is\nentitled against the mother to the custody of the children, and this right\nhe could only forfeit by gross misconduct; so also he was entitled to\nprescribe their mode of education.... He remains _prima facie_ the\nguardian of his children, _to the exclusion of the mother_\" [the italics\nare my own]. \"Alone of the learned professions, the medical is open to\nwomen....\" (She constantly proves her aptitude to take the same honours as\nman as regards the others, but he still growls over his share and keeps\n_her_ out.) \"A husband is not bound at Common Law to cohabit with or\nmaintain his wife.\"\n\nThese facts show luridly against the sky of woman's world, but perhaps few\nmen know what purgatorial fires they light in many a woman's heart to-day.\nThey show that man's injustice to her does not only concern her in public\nlife, but even in the home life (to which he would fain limit her\nenergies); she has practically no legal status at all. She has not even a\nright to her own children in the eye of the law. Quite recently a judge\ndecided that \"a woman is not a parent in the eye of the law,\" and\ntherefore powerless in things relating to her children. She is excluded\nfrom the guardianship of them. Yet so curiously irrational is this same\nEnglish law that, should any woman wronged by a man become mother to an\nillegitimate child, upon her falls the whole onus of its maintenance until\nit is sixteen years old. The man gets off scot-free; for the world which\ncondones an offence (which is shared by both) in the case of the man,\ncondemns it in the _woman_.\n\nThus, as Mr. Thomas Johnston [Footnote: _The Case for Woman's Suffrage_,\nby Thomas Johnston. Published by the Women's Social and Political Union.]\nvery clearly puts it: \"Where there is any stigma or blame, the woman bears\nit alone.... Under the law of England to-day a man can secure divorce by\nsimply proving the unfaithfulness of his wife. But the wife, in order to\nobtain a divorce from her husband for the same unfaithfulness, must, in\naddition, prove cruelty or desertion.\" This in itself is very one-sided\nlaw, and certainly indefensible.\n\nFrancis Newman describes this law in no measured terms. He declares in his\narticle on \"Marriage Laws\" (1867) that what undeniably needs reform in our\ncountry's government is \"the extravagant power given by our law to a\nhusband.... The exclusive right attributed to him over the children is\nunjust and pernicious. His rights over his wife's person [Footnote:\nAccording to English law, as evidenced in a recent case, the wife is _not_\n\"a person\" at all; presumably, therefore, she is simply his chattel!] are\nextreme and monstrous.... We need a single short, sweeping enactment that,\n_notwithstanding anything to the contrary in past statutes, no woman\nhenceforth shall by marriage change her legal status or lose any part of\nher rights over property_....\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"We implore all true and genuine Conservatives not to delay and use half-\nmeasures, but to do justice to the sex in good time. He who tries to\nuphold injustice is the true and efficient revolutionist, while he thinks\nhe is Conservative.\"\n\nHe goes on to touch thus on what is perhaps the most cruel injustice of\nall--that the law permits a man to deprive his wife of the children, who,\nbefore God, are as equally hers as his:--\n\n\"Not only with regard to _property_, also in regard to _children_, the law\nis unjust to women. The mother has to undergo much in bringing a child to\nmaturity--the agony of childbirth... the countless cares of tending and\nwatching by night and day. The child becomes the darling of her heart, the\nimage of her dreams, the great centre of her thoughts and hopes; and after\nall her toils, the law permits a husband to take the child permanently out\nof her sight, and (if he choose) to put it under the charge of an enemy\n... who will fill its mind with falsehoods and teach it to hate and\ndespise its mother. Such things are not possibilities merely and dreams;\nthey are stern realities, and the law gives her no redress.\"\n\nWhen one thinks of all that these words mean, one is face to face with the\nalmost unthinkable fact that the case of the woman in England is unjust\nbeyond description, and for this reason, that, as Newman says, \"Men, who\nalone make the laws, make them with but little account of woman.\" At home\nwith her children she is defenceless. She has no power over them, and her\nhusband is not bound to \"maintain\" her, notwithstanding the sentence,\nwhich English law has made absolutely meaningless, of his marriage vow to\nher: \"With all my worldly goods I thee endow.\"\n\nIn the world, if she have no husband or be unmarried, she is not a\n\"person\" in a legal sense; and during election time her house is\ndescribed, in canvassing for votes, as having \"no occupier\"! In the world,\ntoo, she is unable to obtain a fair wage for her work. She may do the work\nas well as man, but nevertheless, in most cases, her pay is less. Mr.\nJohnston tells us that the average male worker's wage has been calculated\nto be about 18s., but the average woman worker's wage is only about 7s.\nAnd when women find out these many injustices suffered at home and in the\nworld by their sex, as Miss Christabel Pankhurst says, they are absolutely\nunable to right these wrongs, for \"women have no political power.\"\n\nHere is the pivot round which the wrongs of women revolve--her lack of\nlegal status, her voicelessness as regards the laws of her country, the\ncountry which is so openly irrational as to count her a \"person\" when it\nwants to get a tax out of her, but refuses to do so at any other time when\nshe has something to ask of it in return!\n\nOnce the parliamentary vote is given to women, the same results would\nfollow in England as have followed elsewhere. Wages and hours of labour\nare made just for women, as in many respects they have been now made for\nmen. The laws of divorce are the same. Mothers are made joint guardians of\ntheir children with their fathers. The age of protection for girls is\nraised to 18. [Footnote: At the present moment, by the English law, a girl\ncan contract a valid marriage at twelve years of age; a boy at fourteen.\n(See _Legal Status of Women_, by H. H. Schloesser.)] In New South Wales,\nafter the women were given the vote, Dr. Mackellar brought in a bill to\ndeal with the protection of illegitimate children, which has answered\nadmirably; while in New Zealand and Australia the Wages Board, which the\nwomen's vote helped to pass, has raised in both countries the wages of\nwomen from 5s. to l6s. per week for the same amount of work done. And in\nother respects it has abolished sweating--that crucial question of crucial\nquestions in England to-day.\n\nThere is another point, too, amongst many others, in which the vote helped\nthe national life in Australia in the giving of old age pensions. Perhaps\nhad women the vote here in England, the shameful system in which old men\nand women are separated in the last years of their life, as the workhouses\nordain, would be altered. And this is a question which demands immediate\nattention--_immediate_ attention; for more than \u00a326,000,000 are paid by\ntaxpayers each year to be spent in great part on our wretched system of\npoor laws.\n\nFrancis Newman was strongly against poor laws administered as they are in\nEngland to-day, as, indeed, is every thoughtful man. He was also strongly\nof opinion that there should be women on juries in some cases. And indeed\nit is a fact that women magistrates, as well as women jurors, are most\ncertainly a _sine qu\u00e2 non_ in those cases where, at the present moment,\nowing to juries being composed of men only, common justice for the\nunrepresented Englishwoman in relation with the other sex is not, in a\ngreat proportion of cases, rendered her. But even were women made eligible\nfor these offices, it would be no new thing, for in Mary Tudor's reign\nthere were two women appointed justices of the peace; and, of course,\nalways there has been a provision in law for \"a jury of matrons\" in\ncertain cases.\n\nIndeed, when one goes far enough back in research into most questions, the\ninvariable lesson, is taught us, which we are always so reluctant, in our\ncocksureness of the \"antiquity\" of our present-day conditions of life, to\nlearn, and we find that our arrangements very often are _not_ \"as it was\nin the beginning,\" but only mushroom growths of a decade or two. As Mrs.\nWolstenholme Elmy very justly says in her recent pamphlet on \"Woman's\nFranchise,\" women possessed voting rights from time immemorial, and the\nyear 1832 was the year when they were dispossessed of many ancient rights\nby the Reform Act passed in that year.\n\nAs regards other disabilities of women, Francis Newman wrote very fully\nand very strongly upon them, and it is impossible to leave them\nunmentioned here. In 1869 he wrote: \"There is one important matter which\nyoung men need specially to be taught, viz. that at no time of life is any\nman ... exempt from the essential duty of curbing animal impulses....\nNothing so paralyzes his force of Will as to be told that some men have\nfrom God the gift of continence, and _others have it not_. This doctrine\nis disastrously prominent in the Anglican marriage service, and is\nborrowed from St. Paul. But that great and deep-hearted apostle was\nunmarried and without personal experience. He writes, not as one revealing\nsupernatural communications, _but as imparting his best wisdom_.... A\ngeneral and just inference is, that a firm self-restraint is necessary and\nsalutary for every man.\"\n\nIt is impossible to write more strongly and clearly of the wickedness of\nwomen's ancestral personal rights being swept away than does Newman in\narticles published in the fourth volume of his _Miscellanies_. He does not\ndisguise the shameful state of the law as it affects woman to-day, and as\nit is carried out by Government--that law which makes wrongdoing so easy\nand unpunishable for man, and so hard and unjust to woman. The\nunjustifiableness of certain laws was shown up with no uncertain pen by\nhim. He was himself convinced of their iniquity; and once convinced, he\nstood forward as a modern John the Baptist, spared no one, and\npassionately accused his countrymen of the injustice, immorality, and\ncruelty of their making one law for men and another for women. He\ninveighed against the world's point of view of this subject: and this not\nonce, nor twice, but constantly; and urged with all his might that these\nwrongs to his countrywomen should be righted. Nevertheless his articles,\nmany of them, are forgotten. The dust of neglect is lying thick upon them\non many an unused shelf to-day. His voice has long been silent; and no\ndoubt it has been said of him (as it was by a Church dignitary of Father\nDolling at his death): \"We shan't be worried any more by _him_ now about\nthe righting of social abuses.\" Laws against which Newman declaimed are\nnot altered yet, and we are a long way from those far-reaching reforms he\nadvocated. But the words he wrote are not dead. They are in our midst to-\nday, and they stir depths to-day in the hearts of his countrymen in\nsuggestions towards social reformation; towards the righting of wrongs\njust as glaring to-day as they were a century ago. Questions which can\nnever be put superficially aside, by men who, like Newman, cannot endure\nto leave a social wrong unredressed, if they can by any searching find the\nremedy.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII\n\nFRANCIS NEWMAN AND HIS RELIGION\n\n\nMore than one person has said to me in connection with this memoir: \"If\nthe whole of Frank Newman's heterodox religious opinions be not given, the\nbook will lose half its point.\"\n\nTo my mind there are quite two, if not more, sides to this question. My\nstrongest argument, however, in favour of only dealing briefly with them\nis this: It is quite true that Agnosticism more or less held its sway over\nhim during the years between 1834 and 1879. I am quite aware of how\ntremendous a slice that is of a man's life. But it is not an overwhelming\ntestimony when one comes to look at it not from the worldly point of view.\n\nThere are periods in which Time--as Time--seems almost beside the mark. \"A\nthousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday.\" When the Israelites had\nonce achieved their journey through the wilderness--nay, even through the\nearlier time of tyranny amongst the Egyptians-I suppose the actual years\nseemed as a dream _when one awaketh_.\n\nI myself have known forty years pass, for someone afflicted with a\nterrible mental disability, as a watch in the night, once light pierced\nthrough the clouds of the long-darkened mental vision. Time, as sex, is\npurely temporary. In this present world we cannot do without either, but\nwhen Time itself passes for good, the old implements which were necessary\nto make the clock go round will pass likewise.\n\nSo, in Newman's case, when that tremendous slice in a man's life--forty-\nfive years--was overpast, he sloughed off the old garments of Agnosticism,\nand came back to the Christian faith professed by him in early childhood\nso conscientiously--and, indeed, up to the year after his missionary\njourney, 1834.\n\nThis fact influences me largely in the matter of dealing only briefly with\nthe time-as regards his religious professions--which lies between these\ntwo dates, and for these reasons, which I hope to prove, carry\nconsiderable weight.\n\nThe first is that people are mistaken in considering that it was his\nreligious opinions which made Newman great. The real valour of his life\nwas shown in the splendid aspects of Social Reform which he showed to the\nworld; the way of the New Citizenship, of the New Patriotism, which he was\nfor ever preaching and writing about. He was the Perseus of To-day whose\nwholehearted efforts were spent in freeing the Andromedas from their\nantiquated bonds and fetters; whose good sword was ever pointed at the\nthroats of the dragons which lift their ugly heads against freedom--\nagainst reforms of all sorts; the dragons who take so long in dying.\n\nBut there are many who will regret bitterly that a man who served his\ngeneration so splendidly as he did in these matters should ever have\nwritten a book such as the _Phases of Faith_; for though it is undeniably\nclever, yet it is not convincing; and very much of it is very painful\nreading for those who do not care to wander out of the way in the\nwilderness of religious speculation and doubt.\n\nNewman declares in this book that he did not give up Christianity; yet he\ngave up all that made Christianity Christianity. He said in it that he was\nlooking for a \"religion which shall combine the tenderness, humility, and\ndisinterestedness that are the glories of the purest Christianity, with\nthat activity of intellect and untiring pursuit of truth.\" [Footnote: He\nsaid once he wished for a religion which should combine the best out of\nall religions in the world.]\n\nWhen he mentions that, in his time, \"of young men at Oxford not one in\nfive seemed to have any convictions at all,\" he seems to imply that it was\non account of the desire for a new religion; whereas it was far more\ntraceable to the after-effects of Calvinism and Puritanism, which have\nstuck, as spiritual limpets, to England's religious rocks ever since they\nfirst reached them. They are certainly looser in their hold than was the\ncase formerly, but they are there still.\n\n_Phases of Faith_ was published in 1850. But the year before a book of far\nmore religious suggestiveness had come out, though that too was a book of\nopposition to the accepted forms of religion, _The Soul: its Sorrows and\nAspirations_.\n\nRegarded as a work postulating a new spiritual point of view, it was vague\nand unsatisfying. It was without form and void. It desired that most\nunsatisfying thing, a religion with no dogmas:--those stakes which\npreserve the ground on which grow the flowers of religious truth, from\nthose who come but to spoil and destroy.\n\nYet, with all its lack of convincing power, and those parts of it which\nare, like _Phases of Faith_, painful reading and profitless--to\nChristians--there are here and again striking passages such as this, whose\nbeauty cannot fail to appeal to us: \"None can enter the kingdom of Heaven\nwithout becoming a little child. But behind and after this there is a\nmystery revealed to but few; namely, if the Soul is to go on into higher\nspiritual blessedness, it must become a _woman_. Yes, however manly thou\nbe among men, it must learn to love being dependent; must lean on God, not\nsolely from distress and alarm, but because it does not like independence\nor loneliness.... God is _not_ a stern Judge; exacting every tittle of\nsome law from us.... He does not act towards us (spiritually) by\ngeneralities ... but His perfection consists in dealing with each case by\nitself as if there were no other....\" And again: \"The Bible is a blessed\nbook if we do not stifle the Holy Spirit within us.\"\n\nThe second reason why I touch on these religious opinions (before\nmentioned) but briefly, is because of my own _strong impression_ since I\nhave been writing this memoir, that in that next chapter of existence upon\nwhich Newman has now entered, he may not impossibly be nearer the Light,\nthe religious truth, which here he so earnestly sought, but mistakenly;\nand in his regret for his own phases of religious unfaith, now cast aside,\nmay not wish them to be recapitulated anew. There is a certain pathetic\nsentence of his, in a letter in later life, which seems to give a certain\namount of confirmation to this idea: \"It is a sad thing to have printed\nerroneous fact. I have three or four times contradicted and renounced the\npassage ... _but I cannot reach those whom I have misled_.\"\n\nI have mentioned before that Francis Newman returned to his earlier faith\nin Christianity a few years before his death.\n\nIt remains, therefore, to give the proofs which have been put into my\nhands regarding this fact.\n\nTwo of his very greatest friends, Anna Swanwick and Dr. Martineau,\nreceived from his own hands the knowledge that he wished it to be known\nthat he died a Christian. I shall give a quotation from one of Newman's\nlast letters to the former, from Miss Bruce's _Memoir of Recollections of\nAnna Swanwick_. In almost illegible writing, he says:--\n\n\"If I live through this year, I hope to effect, by aid of a friend's eyes,\na third ... edition of my _Paul of Tarsus_, with grateful acknowledgment\nthat, in spite of a few details, I more and more come round to the\nsubstance of the views of my honoured friend, James Martineau. Also I\nclose by my now sufficient definition of a Christian--'one, who in heart,\nand steadily, is a disciple of Jesus in upholding the prayer called the\nLord's Prayer as the highest and purest in any known national religion.' I\nthink J. M. will approve this.\"\n\nI should also like to add Miss Bruce's own words in this connection:--\n\n\"He\" (Newman) \"was drawn back at the end of his long life by the sweet\nreasonableness and loving sympathy of his friend Anna Swanwick, and the\nteaching of Dr. Martineau.\"\n\nAlso these words from a letter written by Anna Swanwick: \"It is delightful\nto me to think how, when the veil shall have fallen from the eyes of our\nfriend\" (F. W. Newman), \"he will love and venerate Him in Whose footsteps\nhe is unconsciously treading.\" Yet I must add here that in a letter from\nNewman to Anna Swanwick (to which I had access) in 1897, there is no\ndefinite statement of his belief in Immortality. \"If God gives me\nimmortality, I am content. If it pleases Him to annihilate me, it is well.\nLet Him do with me as seemeth to Him good.\"\n\nAs regards Dr. Martineau's statement, I quote now from a letter received\nby me from Mr. William Tallack, who gave me particulars of a letter\nwritten in 1903, by Mr. W. Garrett Horder, on a meeting he had with Dr.\nMartineau:--\n\n\"Not more than three or four years before his death I was sitting in an\nomnibus at Oxford Circus, when Dr. Martineau, accompanied by his daughter,\ngot in and took seats by my side. After I had confessed my pleasure at\nseeing him, he said, 'I think you ought to know that the other day I had a\nletter from Frank Newman saying that, when he died, he wished it to be\nknown that he died in the Christian faith.'\"\n\nTo my mind these strong assertions that Newman wished it known that he\n\"died a Christian,\" which he wrote to two of his closest friends, speak\nfor themselves.\n\nThere was also another, Rev. J. Temperley Grey, who visited Newman\nconstantly in his last illness, and who said of his final conversion these\nwords, in the \"In Memoriam\" address he gave at Newman's funeral:--\n\n\"Of late his\" (Newman's) \"attitude towards Christ had undergone a great\nchange. He confessed to me only very recently that for years he had held\non to Christianity by the skirts of S. Paul; 'but now,' he said, 'Paul is\nless and less, and Christ is more and more.' He made this statement with\nan emphasis and an emotion which conveyed the impression that he wished it\nto be regarded as a final testimony.\"\n\nTo those of us who are Christians these are strong words, showing clearly\nwhere, in his last illness and failing strength, he had turned for final\nhelp.\n\nSome have called Francis Newman an atheist. But he was no atheist. A\ntheist for many years he was: but it was because he was unable to\nreconcile certain historical difficulties, or to get rid of certain\nearlier Calvinistic tendencies, or to accept certain dogmas which seemed\nto him impossible of acceptation, and in this last respect he is certainly\nnot alone.\n\nMr. Temperley Grey's testimony to Newman as a fellow townsman, during his\nlast days at Weston-super-Mare (he died 6th Oct., 1897), shows him to us\nas a man who _acted_ to his fellow men, and women, as a Christian should,\nalthough he did not, till near the end, _believe_ as one.\n\n\"Without depreciating in the least his illustrious brother, it may truly\nbe said that while the one was a saint in the cloister, the other was a\nsaint in the very thick of life's battle. [Footnote: \"Henry Newman...\nstood for a spiritual Tory; while Francis Newman was a spiritual Radical\"\n(_Morning Leader_, October, 1897).] ... I would speak of him rather as the\nneighbour and townsman who moved to and fro among us ... and whom,\ndistrusting at first, we ultimately reverenced and loved for his nobility\nof character, his simplicity of life, his tenderness of conscience, his\ndevoutness of spirit, and his generosity of heart.\n\n\"Theologically we were far apart, but we were entirely with him in his\nenthusiasm for righteousness, his sympathy with downtrodden and oppressed\npeoples.... We were with him also in his untiring efforts to secure for\nwomen their rightful place in the shaping of our national life, and in his\nsplendid protests against the tortures inflicted in the name of science on\nthe poor, helpless animals, our dumb brothers. To hear the old man\neloquently discourse upon these themes was to be morally uplifted....\nThose of us who were admitted into the inner circle of his friends were\nprofoundly impressed by his devoutness. He lived as in the Presence of\nGod, and his prayers in the home, so simple, so trustful, so reverential,\nwere always a means of grace, a real refreshment.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"He was a true philanthropist. He championed the cause of the oppressed\neverywhere.... A room in his house was set apart as a guest-chamber for\npersons needing a change to the seaside, but whose circumstances barred\nthe way; and not a few were fresh equipped for the work and battle of\nlife, as a result of his thoughtful hospitality.... Francis Newman stood\nby himself in his greatness, his goodness, his simplicity, and we shall\nnot find his like again.... Above all, our friend was a truth seeker. This\nwas the ruling passion of his life.\"\n\nMrs. Temperley Grey tells me that it was always Newman's first wife's\ngreat hope that her husband should be the means, through his ministrations\nduring the last part of Newman's life, of leading him back to his original\nfaith. Mrs. Newman used deeply to regret Newman's lack of definite belief,\nbut always said when the subject was raised, \"Cannot they understand that\nmy husband is under a cloud--a mist, as it were?\" Both the brothers, the\nCardinal and Francis Newman, through the greater part of their lives had\nbeen restlessly searching for truth--for certainty--in their faith.\nCalvinism had been the black cloud under which they had both been brought\nup. If the _obiter dictum_ of a celebrated Cardinal in the Roman Church be\ncorrect: \"Give _me_ the child till he is seven years old, and he will be a\nJesuit all his life,\" then indeed it shows the tremendous power of habit,\nfor it was only through much tribulation, through passionate inward\nwrestlings with those terrible tenets, and through many searchings of\nheart, that either brother made his way out of its toils at length. The\nCardinal sought above all things Truth, through authority; no one will\nforget those soul-stirring words of his in his _Apologia pro Vit\u00e2 Su\u00e2_ in\nwhich he speaks of the great peace that at last quieted his doubts and\nfears when he was received into the Roman Church. To many of us Authority\n_is_ the life-buoy which supports us \"o'er crag and torrent till the night\nis gone\"; but Francis Newman could not believe in it. \"Authority is the\nbane,\" he would say, \"of religion.\" He must see with his intellectual\neyes, to be saved. He must see and touch Truth for himself; his\nintellectual self must be convinced, or he must stand outside the creeds\nhe knew--a questioner still.\n\nBut he was honest and open in his aloofness. Did it mean loss of a\ndistinguished brilliant worldly career (as it did at Oxford in 1830)?\nWell, then the career _must_ be lost, for he could not bring himself to\nsign to doctrines which he did not believe. Did it mean unpopularity, that\nhe held certain views on Social Reform? Well, rather than compromise,\nrather than temporize, he _would_ stand out alone rather than yield an\niota of what he held to be the true Progressive Aims for People and Land.\nOnly--and this was a flaw, and no small one either--he often wrote his\nreligious opinions so openly as to pain his readers. In many of his\nletters which I have read there are expressions relating to the religious\ndogmas held by his correspondents which are bluntly, unrestrainedly,\nbitterly used. It is true that often, at the close of a letter, there\nfollows a hope that he had not hurt his friends' feelings; but that he\nmust, at all costs, be open as to his own beliefs. But that apology only\ncame as an after-thought, as it were as an attempt to dress the wound\nwhich he himself had made, and is quite unable to do away with the\nimpression produced by the written word. _Litera scripta manet_.\n\nIn writing on \"The National Church\" thirty-three years after he had\nrefused to sign the Thirty-nine Articles, he said, with emphasis,\n\"Truthfulness of the _individual_ man is essential to moral worth; but for\nthis very reason the _system_ of the Church must be lax in order to allow\ntruthfulness to individuals.\" This is curious reasoning, and subversive of\nthe idea of Unity. Still, as no one can deny that as Life implies\nProgression, so as regards the Churches, the inspired words that they\nshould be \"led into all truth\" surely allow for progression also into\nhigher regions of knowledge and methods of teaching. To allow for this\nspirit of progression Newman held that a State Church should not be tied\ndown to fixed conditions. \"No general Church system will go so far as the\nforemost minds.... All the moderate and wisest historians of the Anglican\nChurch have extolled its foundations. They have judged that, take it as a\nwhole, the Reformation went as far as the collective nation was then able\nto go.\" That it \"was necessary to reform it in the sixteenth century in\norder to harmonize it with the higher intelligence of the best minds, so\nfar as could be done without making it useless to the inferior minds.\" All\nthis has a certain truth, but when all is said, the fact forces itself\nupon one that after all it is a matter for debate whether the Reformation\nwas a \"progressive\" movement at all: whether it did not in reality delay\nprogression. For it is well known to-day that it was really managed by the\nmachinations of one of the most selfish and unprincipled of kings\n[Footnote: Whose conduct at this time largely hinged on the refusal of the\nPope to grant him his wished-for divorce from Katherine.]--who was only\nprogressive in the matter of wives--and by his ministers, who were, many\nof them, men of vile characters and greed. As to motive, it is very patent\nto-day what _that_ was. It was that of the man who covets his neighbour's\ngoods, i.e. the lands and moneys of the monasteries and churches, and who\nwhitewashes his sin when his desire is satisfied. There is besides\nsufficient proof to-day that the great bulk of the unrepresented nation\ndid _not_ regard this act of wholesale robbery as \"lawful and necessary,\"\nnor that it \"harmonized\" the Church \"with the higher intelligence of the\nbest minds.\"\n\nTo the end of his life (from his Oxford days to his death), of course,\nNewman was never greatly in sympathy with the Anglican Church. He did not,\neven at the end, own himself bound by her dogmas or obedient to her\nconditions. To go further into the question is, I think, not desirable\nhere. It is enough to say that though _he was outside the visible Church_,\nyet he was, in life and spirit, \"not far off\". As was said of Stanley, \"he\nbelieved more than he knew.\" His \"life was in the right,\" though his\ndoubts and rationalism led him into unbeliefs, which only at the close of\nhis long life he renounced. And he had a far deeper longing for religious\ntruth than have many conventional Churchmen.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX\n\nLAST YEARS, CHARACTERISTICS, AND SOME LETTERS RELATING TO THE _EARLY LIFE\nOF THE CARDINAL_\n\n\nIt will be remembered that Francis Newman retired from his official duties\nat University College in 1863, with the title Emeritus Professor. As most\nof us are aware, this word \"Emeritus\" was originally given to Roman\nsoldiers who had served out their term and been discharged, on the\nunderstanding of being given a settled sum of money which was practically\nthe equivalent of our English half-pay. The term is now used to designate\na professor who has been \"honourably relieved\" of his office, either\nbecause of physical disability or on account of a term of long service\nfulfilled. It is, in effect, a retiring pension.\n\nAs will have been seen by letters from Newman which precede this chapter,\nhe retired from the office of Professor, but in no sense from his work of\nwriting, studying, and lecturing. The enormous number of books published\nwill testify to this. His five volumes of _Miscellanies_, his\n_Reminiscences of Two Exiles, Europe of the Near Future_, translation of\nthe _Odes of Horace_, [Footnote: Which did not meet with the approval of\nMatthew Arnold.] _Handbook and Dictionary of Modern Arabic, Kabail\nVocabulary, Libyan Vocabulary, Text of the Iguvine Inscriptions, Christian\nCommonwealth, History of the Hebrew Monarchy, Hebrew Theism, Early Life of\nCardinal Newman, Anglo-Saxon Abolition of Negro Slavery_, not to mention\nmany others, alone show how writing largely filled his days and occupied\nhis mind.\n\nBesides all this work, however, he was for ever interesting himself in any\ncause or society which applied to him for help, or seemed in any way to\nneed a champion. Indeed, as Mr. Hornblower Gill says of him, \"Scholar,\ntranslator, mathematician, historian, political economist, political\nphilosopher, moralist, theologian, philanthropist, he was the most copious\nand various writer of his time.\"\n\nFor a great many years before he died Newman lived at Weston-super-Mare.\nBut two years before his death, in October, 1897, when he was ninety-two\nyears of age, he found himself, partly owing to senile decay and partly\nowing to a bad fall he had had in the spring of the year, and also to loss\nof eyesight, unable to take part in public affairs any longer, nor yet to\nwrite as he had been used to do.\n\nThe unpublished article on \"Land Nationalization\" (which is printed in\nthis volume) came into the hands of Mr. William Jameson (to whose kindness\nI am indebted for it) in 1886, at which time he was Hon. Secretary of the\nLand Nationalization Society, and Francis Newman, Vice-President.\n\nMr. Jameson, at the time of sending me the article, wrote me a letter from\nwhich I shall here quote those parts relating to his friendship with\nNewman. He says, speaking of their first meeting: \"There was an instant\nfellowship that endears his memory to me. I was then about thirty-five,\nand he past eighty. There was a quiet dignity in his manner, but no\nsuggestion of _old age_.\"\n\nOne little anecdote may be of interest.\n\n\"We left a rather stormy committee meeting together, over which Professor\nNewman had presided. The _storm_ was due to one member who had a grievance\nagainst some others. Speaking of the pity of this, Professor Newman said\nto me, 'You know how very strongly my brother and myself differ in\nopinion; yet this has never created the _slightest personal discord_....'\"\n\nSeveral years later. Professor Newman wrote Mr. Jameson a letter (on\nfinding out that he was suffering from overwork and the fear of subsequent\nbreakdown), saying these strong words of sympathy: \"I charge you to give\nit up. Save yourself for the years to come.\" He went on to say that a\nfriend of his own had kept working on for some cherished cause at the cost\nof much mental pressure, and had ended his days in a lunatic asylum. Mr.\nJameson adds that Newman's words of counsel have often and often rung in\nhis ears since they were first said to him, and he attributes to the fact\nthat he obeyed them, his having been saved from a physical breakdown.\n\n\"Save yourself for the years to come\" is a counsel which we, who are\nworkers, are so often in danger of forgetting. Except in extreme youth,\nmost men and women live far more in the present and in the past than they\ndo in the future which lies before them, so largely to be carved into\nshape by their Present.\n\nIn April, 1887, Sir Samuel Walker Griffith, G.C.M.G., Chief Justice of\nQueensland since 1893, Secretary for Public Instruction, Attorney-General\nfrom 1874-8, 1890-3, Premier of Queensland from 1883-8, and 1890-3, was\nover in England, and Francis Newman was to have been introduced by Mrs.\nBucknall (mother of Mrs. Bainsmith, the distinguished sculptor [Footnote:\nMrs. Georgina Bainsmith, F.N.B.A., member of the Royal Society of Arts,\nand of the Honorary Council of the North British Academy.] to whom I am\nindebted for the photo in this book of her bust of Francis Newman, which\nnow stands in University College, London) to Sir Samuel, at the latter's\nown special desire. Unfortunately, Newman was unable to go with Mrs.\nBucknall to Sir Samuel Griffith's house, and this is his letter (kindly\nlent me, with Sir Samuel Griffith's reply, by Mrs. Bucknall).\n\n\n\"Dear Mrs. Bucknall,\n\n\"Since you tell me that time presses, I have no way but to give up to you\nmy private copy of (_my_) Christian Commonwealth, which I now send you.\nVery sorry I am that I could not accompany you on Sunday to Sir Samuel\nGriffith's, but learning from you how graciously such a visitor from the\nAntipodes expressed his desire to meet me, I am really sorry that I was\nnot able in person to attest my deep reverence and admiration as well as\naffection for Mrs. Butler, and my conviction that only moral and spiritual\ninfluences can quell the demon of impurity, while the _despair_ which\ntries to keep it within limits by moderation and indulging it, is a folly\nand an infatuation, especially when coupled with police licenses and\npolice espionage. Our ladies since 1869 have learned to detest the\ndespotic police and the despotic doctor with an intensity which time ever\nincreases.\n\n\"They must conquer at last: the sole question is,--after how much more\nmoral damage to young men and women, and how much mental agony to our\nChristian martyrs.\n\n\"Our young men happily are joining this crusade. Alas, for those who mean\nto be Christian, and do not know the elements of Christian sentiment.\n[Footnote: See \"Marriage Laws\" (1867), \"State Provision for Vice\" (1869),\nand \"Remedies for the Great Social Evil\" (1869), in Vol. III of F. W.\nNewman's _Miscellanies_.]\n\n\"I look to you to apologize for me to Sir S. G, for offering to him a book\nwritten by me... one which my pen has defaced....\n\n\"Most truly yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\n\"Weston-s.-M., _19th April_, 1887.\"\n\n\nThis is Sir Samuel Griffith's answer:--\n\n\n\"Brown's Hotel,\n\"Dover Street, W.,\n\"_21st April_, 1887.\n\n\"Dear Mrs. Bucknall,\n\n\"Accept my best thanks for Professor Newman's writings on the _Christian\nCommonwealth_ and the _New Crusade_. I really feel ashamed to deprive you\nof the latter, and Professor Newman of the former, but it would be most\nungracious of me to refuse to accept them.\n\n\"Pray assure him that the value of the copy of the _Christian\nCommonwealth_ is to be much enhanced by the fact that it bears his\nautograph notes, and that I feel deeply honoured by the terms in which he\nhas been good enough to express himself in his note to you, which I have\nread with great interest and which I enclose. I shall always regret that I\nhad not the honour and pleasure of meeting him at Weston, but my time was\ntoo short....\n\n\"Believe me,\n\"Yours very faithfully,\n\n\"S. W. Griffith.\"\n\n\nMr. and Mrs. Frederick Pennington were great friends of Newman's, and he\noften stayed with them from time to time. By the kindness of Mrs.\nPennington I am able to quote from some letters written by him in 1881-90,\nand one much earlier, in 1875, in which he laments the death of Mrs.\nBlackburn. Mrs. Blackburn was a sister of Mr. Pennington's, and one of the\nmost munificent of contributors to the United Kingdom Alliance in its\nearly days, who (I am told by Mrs. Pennington) often denied herself many\nluxuries in order to be able to make her contributions larger. She\ndescribes her as one of the best women she had ever known.\n\nNewman, in his letter to Mr. Pennington in 1875, says of Mrs. Blackburn:--\n\n\"I have known her ever since Michaelmas 1869, when the revelation was\nfirst made to us of the Contagious Diseases Act; and at the Congress of\nSocial Science at Bristol she was pleased to receive my hospitality. My\nesteem for her was great and ever increasing....\"\n\nHe goes on to say that his dread of cold and chills makes him fear a long\njourney, \"though it is mortifying to me not to meet you and Mrs.\nPennington, and many other earnest friends of this very important cause.\"\n\nIn 1881 Gladstone was Prime Minister, and stayed in office for five years.\nFor almost the whole of this time the country was hardly ever at peace.\nThe Transvaal rebellion was started in 1880 and later our own troops were\ndefeated by the insurrectionists; whereupon the Government promptly\nsurrendered the Transvaal.\n\nAbout this time Newman writes to Mrs. Pennington:\n\n\"_I am not a member of Cambridge University, nor indeed of Oxford\nUniversity since 1830. If I had kept my name on the book, I should have\npaid \u00a36 a year, if I remember; that is, \u00a3300 in these fifty years; and as\nI never took my M.A. degree (because of the 39 Articles), I should even\nthen have no vote.\n\n\"I now act on the fixed rule _not to take any long journey in the winter\nmonths_, except from real duty. Experience guides me, and I refuse even\npressure from very friendly quarters.... I am melancholy about this\nCabinet and Mr. Gladstone, and ashamed to be an Englishman. All comes to\nme like a domestic calamity. And Parliament is so overworked that\n_English_ misrule cannot be corrected. I look on _Ministers in the House_\nas nearly our worst nuisance. But I must not begin on our defective and\nevil institutions....\"\n\nThen in 1890 the letters begin more and more to show a change in his\nhandwriting. He no longer wrote in his original firm, clear style, but in\na crabbed, cramped manner. His words now were often difficult to decipher,\nand the letters of the words very shaky and undecided, bearing witness\nvery plainly of the trembling hand of Age. After mentioning the immense\nnumber of letters which he had to answer, and how the trouble of replying\nwas almost beyond his strength, he says, \"The sister-like affection of my\nhonoured friend Anna Swanwick has ... again and again won me to London;...\nbut the place seems never to agree with me. Partly the whirl by night and\nday, I suppose, is my bane; still more, the endless meeting of fresh and\nfresh small talk, with the fatigue of _listening_, and the impression on\nmy brain of miscellaneous memories when I ought to sleep. In Oxford, from\nlike causes, I became as it were 'daft,' and from forgetfulness of the\nright words could not complete an English sentence. A like affection came\non me in London last summer, and I had to break away suddenly, to the\ndisappointment of friends, because my own sense of _idiotcy_ was\nunbearable. Rest and sleep sufficed to restore me when I reached home. The\ninability to get out the right word, if (for instance) _suddenly_ asked\n'to what station I am going,' is enough to make me seem insane or half\nasleep.... I am increasingly aware that my _brain_ is my weakest part....\nOn the whole I am healthy, and agile in all movement as are few men of my\nage (two doctors fancy that _all_ men of eighty-five have pulses as\n_disorderly_ as mine!)....\"\n\n[Illustration: CARDINAL NEWMAN\nFROM AN OIL PAINTING BY MISS DEANE, OF BATH.\nPHOTO BY MESSRS. WEBSTER, CLAPHAM COMMON]\n\nAs regards the work on the _Early Life of the Cardinal_, which was\npublished at this time, he says:--\n\n\"I am (_under a sense of duty_) writing concerning the late Cardinal quite\na different side of his character from that which for fifty years the\npublic have heard. I knew him as eminently generous as to money, but so\nfanatical as to embarrass judgment of his character. Another weakness I\nconfess and _lament_. I can write large. I begin everything with\nresolution so to write. But as soon as I think only of the substance, and\nforget the manner, my writing so dwindles that I can hardly read it\nmyself. I suppose that weakness of the fingers is the cause. I see how\ndeficient they are of flesh.\"\n\nIn September, 1890, he wrote the following letters to Rev. J. K. Tucker,\nRector of Pettaugh, Suffolk, who was an old friend of Newman's, and to Mr.\nJohn Henry Tucker, [Footnote: Which have been kindly lent me by Mr. John\nWarren.] from which I make quotations:--\n\n\"Ever since my brother's death (Cardinal J. H. N.) I am overwhelmed with\nletters, and now am writing more and longer every day than my fingers can\nwell manage, for publishers eager for my MS.\"\n\nAnd again in October of the same year:--\n\n\"I am about to send to my publishers my _painful_ contribution to the life\nof the late Cardinal, my brother. I am conscientiously bound to write it,\nbecause in his _fifty_ years' absence from the sight of the public a new\ngeneration has grown up ignorant of the facts, and the attempt is already\nbegun to puff them off for their beauty of style..,. My age being eighty-\nfive, I know the truths, and must tell them. I shall be howled at as\n_unbrotherly_. My immediate business now is to write to numbers of\ncorrespondents of whom you are one, whom I have necessarily neglected\nwhile engaged in the most anxious work I have ever undertaken....\"\n\nAs regards this book to which he alludes, his _Early Life of Cardinal\nNewman_, everyone feels that in some sense it belittles the writer. For\nthere was no real need of any sort that he should have written it. From\none brother to another, such an \"early history\" was, from some points of\nview, a disloyalty--and a disloyalty not altogether free from embittered\npersonal feeling.\n\nWas there no personal feeling roused in the lives of the two men? For the\nyounger was practically overshadowed by the elder. It was the elder one to\nwhom the world kotow-ed. It was the elder who---though the younger was so\nstrikingly intellectual, and so strong a social reformer in many ways--\ncarried the world's laurels, and who was finally given the \"splendid\nfuneral\" to which Francis Newman takes exception. And there was another\nreason too, which I believe exercised a strong sway over his feelings to\nhis brother in early youth, and brought into play, though perhaps\nunrecognized by himself, the quality of emulation, followed by keen\ndisappointment, when failure, as regarded that incident, fell to his\nshare. Be that as it may, it is impossible to justify Francis Newman's\nwriting thus of his brother, in the \"early history\" to which I refer. Not\neven his keen desire for truth, which some declare to have been his motive\npower in the matter, accounted for it.\n\n\"I should vastly have preferred entire oblivion of him\" (of the Cardinal),\n\"and his writings of the first forty years, but that is impossible. In the\ncause of Protestants and Protestantism, I feel bound to write, however\npainful to myself, as simply as if my topic were an old Greek or Latin\none.\" Later on he says, \"I have _tried_ to cherish for him a sort of\n_filial_ sentiment,\" but \"we seemed never to have an interest nor a wish\nin common.\" [Footnote: J. H. Newman once in speaking of his brother, said,\n\"Much as we love each other, neither would like to be mistaken for the\nother.\" A sentence which seems to contain more meanings than one!] Perhaps\nno words could more absolutely convey the lack of sympathy between the\nbrothers, than do these. \"I have _tried_ to cherish for him a sort of\nfilial sentiment!\" showing as it does, only too evidently, that there was\nno spontaneity of affection between them. The only voice that called each\nto each was that of old childish association and duty. Francis Newman\ncould not be accused of seeking personal distinction or fame for itself;\nwitness his giving up a very promising career at home in order to go on\nhis missionary journey to Syria. Witness also his open denunciation of\nmany existing State abuses. Witness his unceasing crusades against the\nstronger party (whatever it might be), which, in his opinion, oppressed\nand wronged the weaker section of the community, unable of themselves to\nobtain justice and a hearing at the court of English public opinion.\n\nAll the more, then, is it difficult to explain away sentences such as\nthese, which seem to proceed from such an absolutely different personality\nthan was Frank Newman's; and yet the man who reads his memoirs of his\nbrother finds them almost on every page, and cannot understand their\npresence there.\n\n\"The existing generation has seen him\" (he is alluding to the Cardinal),\n\"through a mist; and if my simple statement anywhere clears away that\nmist, they may almost resent my truth-speaking as an impiety.\" As indeed\nthey did--and do. Some of his own friends, indeed, urged him not to\npublish the book, but he was obdurate.\n\n\"In my rising manhood I received inestimable benefits from this (my\neldest) brother.... He supported me, not out of his abundance, but when he\nknew not whence weekly and daily funds were to come.... Yet a most painful\nbreach ... broke in on me in my nineteenth year and _was unhealable_.\"\nThis was, of course, when Francis had been at college two years, for in\nthose days men very often went at the age of sixteen, as he did.\n\nBut the entries of 1822 and 1823, which last would be for Francis his\n\"nineteenth year,\" give no clue to the \"painful breach\" which \"was\n_unhealable_\"\n\nYet the fact that religious differences did begin between the two brothers\nvery early in life has been proved beyond all question. Proved also is it\nthat religious discussions were of constant occurrence between them, and\nthat while J. H. Newman had always a strange leaning to Churchmanship,\nFrank Newman's religious tendencies drew him strongly towards dissent and\nUnitarianism.\n\nI think the latter mentions in his _Phases of Faith_ that when he first\ncame to college he found his brother had hung up a picture of Our Lady in\nhis younger brother's room, which he at once removed, and refused to have\non the walls.\n\nThe following letter is to Rev. J. K. Tucker; in it he describes himself\nas a \"Conscious Christian\" \"at the age of fourteen.\" But he has often\ndescribed himself as holding Christianity _without_ Christ:--\n\n\"I hold firmly in memory, that in Easter of 1836 I wished to conduct my\n_bride_ to Oxford, and introduce her there to my mother and two sisters--\nin those Coaching days we came from Bristol and Cheltenham en route to\nOxford. _I_ did not plan the thought of staying a night at your father's\nhouse, in which I suppose _you and your wife_ were living. No doubt the\nscheme was planned _by my wife_ to meet _her friend_. The winter of our\nmarriage had been one of wild snow; and the following Easter was alike\nuntimely. I just remember the fact of your kind hospitality fifty-four and\na half years ago, and the snow around us. In that visit to my mother (the\nlast time I saw her), my young wife caught inflammation of the lungs,\nwhich I did not perceive or understand--she was so cruelly bled and\ncupped, that I think she never recovered it.\n\n\"It is very kind of you to keep alive in your heart the friendship of the\ntwo ladies. I perhaps ought to state that about two and a half years after\nthe death of that wife in 1876 I married her ... friend.... Else I must\nhave given up housekeeping, and know not into what family I could have\ngone. My second wife is nineteen years my junior, yet in walking, not at\nall my equal, but in affectionate care of me inestimable.\"\n\nIn June, 1892, he writes to J. H. Tucker, Esq.:--\"I have not heard whether\nyour father, like me, is favoured by life continued, but I venture to send\na copy of my hymns.... To-day I have received a letter and book in\n_Bengali_ from a believer in _Theosophy_, supposing me to be one of them!\nHence, I was not too early in telling my friends that since _at the age of\nfourteen_ I became a Conscious Christian, no unbelief has made my hymns\nless precious, _mutato saltem nomine_.... My change more than fifty years\nago was on Historical arguments mainly.\"\n\nTo return to the subject of Newman's last years at Weston-super-Mare.\nPerhaps the most graphic descriptions of him as an old man are those\ncontributed as \"Reminiscences\" by Mrs. Kingsley-Tarpey and Mrs. Bainsmith.\nWe know him there as a man who, though hardly ever free from some\ndiscomfort or pain in those days, yet never failed in that old-world\ncourtesy of which, alas! there is so poor a supply in the world at the\npresent day.\n\nWe know him as a man who was always eager to help those who came to him in\ntrouble or in any difficulty; nay, perhaps almost _too_ ready to believe a\ncock-and-bull story of those who did not mind, for their own ends,\npractising on his credulity.\n\nA lady, a relation of the Newmans', said that once on coming to stay with\nhim and Mrs. Newman, she found a secretary in his study smelling strongly\nof brandy. When the secretary went out of the room, Frank Newman drew\ntheir guest aside and said, \"Ah, yes, it's a sad case, poor fellow! He's\ngetting away from the temptation of the public-houses.\"\n\nBut when later the secretary's rooms were searched, there were found\nnumbers of brandy bottles hidden away, to prove that he evidently had\n_not_ \"escaped from temptation\"! This lady said also that when Newman was\nold people not infrequently deceived him thus, and traded on his\ntemperance views, and that he had had _two_ secretaries who obtained their\npost on false pretences.\n\nTo conclude this chapter I should like to give one striking instance of\nhis tender sympathy and respect for the poor and lonely. A poor charwoman\nhad died at Weston-super-Mare who had, I believe, often worked in Newman's\nhouse. He found that she had no friends to follow her body to the grave,\nand so he himself, his wife and servants, walked to the funeral as\nmourners to show her a last respect. It is the Idea represented by his act\nwhich makes it serve as an unforgettable and very uncommon illustration of\na championship of those unlucky ones who have few or none to champion\nthem.\n\nCould any act speak clearer of the unfailing respect and reverence for\nwomen which distinguished Francis Newman through life? Though all others\nshould see the lonely funeral, there should be but the one Good Samaritan\nwho crossed over the road of ordinary, usual, Conventionalities to show by\nhis act that he recognized that class and position count for nothing\nbefore the fact of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity and Religion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX\n\nTOULMIN SMITH: AUTHOR, ANTIQUARIAN STUDENT, AND POLITICAL REFORMER\n\n\nAmong the names of those who have done most, by untiring, laborious search\namong old parish registers, etc., and dusty old records, to bring to light\ninteresting social ordinances, details of ancient parish government, and\ngems of Norse literature and archaeological research, there have been none\nin the last century who have by patient work attained more knowledge of\ntheir country's inner history than Mr. Toulmin Smith.\n\nHis name is indeed familiar to everyone as the greatest living authority\non \"English Gilds.\" That book alone, by itself, is an invaluable gift to\nthe nation. By that alone has he done so signal a service to his\ncountrymen that no gratitude could repay it.\n\nIt is true that, owing to ill-health, Mr. Toulmin Smith unavoidably left\nit unfinished at his death, but there is sufficient fulness of information\nin it as it is, to make it worth more than an infinity of other finished\nbooks of to-day.\n\nAs Father Gasquet says in his _Parish Life in Medieval England_, of the\nuniversality of these \"gilds\" in this country: \"Every account of a\nmedieval parish must necessarily include some description of the work of\nfraternities and guilds.... Their existence dates from the earliest\ntimes.\" Mr. Toulmin Smith, indeed, says, \"English Guilds are older than\nany kings of England.... They were associations of those living in the\nsame neighbourhood, who remembered that they had, as neighbours, common\nobligations.\" But it was not only because of his _English Gilds_ that he\nis remembered. In 1854, when he was thirty-eight years of age, he\npublished another very important volume, _The Parish: its Obligations and\nPowers, its Officers and their Duties_. This was also a book towards the\nmaking of which had gone many long years of the most incessant, careful\nresearch in old documents. It was one of those rare literary buildings,\neach stone of which was laid with infinite exactitude and care. There is\ntoo much \"jerry-building\" to-day, both in houses and books.\n\nTo Mr. Toulmin Smith some of the shallow books of to-day would represent\nliterary \"pariahs.\" He would bar the very superficial method in which they\nwere put together.\n\nIn _The Parish_ and in many a pamphlet he set his face steadily against\ncentralization. \"The ruling passion, the guide of his life, the dream of\nhis youth, the glory of his manhood and his later years, was the\nintelligent freedom of the people, based on 'the ancient ways.'\"\n[Footnote: _Toulmin Smith, 1816 to 1869_, by the late Samuel Timmins,\nEsq., of Birmingham. From this pamphlet I have gained much information of\nhis life.]\n\nIt is not difficult to understand how the friendship between Toulmin Smith\nand Frank Newman began. For the decentralization of the nation, better\nforms of local self-government, were also, each of them, a dream of the\nlatter's, which he longed eagerly to see realized. There was another keen\ncommon interest between them. Both ardently desired the freedom of\nHungary. Both wrote strongly in favour of it. Both warmly welcomed the\nexiled patriot, Louis Kossuth, when he came to England to collect funds\nfor the revolutionary movement of his country. But long before Englishmen\nhad made themselves _au fait_ with the subject of the Hungarian revolt,\nToulmin Smith had, in his literary studies, understood the why and\nwherefore of the quarrel, and had, by his words, roused his country to the\ntrue recognition of how urgent was the whole question between Austria and\nHungary. It must not be forgotten, too, that all his labours amongst the\ntangled undergrowths of the literary land were undertaken in the leisure\ntime he could spare from his profession. For he was barrister-at-law of\nLincoln's Inn, and he was also a landowner in Birmingham (his native\ncity), of property which had belonged to his ancestors in succession for\nfive hundred years. He had made himself a proficient in the Icelandic,\nDanish, Norse languages, and was learned in the ancient history and\npolitics of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Scandinavia. [Footnote:\nI quote from the pamphlet on _Toulmin Smith_, referred to before.]\n\nMr. Timmins tells us that \"while he maintained his own convictions with\nenergy and power, he had a kindly regard for all who differed from him, a\nlarge appreciation of genuine humour, and he was in private life one of\nthe most courteous, kindly, and genial of men. While he honoured the past\nand the memory of his fathers, he was no blind adherent of a falling\ncause, no obstinate opponent of the needful changes of the age.... Amid\nall the worry of a London lawyer's life, when far away in the United\nStates and stricken down by 'grievous illness,' almost his last written\nwords, 'I _long_ to return to Birmingham,' express the passion of his\nlife.\"\n\nThe friendship between Toulmin Smith and Newman probably began in 1849, in\nconnection with the formation of the Hungarian Committee. This I am told\nby Miss Toulmin Smith, to whose kindness I am indebted for permission to\nuse the following letters.\n\nShe believes that her father was introduced to Newman by Mr. John Edward\nTaylor (of Norwich). She says she has a keen memory of Francis Newman\ncoming to her father's house at Highgate at that time, with Pulszky and\nother Hungarians, all eager in the \"efforts for reform and constitutional\nfreedom and local government.\" But later on, she adds, many difficulties\narose, and \"about 1852 something connected with Louis Kossuth\" (and the\nHungarian movement) \"caused a coolness\" between the friends, and their\ncorrespondence seems to have come to an end after September in that year.\nNewman, owing to his University College engagements probably, I think\nretired from his position on the Committee in October, 1849.\n\n\n_Francis Newman to Toulmin Smith._\n\n\"University College, Gower Street,\n\"_8th Jan._, 1850.\n\n\"My dear Sir,\n\n\"I rejoice in your ward-mote exertions, and I beg you will not think that\nI am indifferent to them.\"\n\n[This refers to \"a series of meetings during the winter of 1849-50 in one\nof the Wards of the City of London; part of a movement endeavouring to\nrouse the citizens to a sense of civic local duties.\"] [Footnote: I am\nquoting from notes _re_ these letters, kindly supplied by Miss Toulmin\nSmith.]\n\n\"On Wednesday I have to attend a meeting of our Professors here which will\ninterfere with the Wardmote.... I exceedingly want presence of mind, if\nthere is any tumult, so as to remember quickly enough what is to be said.\nAgainst a mob I could _act_ with firmness, but I could not speak with\npromptitude. Moreover, I suffer physically from the air of a crowded room,\nand never go to _hear_ a speech when there is a chance of my being able to\n_read_ it.\"\n\n\nThe next letter I quote from is dated from Church Street, Old Eastbourne,\nAugust, 1850. It begins with questions of canvassing at University\nCollege, and goes on to touch on the subject about which he and his\ncorrespondent were at one: local land reform:--\n\n\n\"I have been here less than a week, but was at first unsettled, and my\nservant did not know whither to send my letters. It is fine air, rather\nbleak downs\" (this is an unappreciative criticism of those exquisitely\nrounded outlines), \"but with sunny days very pleasant and healthy.\n\n\"I am glad to hear of your Bristol excursion. If one could convert some\nsheriff of a county, I should like to see the thing tested in some\npractical form, i.e. to assemble every month a Parliament of County\nFreeholders to do some real work--as, if roads, or public lands, or docks,\netc., were to be dealt with; or to protest against a Private Bill in\nParliament, and claim to have the settling of it.\n\n\"I wish you knew Tom Taylor. He is an able man, desiring Reform, and is on\nthe Public Health Board in some legal capacity. He heartily wishes to\ndevelop the local powers, and will not admit that they are practically\nundermining them. He fully assented to all I said in theory, but thought I\nmisconceived what they were actually doing.\n\n\"Believe me, sincerely yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nTom Taylor, journalist and playwriter, was born 1817 in Sunderland. For\ntwo years he was Professor of the English language and literature at\nUniversity College. He was called to the Bar of Inner Temple in 1845. He\nacted as Secretary to the Board of Health and Local Government Act Office.\nAfter the year 1846 he devoted himself chiefly to playwriting, and in 1874\nwas editing _Punch_.\n\nThe following letter is dated September, 1850:--\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"It is not Tom Taylor only who honestly believes the Sanitary Board to be\nengaged in teaching Central and Local Powers to _co-operate_, and to be\nanxious to leave _bon\u00e2 fide_ power of the most important kind to the\nlocalities. Only a few days ago a friend of mine (a physician) was proving\nto me this very point in them. We who are not lawyers do not understand\npoints rapidly enough (or cannot remember them) to see where a great\nprinciple is violated.\n\n\"I do not care about the Sanitary Board _per se_ ... but what I think you\nare most wanted to do is to show that, however much the Parliamentary\nfranchise needs reform, yet a _greater_ need is that of limiting the\nfunctions of Parliament, and giving them to County Assemblies or Town\nMotes.\n\n\"That word _Mote_ is almost obsolete! May not the fact itself be a text to\nyou? The modern substitute, 'meeting,' has no taxing powers, no legal\nofficers, no constitutional power any more than a mob.... The sands of the\nWhigs run fast out, and it is high time for the Radicals to have a creed.\nDo you find any Chartists listen to you? If you cannot convert a Sheriff,\nI should be as well pleased with a hundred Chartists, for they learn from\none another by contagion.\"\n\n\nIn this year there was put forward a project for a society to make more\nlocal government possible. This was later carried out under the name of\nthe \"Anti-Centralization Union.\"\n\nIn November, 1850, decentralization was again to the fore in the minds of\nNewman and Toulmin Smith, as is shown here; and what the former says he\nputs very trenchantly, forcibly:--\n\n\n\"7 Park Village East,\n\"R.P., _Oct. 16th_, 1850.\n\n\"My dear Smith,\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"I can speak with much freedom and energy (but no _wit_) on a subject on\nwhich I have information and feel interested: but I cannot make an after-\ndinner speech of compliment, nor talk on a subject which I do not feel I\nhave very maturely considered.... In regard to _local government_, I think\nyou would disarm the fears or scruples of many excellent and wise persons\nif you made prominent that you do not wish to return to the Middle Ages,\nor disown that progress of society which has knit England into a single\nState. I think it high time to make an outcry against a system of infinite\nlegislation, in which we are subjected to laws too numerous for anyone to\nbe acquainted with; yet I doubt whether we shall get a hearing with the\nmost influential minds unless we make it clear that we fully understand\nthat the progress of society forbids our returning to the simplicity of\nlaw which the good Saxons had under Alfred and his successors. The gap is\nvast, and there is _no danger whatever_ of our becoming too simple; yet\nthis fanatical aim will be so surely imputed to us (in days when such men\nas Lord John Manners in Politics and the Puseyites in Church are afloat)\nthat it is not needless to disown it even to candid and strong-headed\nhearers.\n\n\"I am asking Froude to dine with me on Tuesday, the 29th instant, at 6\no'clock, to meet you and _some other friends_ whom I want to bring\ntogether: as I believe he will then be in London....\n\n\"_Thursday, 6 o'clock_.--I have just got Froude's reply, _Yes_: so please\nto say Yes, too.\n\n\"In haste, sincerely yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\nAs to the real meaning of the word \"Democracy\" Newman deals with it\nthus:--\n\n\"_What is_ Democracy?... Show that if one town governs itself by universal\nsuffrage, that _is_ Democracy, so long as the people really exercise\ninterest in their public concerns; but that if a whole country, as France,\nelects an Assembly, that is _not_ Democracy, but Empire delegated to an\nOligarchy, because the people at large cannot understand, follow, and\ncontrol public measures.\n\n\"I do not mean to dictate this, or any one mode; but I feel strongly that\nyou must put a sharp curb on all invective _until_ you have fully\ndeveloped the difference between the common Radicalism and your own views.\nPulszky says he is satisfied you were not _understood_ at the Radley Hotel\ndinner. Radicals are almost as slow as Tories to admit a new thought.\n\n\"I should also like to have the question brought out: 'What has been,\nhistorically, the Service performed by Monarchy and Centralization?' The\nanswer is: 'It has formed nations into larger masses, and lessened or\ndestroyed _border war_.' The inference is, that the great and peculiar\nfunction of the Central Government is, in fact, what the American Congress\ndoes, viz. to maintain peace at home between the several States, and make\nthe country _One_ in resisting hostile attack. To do more than this,\nshould be rather exceptive, and confined to subordinate matters, else\nCentralization becomes mischievous....\"\n\nAnd again, later in the year, in answer to a letter from Mr. Toulmin\nSmith:--\n\n\"What I said of 'Democracy' was meant as _argumentum ad hominem_ to that\nside, not as intending to identify myself with it, but I see the danger\nyou speak of. Query: Would 'popular government' do? Even Conservatives\nwish for a Commonwealth and for _Constitutional_ Government. No doubt\n_Unity_ is the true word, not Centralization; but I think this Unity\nwithout Centralization would never have been coveted by kings, so that in\nfact we have bought the advantage of Unity at the expense of submitting to\n(more or less of) Centralization.\"\n\nTwelve years later, John Ruskin put forth a method which cannot fail to\ncommend itself to every reasonable mind; a method which, if treated from\nthe decentralization point of view, seems to offer good solution to the\ncrux of English pauperism, at any rate, if dealt with under the aegis of\n_Local_ government. That \"_bona fide power of the most important kind to\nthe localities\" as Newman said, should be conceded; that the \"Government\nschools\" of which Ruskin speaks should, in each place, be directly under\nLocal Control.\n\nThe passage to which I am alluding is from _Unto this Last_:--\n\n\"Any man, or woman, or boy, or girl out of employment should be at once\nreceived at the nearest Government School\" (training schools, at which\ntrades, etc., should be taught) \"and set to such work as it appeared, on\ntrial, they were fit for, at a fixed rate of wages determinable every\nyear; that being found incapable of work through ignorance, they should be\ntaught; or being found incapable of work through sickness, should be\ntended; but that being found objecting to work, they should be set, under\ncompulsion of the strictest nature, to the more painful and degrading (?)\nforms of necessary toil; especially to that in mines, and other places of\ndanger (such danger being, however, diminished to the utmost by careful\nregulation and discipline), and the due wages of such work retained, cost\nof compulsion first abstracted, to be at the workman's command so soon as\nhe has come to sounder mind respecting the laws of employment.\"\n\n\nLETTERS TO MRS. KINGSLEY\n\n\"Weston-super-Mare,\n\"_4th Nov._, 1877.\n\n\"Dear Mrs. Kingsley,\n\n\"I hurried home from Manchester to meet an expected widow friend here, who\nhas just left me. Somehow or other she and her little girl engrossed me\nmuch, and made me neglect my intended warm thanks for your very kind\nletters, and for your phrases even of affection, to which, be assured, I\nam not inattentive or apathetic, though I imperfectly know how to respond\nto that which I do not seem to have duly earned.\n\n\"Your children were as kind and attentive to me as you could have been\nyourself; but I much regret not to have met you and Mr. Kingsley, to whom\nI beg you to give my kind regards, and believe that it is always a\npleasure to meet you, and that I am necessarily proud of having made so\n_fruitful_ a convert ... though our severe ones will remind me that you do\nnot wholly abstain from fish!\n\n\"Believe me, yours heartily,\n\n\"Francis W. Newman.\n\n\"I am bringing out a _dreadful_ pamphlet!\"\n\n\n\"28 Cumberland Terrace,\n\"Regent's Park, London,\n\"_25th May_, 1878.\n\n\"Dear Mrs. Kingsley,\n\n\"Concerning the controversy about increase of population, I forgot to add\nwhat I think has moral weight, that the theory which makes men bewail\nevery increase on the ground that _at length_ the earth will be overfilled\nwould be in argument just as powerful if the size of the earth were\nincreased to that of Jupiter, or to that of the sun. It simply deduces\nfrom the axiom / _fact_ that any finite area whatsoever will at length be\noverfilled by a constant unchecked increase--a reason why we should\nactively check the increase NOW and HERE--a deduction wholly void of good\nsense.\n\n\"Again, I did not mention what reduces John Mill's school to something\nworse than negative error, the certainty that their doctrine will not be\nobeyed by any but those whom we would desire to have the peopling of the\nearth, viz. the people of most intellect. If the highly intelligent and\nconscientious obey John Mill, we evidently must look forward to the\npeopling of every land by the most backward and least intelligent part of\nthe nation.... Malthus was shocked by the system of encouraging very early\nmarriage and large families for the mere sake of getting men as food for\ngunpowder: but if people marry (say young men at 27 or 28, not at 17 or\n18) he denounces as unnatural and unimaginable that society or law should\nfrown upon a family as being too numerous. In every moral aspect of the\ncase, John Mill is opposed to Malthus, and his followers have no right to\ncall themselves Malthusians. I feel confident that human population would\nwaste _if_ every man adopted the doctrine _either_ of John Mill _or_ of\ncertain American theorists....\n\n\"With best regards to all yours,\n\"I am, yours most sincerely,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\n\"15 Arundel Crescent,\n\"Weston-super-Mare,\n\"_12th Feb_., 1880.\n\n\"Dear Mrs. Kingsley,\n\n\"Your kind letter, yesterday received, gives me great concern. I never\nwept through simple grief, but once in my life through grief at\ningratitude; and I think I never felt so painful a pang in my heart. I can\nwell imagine that a sense of another's ingratitude may terribly overthrow\nanyone's health. I believe my dear sister, whose death you so kindly\nmention, suffered _in part_ from excess of anxiety through being made\nexecutrix to her husband's will, involving great perplexity, but _also_\nfrom the fraud of an old and trusted clerk. Her husband had several small\nstrokes of paralysis, and for two and a half years before his death\nprobably had not his mind always perfect. He delegated many confidential\nwritings and documents to the clerk, who with his wife was much respected\nby the whole family. After his death his accounts were inexplicable. Three\nof his sons worked hard at them for weeks together, and at last discovered\nfrauds, by which the clerk had not only embezzled money-how much they know\nnot, but counted above the thousand-and had depreciated the property in\nselling it by representing it as having been for years a declining\nbusiness: this was to hide his pilferings. When charged with it, the man\n_became raving mad_. Lawyers knew not how to recover property from a\nmaniac who could not defend himself: and my sister was in such grief for\nthe man's wife, that she knew not whether to wish to recover a farthing.\nHow the matter stood she either did not know or did not like to tell me-to\nthe last; but the mysterious disease which ate away her strength, I in my\nprivate mind ascribe to anxiety from this affair and her sudden and\nstrange responsibility as trustee for ladies.\n\n\"This dear sister was the fondest object of my boyish affections; and\nthrough life she was the self-sacrificing, devoted character which from\nearliest years she displayed. Five sons, one daughter, and two daughters-\nin-law were present at her death, all fervent in love and duty. Her\nhusband was one of ten children, and all that family were singularly\nunited. Her only daughter will now live with two of her aunts, who have\nbeen almost at her side since birth. My sister was so long in a very\nprecarious state that I did not expect her to survive the winter of 1878-\n9, and at last death came as a relief and release.\n\n\"It has always troubled me that I have so little power to promote the\nindustrial interests of friends. When I was a professor in London I used\nto be entreated to find pupils for tutors (when I had not half as many\npupils as I desired for myself) and to recommend others to publishers and\neditors, when I could neither get a publisher to risk a shilling on what I\nwrote, nor more than one editor to accept an article from me. Now, I would\nmost gladly recommend ---- ----; but it is well to say frankly that no one\never asks me, nor do I _at all_ know who wants anything, nor can I guess\nin what direction to inquire. But be sure I shall not forget, if the\noccasion opens.\n\n\"I yesterday heard awful tidings of widespread murrain in the sheep of\nthese parts (Somerset and Monmouth and all between) ascribed to last\nsummer's wet. One farmer (as a specimen) has lost 1000 sheep; the hotel-\nkeepers are bidden to _beware of mutton._ This I have from an associate of\nour society.\n\n\"Indoors I am happy; but I am so gloomy for the prospects of the country\nthat I do not like to talk about them. Kind regards to Mr. Kingsley.\n\n\"I am, most truly yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\n\"Weston-s.-M.,\n_19th Oct._, 1880.\n\n\"Dear Mrs. Kingsley,\n\n\"Behold me (in imagination, as I really am) still at home on our great\nvegetarian day.\n\n\"I warmly thank you for your kind letter, and was purposing to write, but\nin heaps of letters could not find yours with the new address, which I\nhave now entered in my book.\n\n\"I have finally resolved not to bustle about so late in the year, and have\nresigned my place as President in consequence. But it is reported to me\nthat the Executive will prefer to exempt me from attendance in this\nmonth....\n\n\"Public affairs make me very melancholy. Mr. Gladstone is not to blame for\nthe state of Ireland; but both in Afghanistan with India and in South\nAfrica, I think he has allowed his colleagues to neutralize his public\nprofessions, and has made compromises most calamitous.\n\n\"The ministry seems to me not worthy of the Parliament. I do not doubt\nthat the plutocracy in the next ten or even five years will have a heavy\nand deserved fall, but with how much convulsion and suffering in Ireland,\nin India, and in South Africa, all inflicting miseries on us--you will\nlive to see: I fear it cannot be small, and that our institutions, called\nFundamental, will be very gravely shaken.\n\n\"I honour your Piscarian position, and with our society would recognize\nit; but the discovery that you all eat fish forbids me to glory that I\nhave converted a family to our Rules! With kind regards to Mr. Kingsley\nand the rest, I am,\n\n\"Your sincere friend,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\"Weston,\n\"_26th April_, 1883.\n\n\"Dear Mrs. Kingsley,\n\n\"... I am apparently assuming the position of one who (like the Pope)\nmakes an ALLOCUTION to all _who will listen._ Each of us may imitate him.\nI have given away eighty copies to make my allocution known. I suppose I\nought to have sent one to you, but circulation is hard work. Alas, it\ncosts a shilling! Can you get it put into any Manchester Library? (Tr\u00fcbner\nmy publisher.) It is called _A Christian Commonwealth_ and is as much\nagainst our unjust wars as a Quaker could desire.\n\n\"In haste, ever yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\"Kind regards to all yours.\"\n\n\n\"Weston-super-Mare,\n_9th April_, 1884.\n\n\"My dear Friend,\n\n\"... My dismay and disgust at the proceedings of a ministry, of which Mr.\nGladstone must bear the _full responsibility_--which indeed he accepts by\ndefending all its atrocious proceedings--have disinclined me to write,\nmore than I must, on any but private or literary topics....\n\n\"A new struggle is made by this unscrupulous ministry to retain the\nexecrable C.D. Acts.\n\n\"I am sorry that the Bishops have again turned the scale in the\nunrighteous retention of the law against a man's marriage to his deceased\nwife's sister. When do the Bishops rally against sanguinary injustice and\ndire oppression?  \"I have just had two hundred and fifty copies struck off\nof the enclosed leaflet, which aims to suggest to the haters of unjust\nwar, especially Quakers, in what direction they ought to work, viz. to lay\nthe foundation of an _entirely new_ political party. No candidate for a\nvote could complain that he was humiliated by being required to profess\nhimself a VOTARY OF JUSTICE.\n\n\"I throw these leaflets in this and that direction as _feelers._ Of course\nmore can be printed when wanted....\n\n\"With best regards,\n\"I am, yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\n\"15 Arundel Crescent,\nWeston-super-Mare,\n\"_3rd Jan. _, 1887.\n\n\"Dear Friend,\n\n\"You need not think me dead yet; but you easily might, so estranged am I\nto Manchester.\n\n\"Yet I at least have life enough to be able to wish all welfare and\nblessing to you and yours in this New Year. The accumulation of letters\nhas always thwarted me when I have tried to find your last letter.... I\nseem to remember that you then told me of the marriage of your eldest\ndaughter and of the literary efforts of another. Since then we have had\nthe overthrow in the W.K. of the Safe-Harlot-Providing Law, and indeed it\nmust have been as early as 1885; and the episode of Mr. Stead and his\nprosecution was later! A great moral change has been wrought (for the\nbetter, I say) in our ladies by that wickedness of our ruling classes with\nthe aid of wicked medical theories provoking indignant protest. To drag\nprinted matter into daylight is no doubt very offensive; but without\nsweeping it away no sound health is to be expected. The ladies, I fancy,\nwill now, more _perseveringly_ than men, keep in activity the Purity\nSociety. And if some of them seem a little _too_ active--I ask, how _can_\nthis odious system of sin, crime, and cruelty be crushed without hot\nenthusiasm? And where was enthusiasm hot without partial error? Fire\nburns!\n\n\"This reminds me of my sending you (at your request) a load of anti-\nvaccination literature, and I am wondering whether you were able to turn\nit to service. THAT monstrous iniquity _must_ come down; but the medical\nschools and _your Irishmen_ block out our movement.\n\n\"I wonder how you and Mr. Kingsley look on Mr. Gladstone. I never\ncondemned his _measure_, though I have always (for years back) declined to\naid a Parliament for all Ireland and _still more_ the expulsion of Irish\ndeputies from the English Parliament.... But I did not intend here to\nenter Irish politics further than to indicate that while I am anti-\nGladstonian, I cry 'Ireland for the Irish,' 'India for the Indians,'\n'Egypt for the Egyptians,\"--_come what may_ to the English 'Empire'! [But\nI have never read in history of any empire being ruined or harmed by\nJustice, Mercy, or Purity.]\n\n\"I suppose I must say, 'Alas!' that the older I become [81 last June] the\nmore painfully my creed outgrows the limits of that which the mass of my\nnation, and those whose co-operation I most covet, account _sacred_. I\ndare not (unasked) send to friends what I print, yet I uphold the _sacred\nmoralities_ of Jew and Christian [Hindoo and Moslem] with all my heart.\nTwo mottos, or say _three_, suffice me:--\n\n    \"The Lord reigneth.\n\n    \"The righteous Lord loveth righteousness.\n\n    \"The Lord requireth Justice, Mercy, and Sobriety of thought, not\n    ceremony or creed.\n\n\"Accept for all of you my warm wishes.\n\"Your Vegetarian friend of old,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\n[No date. Probably _1st March_, 1888.]\n\n\"My dear Friend,\n\n\"What a violent winter it has been in very many places! Nor is it all\nover. After the awful 'blizzard' in New York, and its minor horrors\nelsewhere, and the many fatal avalanches, I see this morning fresh\ninundations in Hungary from sudden melting of snow. The sudden chill which\nsmote your husband was but a mild type, it seems, of the death fatal to so\nmany. Other deaths from cold, reported to us, have reminded us of your\ngreat and sudden loss; yet what had I to say to you? I have thought that\nthe echo from your son in Calcutta may have made your grief break out\nafresh.... I trust that time, which has not yet at all had softening\npowers, has not added any fresh bitterness on a fuller realization....\n\n\"Affectionately yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\n \"Alas! my dear friend, that your generous son Leonard had not more\nexperience how vain is a man's swimming power against the current of an\n_ordinary_ river. I have known this in the Tigris, in the Nile, and even\nin the Thames, though the bathing men in several places called me a first-\nrate swimmer. Longfellow in 'Hiawatha' has touching and powerful lines on\n_disasters never coming singly_, but as vultures accumulating round a huge\ncarcass.\n\n\"Wisdom comes too late for the individual; yet it is not useless for\n_others_ to inquire after causes. Did your husband pride himself on not\nwearing a specially thick coat in winter and _roughing_ it as do some\nvegetarians?... I rather believe that man is a tropical animal, hairless,\nmade for a climate warmer than ours, and needing much aid from clothing.\n\n\"Ever yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\n\"Herewith I return your interesting scraps.\n\"_21st March_, 1888.\"\n\n\n_Extract from a letter, 7th Jan_., 1889.\n\n\"More and more I believe, that as our clearest DUTY is in _this_ world, it\nis wholesome that our most eager interest (_if unselfish_) should be in\nthis world and not (with Count Tolstoi) so full of eagerness for\nimmortality, that it is an effort with him to refrain from suicide! I\n_accept with grateful_ submission whatever of after-life the Supreme Lord\ngives--or does not give. My desire cannot affect His actions, and in fact\nI _never_ have been able to work myself into _any_ desire for a future so\nundefined and unimaginable. This will show how ill I deserve a little of\n(shall I say) praise or compliment in your last.\n\n\"With kind salutes to your daughters,\n\"I am, your sincere friend,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\n\"The Firs, West Cliff Gardens, \"Bournemouth,\n\"_17th Aug_., 1889.\n\n\"My dear Friend,\n\n\"How extraordinary you must have thought my silence, after your kind\nletter from this place. Perhaps you imputed it to illness. That is not\ntrue. Yet it may be called half true: for illness of my wife is one topic,\nand increased _weakness_ makes me slower in the smallest matters--such as\nhandling a book, or duly buttoning a shirt or coat: while I have been\ndealing with proof-sheets from always two printers, sometimes four. My day\nis cut short at each end--for in the colder months I cannot sit at my desk\nuntil my fire is lighted, and my eyes are wearied before evening\ncandlelight. Meanwhile my unwilling correspondence has rather increased\nthan lessened....\n\n\"I am achieving a long hoped for work, in which of course I have to pay\nthe printers--i.e. to leave in some connective available form whatever\nmiscellaneous important printing I have ever published, ethico-political,\ntheological, economical, historical, aesthetic, critical, mathematical:\nindeed, the mathematical is all new, not reprint.\n\n\"I take as vivid an interest in all that concerns public welfare, of\nEngland, Ireland, and foreign countries, and hope I ever shall. More than\never I see that our best work for God is to work for God's creatures, not\nexcluding gentle brutes.\n\n\"Is it possible that you are even now _here_? That would be very good\nnews.\n\n\"Your lazy friend, with much apology,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\n\"Northam, near Bideford,\n\"_19th May_, 1890.\n\n\"My dear Friend,\n\n\"Your two letters were indeed doubly welcome, and brought me virtual\npardon for two neglects, of which the worst was, the keeping locked up\n(and still in prison!) the letters which you bade me to return...\n\n\"The _chief_ want of Cornwall, I was told by an old resident, is _soil_;\nthe rock is too near the surface. Herein art will do much in a few\ngenerations. Attica and Palestine--stony soils--bore plentiful pine fruit.\nOur Channel Islands utter the same thing. In England the _landlord_ is the\neffectual starver of the soil. Bishop Stubbs, a first-rate authority on\nagriculture, explains the immense excess of crops raised acre by acre\nunder _peasant_ culture, 'because the farmers' land is labour-starved.'\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"_15th July_, 1891.\n\n\"... The state of Ireland under existing factions would much have\ndiscomposed your patriotic husband. As for me, who cannot pretend Irish\npatriotism, things now look better.... But the aspect on the whole is to\nme far more encouraging than alarming. The reign of false aristocracy is\nfast declining; the rising powers everywhere ask for _justice_ between\norders and (as never before) between the two sexes, and the power of women\nis about to signalize itself in most valuable directions--for the benefit\nof _both_ sexes, and for the first time to claim nationally that moral and\nChristian Right shall be the aim of Law.\n\n\"But I confess if we wish to attract ancient nations to Christianity, we\nhave first to reconsider our creed fundamentally, a terrible summons to\nProtestants as well as Catholics....\n\n\"I have not with me _your last_, and I hope I do not evade any question.\n\n\"With best wishes to you and all yours,\n\"I am, your earnest friend,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\n\"_27th Nov._, 1891.\n\n\"My dear Mrs. Kingsley,\n\n\"So many of my juniors die, that my friends when they do not hear of me\nmay well fancy that I am decrepit and declining. That is not true; only my\nmuscular strength is less. I cannot walk so far nor work so much, but no\nvital organ seems to fail; nor can I write so much or so long....\n\n\"The longer I live, the more hopeful and more interesting I find the whole\nworld. In spite of crime, folly, and misery, the massive nations seem to\nimprove. The good--i.e. our sounder party--become wiser and stronger, as\nwell as in proportion more numerous. Our worst misrule has been in Ireland\nand in India. The crisis in Ireland seems to me turned for the better.\nMisrule in India is met not by insurrection, but by constitutional and\nloyal, widely demanded Reform, such as, I feel convinced, the enlarged\nfranchise in England will support too warmly for the old routine to\nresist. All the churches are seeking _moral_ reform.... Reforms lately too\ngreat to think of, we now calmly contemplate as certainties of a near\nfuture. Lord Herschell, an ex-Chancellor, pronounces that the legislative\npower of the House of Lords is an evil unbearable. Scotland and Wales are\nready to demand abolition of the State Church. The English party called\nLiberal (I think miscalled) desire the same, and within the last ten years\nI come to think, rightly. Other reforms, too numerous to detail, cannot be\ntrifled with or the nation be blinded. While I wonder at all this, I see\nthat Scandinavia and Germany, even Belgium and France, are moving for\n_moral_ objects, and also against war.\n\n\"Is there not plenty in all this to draw forth hope, joy, and\nthankfulness, and in every conviction, that amidst all our tumult the Lord\nreigneth? I rejoice that I have lived to see this day, and expect to\nrejoice more while I live.\n\n\"How you have fared this year I seem not to know, but believe that you\nhave my earnest good wishes for you and yours.\n\n\"I am, yours most truly,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\n\"Bournemouth (undated).\n\n\"My dear Friend,\n\n\"Your letter of July 12th from Margate has reached me here, to which place\nI came because my wife five years ago gained such health here, and all the\nyear and past autumn she has never felt sure of health at home. I cannot\nthink she manages herself rightly, yet she believes, with no small reason,\nthat I am not a safe traveller without her; yet of the two _I_ seem the\nstronger. She is better here, perhaps, because she is more in the outer\nair. I must add, I too have recovered from my fall, and am fairly well,\nthough I do not pretend to be strong yet (as the French would say), _Que\nvoulez vous?_ when I am past 88.... I am glad to learn about your\nchildren. I have good hope concerning the coming future, though the foes\nof progress call us faddists because we think _national morality_\nparamount to vicious routine. May but the Good prevail!\n\n\"... I now argue _for_ Fish-food as not to be forbidden or frowned on, but\ndo not lessen my esteem of our Manchester V. E. M. Society, nor lessen my\ncontribution to it, though they can only receive me as an outsider.\n\n\"I turn a vegetarian argument against them on the Fish question, but I\nhave no time now for it.\n\n\"I am bringing out another volume on Paul of Tarsus, which, when complete,\nI hope to send you.\n\n\"With warm salutes, I am yours,\n\n\"Francis Wm. Newman.\n\"My wife desires her kind thought to be named.\"\n\n\n\"_1st Nov._, 1892.\n\n\"My dear Madam,\n\n\"I have not time nor strength to search out your last kind letter, which\nperhaps informed me when your two sons from India were expected and when\nthey were to leave you....\n\n\"I do fairly well, if I potter on in my old solid routine. My 88th year\nmakes pretension to _strength_; but when so many moans are heard about\n_neuralgia_, not to say influenza, I feel myself much favoured by the\ntotal absence of pain, except merely what is incidental to a thin body\nwith some sharp bones. In rising from bed I am aware of small discomforts,\nwhich I shake off on standing upright, and similarly after sitting in one\nposture. I have not enough suffering to claim pity. I can wish the same to\nall my friends, especially to my wife.\n\n\"To my judgment the world ... is in an entirely novel state, which\nforebodes a wholly new future, and requires new thoughts, new policy in\nour rulers, _with much higher_ MORALITY if grave overthrow is to be\naverted.\n\n\"The United States of America _ought_ to be our leader in chief, but\nmainly through ... the dreadful colour war that is year by year waxing\nworse. The only thing clear to me is, that their _home_ calamity must for\na long while hinder their giving aid to the world. The policy in Russia is\nso fatal, and its result presages an overturn of the scale of the France\nof 1793. This makes all foresight impossible, except that every State is\nsafest which least violates the laws of universal morality. That England\ncan avoid great retribution seems to me scarcely probable. But as soon as\nmorality is allowed to speak loud in high places, I believe our main\ndangers will quickly disappear. The prospect cannot be defined, but is to\nme of intense interest. Britain seems to me immensely superior to its own\nruling classes in goodness, and the good is sure _at length to prevail_,\nto the benefit also of your Ireland.\n\n\"With kindest best wishes, I am,\n\"Most truly yours,\n\n\"F. W. Newman.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI\n\nLANDOWNERS AND WAGE RECEIVERS\nBY FRANCIS W. NEWMAN\nCONTRIBUTED BY MR. WILLIAM JAMIESON\n\n[Presumably written in 1886, when Newman was Vice-President of the \"Land\nNationalization Society.\" It was kindly sent me by Mr. William Jamieson,\nwho was Hon. Sec. to the above Society at the time. I wish to express here\nmy sense of gratitude to him for much help and information regarding his\nown work with Newman in 1886.]\n\n\nThe tendency of English industry for a long time back has been to exalt\nthe land_lord_, or chief man in any locality, into land _owner_ (a phrase\nimplying that no one but he has legal right in the land), and to convert a\nlarger and larger fraction of the nation into wage receivers, liable to be\ncast out of work either at the simple will, or by the imprudence or\nmisfortune of their paymaster. In order to analyse the natural results of\nthis juncture, we must follow the method received in Political Economy, of\ntaking an imaginary case, far simpler than any which is actually met in\nhuman life, so as to make all the conditions of the problem known to us by\nhypotheses. Let us suppose an island, secluded commercially from the rest\nof the world, and peopled by a vast working lower class under three small\nruling castes. The island is physically divisible into three parts:\n_first_, marshy coast land, abounding with shrubs, canes, rushes of many\nkinds, from which human garments of various sorts can be made; _secondly_\nrolling land, eminently suitable for the cultivation of grain, and of\ncertain fruit trees and roots on which the whole population live;\n_thirdly_, the mountain land, on which are timber trees and copses\naffording firewood; also quarries of stone, gravel pits, lime rocks, and\nmines of copper and iron. Of the marshy coast land, the _second_ lordly\ncaste is acknowledged to be absolute owner; the first or highest caste\nowns the rolling land, which is the arable and cultivated portion; and the\n_third_ caste owns the mountain land and its products. From the first\ncomes the food of the native, from the second comes the clothing, from the\nthird the houses. It is possible that gravel, lime, and stone can be found\nin rolling land, and that fruit trees either exist or if planted would\nbear fruit in the marsh land, some even in the mountains; but the ruling\ncastes follow ancient custom, and the working caste has no right to\ninnovate. They work _under_ and _for_ their masters, and receive wages _in\nkind_--that is, as an equivalent for their work, a definite but liberal\nsupply of the three necessary articles--food, clothes, and house\naccommodation. Money does not exist, nor tame animals in our island. To\nadd sharpness to our imaginary case, and to make argument intelligible, we\nmust assign definite numbers to the working population; but from whatever\nnumbers we start, the argument and the practical result will be the same.\nLet us suppose the first caste to employ _ten thousand_ cultivators; the\nsecond caste to employ _three thousand_ knitters and plaiters; the third\ncaste _one thousand_ masons, miners, and carpenters. Each of these castes\nfurnishes to the workman such rude tools as are necessary, but these\nremain the property of the masters, not of the workmen.\n\nThe soil and climate being favourable, and the habits of the people\nsimple, a few hours of work suffice; and like many barbarians, they have\nbeen accustomed to much idle time, which they employ in sport; moreover,\nby the connivance or good of the superior caste, they have been accustomed\nto pick or steal largely the leaves of an intoxicating grass, and the\nmasters to whom the whole produce of their labour belongs, have large\nsuperfluity after paying their wages; hereby the lordlings easily feed\ndomestic servants and exhibit themselves in gay clothing with superior\ndwellings.\n\nBut the tendency of the workers to drunkenness shocks a certain religious\npreacher, who traces the vice to idleness and sport. He goes about the\nisland urging upon them a higher morality. They widely receive him as a\ndivine messenger, and under his exhortation they become more industrious\nand more conscientious in their work; not only working more hours, and\ncurtailing their sport, but in every hour using more diligence. In\nconsequence, the masters are enriched by stores somewhat embarrassing.\nGrain comes in, more than they want: their barns begin to overflow.\nGarments are too many for the warehouses. Huge piles of timber block up\nthe yards, besides masses of stones, and heaps of other superfluous\nmaterial. Before long, the masters conclude that their simplest course for\nchecking supply is by lessening the number of the workmen. The increased\ndiligence of the people (we may suppose) has made the work of three men on\nan average as efficient in all tasks as were _five_ men previously. Thus\nsixty do the work of a hundred; and the masters discover that what had\nbeen the normal average produce will be maintained, if they dismiss forty\nout of every hundred dependents. Not only so; but retaining their usual\nsurplus, which we may call their rent, at the old level, they will be able\nto raise the wages to these workmen whom they still keep, since instead of\na hundred they will have only sixty now to feed and clothe; and only for\nthese do they feel morally responsible. Forthwith they actually dismiss\nforty out of every hundred. Each landowner cares for his own workmen as by\na sort of social duty; but for those who are discharged he feels no\nresponsibility. In the average result the landowners who had had a hundred\nworkmen, but now only sixty, take as increased rent the food and clothes\nof ten, and use it to add ten servants to their domestic retinue, but add\nto the wage of the sixty whom they keep at work, the food and clothes\npreviously received by thirty of the forty whom they have dismissed. Thus\nthey raise wages by one half--that is, they pay in the proportion of one\nhundred and fifty instead of one hundred.\n\nThe labourers, clothworkers, and builders who are dismissed (the remaining\nthirty out of every hundred) being without work and without houses, are at\nonce in a state of beggary. Only by betaking themselves to some _new\nindustry_ will they be able to get a livelihood, and it rests with them to\ndevise their new industries. Meanwhile they can only subsist on charity,\nwhich is doled out to them chiefly by the fellow feeling of those of their\nclass who are still in work. The increased wages of these enable them to\nbe liberal; in fact, the increase has on an average been just what the\ndiscarded men previously earned.\n\nA parliament of the higher classes is in due course assembled, and a\nmember came (?) to the distress of so many men out of work. But a\ndistinguished literary writer, member of a Politico-Economical Club ...\neases the consciences of the higher castes by pointing out that in fact\nthe island is much increased in prosperity. Rents had, no doubt, risen,\nbut only as one mark of prosperity, for their increase was in a much\nsmaller percentage than that of the rise of wages. These had increased by\nthe very remarkable ratio of 50 per cent. It was true that many men were\nout of work. That was to be regretted; but it was a _passing phenomenon_.\nThey would before long find work somewhere or somehow.\n\nThe discarded workmen hitherto had had no great variety in their tasks,\nand were always set to work by others without exercise of their own\ninventive powers. Yet out of a large number of men there are always many\nof good talents, some of original genius. The idea of many new forms of\nindustry springs up. Oil for food has been hitherto raised from the olive\ntree; now an ingenious man would extract oil from several shrubs or trees,\nand make candles, or else oil for lamps. A second wishes to plait carpet\nsocks, sandals, and umbrellas. A third would make boats, with ropes, and\noars, and sails. A fourth would add wheelbarrows and casks to the baskets\nalready in use. A fifth has noticed wild ponies on the mountains, and\ndesires to catch them and make needful harness. A sixth would plant fruit\ntrees in gardens, and not take the chance of wild fruit. But on every such\nplan they are at once checkmated: first, because all these natural\nproducts are accounted the absolute property of the upper castes, and must\nbe bought; next, most of their new schemes need a yard or a garden and\nright of access by a road, and workshops, beside a dwelling-house. But the\nland, as well as the raw produce, is inaccessible to them; yet on them,\nhungry and destitute, is laid the task of originating the new trades. Can\nthis seizure of the land and its natural products as the private property\nof a limited number of families be morally justified? In its origin was it\nattained by violence and robbery? Else, has it grown up by gradual and\ncunning perversion of law? These three questions point at the principle of\nlandowning. Another question rises: Is it good for a nation for _the great\nmajority_ to retain life only on condition that there is someone ready to\npay wages for their work and able to discard them? In the imaginary case\nthus drawn the increased industry of the workers which produced\nsuperfluity is the beginning (to them) of change for the worse. Their\nspontaneous industry causes overproduction, and leads to the dismissal of\nmany workmen. Our economists treat every increase of productiveness as an\nunalloyed good. It is good, provided that men are not kept idle by it.\nEvidently there is no national gain from sixty men doing the work of a\nhundred, if thereby forty men are tossed into unwilling idleness, and must\nlive on charity, some of the forty losing all habits of industry, and\nperhaps becoming criminal. This is a national loss.\n\nFurther, our hypothesis that the men voluntarily become more industrious\nmay be called an extreme and unlikely case. For that very reason it has\nbeen here adopted. The ordinary causes give us _a fortiori_ argument,\nbecause they are ever in action. _Skill_ naturally increases among men\nemployed continuously on any work. In a settled, industrious nation small\nimprovements accumulate. In modern Europe the cultivation of mechanics and\nchemistry conduces to a steady improvement in tools, a cheapening also of\ntools, and introduction of such more complex tools as we call \"machines,\"\nby dint of all which human work constantly becomes more effective, so that\nfewer and fewer workmen are needed for _the same amount_ of produce. Thus\nthe normal and natural order of things, wherever _the wage-system exists_\ntends to dispense with some, or many, of the workmen. This is a clear gain\nif the men thus displaced _are instantly taken up for some other service_.\nBut this seldom can happen; often their old skill is made useless, and\nbefore they can learn a new trade they become demoralized, and many\nperish. The loss of their industrial position is a grievance and a\nnational mischief which our \"Economists\" are prone to undervalue, and pass\nunnoticed.\n\nLet us contrast the case of men who work not for a master, not for wages,\nbut for themselves; holding their own little homestead, from which they\ncannot be driven out. Such is the case of back-settlers in the Far West of\nthe United States. Each perhaps carries out with him a box of stout\nclothes, some agricultural tools and important seeds, and either _squats_\non a bit of wild land, or by a very easy payment buys possession of the\nFederal Government. This bit of land the settler counts _his own_. With\nthe aid of friendly neighbours he builds the rude log-hut. The felling of\nthe trees needed to construct it makes an opening for small culture. In a\nvery few years he raises more food than his family needs. If the season\nand the roads favour, he sends his superfluous barrels of corn and fruit\neastward, and recovers an equivalent. But what happens if wide distance\npart him from civilized towns, if the roads are swampy and not made by\nart, and the conveyance of food be too onerous to remunerate him? All his\nneighbours being in like case, there is a local Overproduction of food;\nyet not one of the little community is thereby made a pauper. No one is\nable to expel them from their rude homes, or forbid their cultivation.\nThey are not made outcasts or idlers. Simply they are kept poorer, than\nwith access to a market they would have been; but they lessen their\nproduction of food, and either with the females of the family work at\nclothing, or execute carpentering. In many ways they can use their time to\nproduce articles which they could have bought in a better finished state\nhad the market of the East been open to them. The present writer was\ninformed by an Englishman who in the American Civil War had penetrated\nvery far West, that he had seen with his own eyes a colonist _burning\nwheat as fuel_, because he had it in so great excess. Probably he had\nplenty of green maize for his horses and pigs.\n\nWhenever a man retains a house of his own, and has neither rent to pay nor\nany excessive taxation, if only he have a moderate plot of land for\nworkshop and garden, he is not made destitute, though he do not directly\nraise food for his household, but works at some domestic manufacture. Our\n\"Spitalfields\" poor who fought a long battle with the hand-loom against\nthe loom driven by steam power, might not have been at length utterly\nruined if they had had freehold houses and some small garden in a healthy\ncountry. If the system of huge factories had had to compete with domestic\nmanufacture conducted by private families living in small freeholds, it is\npossible that the battle might simply have driven the independent workers\neither to buy small steam engines for their aid, or what now is more\nobvious, to hire power from some company, as from a Gas Company or Water\nCompany, which had it in superfluity. Such, in the opinion of some far-\nsighted men, may very possibly be even now the solution of our difficulty.\n\nAt present the Trade Unions gravely mistake the end for which they ought\nto strive. They mischievously unite two objects. First, they are Benefit\nSocieties. The funds of a Benefit Society ought to be forbidden by law to\nbe spent in warring against capitalists; this enables the directors, or a\nmajority of them, to confiscate the whole contributions of any member who\ndisapproves of the war.\n\nNext, the main effort to raise the status of the workmen is ill-directed\ntowards raising or sustaining the _rate_ of wages, else towards dictating\nconcerning the management. This effort is ill-directed, first, because it\nis liable to aim at an impossibility--i.e. to extort from a master a wage\nso high that he prefers not to light his engine fires; next, because to\nraise the _rate_ of wages does not secure continuous work, and idle days\nneither tend to sobriety nor give pay. Strikes which inflict vast loss\nupon the workers cause loss to the masters also, and make them less able\nto pay high wages. But beyond all these, if the Unions were wise, they\nwould struggle against the system of wage-earning, wherever it is new and\nneedless; that is, as far as possible, strive to recover the system of\ndomestic manufacture. For certain new and peculiar industries undoubtedly\ncombine, and large capital is essential; even in them the effort ought to\nbe towards uniting, _as far as possible_, the interests of each workman,\nand of the company, the opposite of which is in general the Union policy.\nBut for every old trade independent work is physically possible, under the\ncondition that the workman have a fixed homestead. To effect this ought to\nbe the main effort of the Unions.\n\nIn the thirty-two years between the battle of Waterloo and the Irish\nfamine, the farmers and manufacturers were like two buckets of a well;\nwhen one was up, the other was down. But now, both at once are down. The\ncauses are clearly separate.\n\nOur manufacturers when allowed to accept payments from abroad In wheat and\nsugar and foods and all raw produce, Immensely increased their foreign\nsales; and during the Cotton Famine, capital was largely invested in\nbuilding new cotton mills, as if we were to supply all the world.\n\nBut the European Continent more and more chooses to compete with us, and\nfrom more causes than one deprive our merchants of their customers.\nBetween us and our rivals more of the _same sort_ is produced than the\nexisting markets can take: this is again Overproduction. Hence stagnation\nin our manufacturing districts. Meanwhile, in near thirty years of\nmanufacturing prosperity after 1847, the increased riches of these towns\nenriched the farmers and enabled the landlords to raise rents in England,\nand in consequence, by dint of landlord power, rent rose in the whole\nUnited Kingdom. At the same time, Englishmen found too little\nencouragement to invest their savings on English soil, and preferred to\ninvest many millions on foreign railways and on foreign loans; and the\npayment of their dividends is made largely by imported foreign food. Their\ninvestments at first were an advantage to our manufacturers, while they\nsent out railway plant and carriages and locomotives. Now foreigners\ncompete with us even as to these, and the imported food competes with the\nfarmers. Thus a double failure convulses us.\n\nHow much better, if instead of quarrelling for distant markets (and _it is\nsaid_ conquering Burmah in the hope of advantage to our merchants) we had\n_a native population of small cultivators_, prosperous enough to be\nvaluable as well as steady customers to our manufacturing towns, and\ngradually (in the course of several generations) another population of\ncountry folk, substituting domestic manufactures for those of factories\nwith wage earners!\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII\n\nTHE RIGHT AND DUTY OF EVERY STATE TO ENFORCE SOBRIETY ON ITS CITIZENS\nBY F. W. NEWMAN, M.R.A.S.\nPUBLISHED IN 1882 IN PAMPHLET FORM\n\n\nNo human community can be so small as not to involve duties from each\nmember to the rest; duties to which a sound human mind is requisite.\nNeither an idiot nor a madman can be a normal citizen. The former ranks as\nin permanent childhood; the latter, being generally dangerous, must be\nclassed with criminals. A dehumanized brain impairs a citizen's rights\nbecause it unmans him,--disabling him from duty, even making him\ndangerous. In India, such a one now and then runs amuck, stabbing every\none whom he meets: in England, he beats and tramples down those nearest to\nhim,--those whom he is most bound to protect. A human community cannot be\nconstituted out of men and brutes, nor ought civilized men to be forced to\ncarry arms or armour for self-defence. For all these reasons, to be drunk\nis in itself an offence against the community, prior to any statute\nforbidding it, prior to any misdemeanour superinduced by it. In the State\nit is both a right and a duty to enforce (as far as its means reach)\nsobriety on every citizen, rich or poor, in private or in public; and with\na view to this, to use such methods as will best prevent, discourage, or\ndeter from intoxication.\n\nWhen a national religion totally forbids the use of intoxicating drugs,\nvigilance in the State is less needful: public opinion, or even public\nshow of disgust and violence, effectively stifles the evil. But if the\nnational religion does not forbid the use, but solely enjoins moderation\n(a word which everyone interprets for himself), a far heavier task falls\non the State, whose right and duty nevertheless in this matter several\ncauses have concurred to obscure, not least in England and Scotland. Out\nof the teachings of Rome, our forefathers very ill learned the rights of\nthe State or the distinction of Morals from Religion. Although even men\nnot highly educated must have known that Moral truth is far older than any\nspecial system of Religious beliefs, yet in the popular idea morals have\nno other basis than religion. Hence, the demand for freedom of conscience\nagainst any oppressive State policy (besides the vices of Courts and\nCourtiers) led to a vehement jealousy of State power even in moral\nconcerns. Many generous minds feared, that to concede to the State a right\nof enforcing morality, covertly allowed religious persecution. _Who_ first\nuttered the formula--\"The only duty of the State is, to protect persons\nand property\"--is unknown to the present writer; but certainly fifty,\nforty, even thirty years ago, this principle was widely accepted by\nradical politicians and active-minded dissenters. The late Dr. Arnold of\nRugby regarded this denial of the State's moral character as a widespread,\nuntractable and mischievous delusion.\n\nAfter long torpor the prohibition of Lotteries showed that Parliament was\nwaking to its moral duties. Little by little, the mass of the middle-\nclasses and the gentry imbibed nobler views of human life, and have\ndiscovered, that of all the powers which make a nation immoral the State\nis the most influential. One day of licensed debauch undoes the work of\nthe Clergy on fifty-two Sundays. No wonder that in the past the State\ncollectively has been our worst corrupter: but to open this whole question\nspace does not here allow. A long struggle has gone on, to implore public\nmen not to connive at drunkenness--a national pest which for more than a\ncentury was greeted with merriment though politically avowed to be\ncriminal. None dare now to laugh at it, except the depraved men who laugh\nat bribery, and use drunkenness as a trump-card at elections, and, if in\noffice, rejoice on the vast revenue sucked by the Exchequer out of the\nvice and misery of the people. Earnest religionists of every creed have\nhappily rallied to a common conviction, that the State has grievously\nfailed of its duty and must now turn over a new leaf. Our worst opponents\nare men who cannot be reckoned in any religious body, men who find nothing\nso sacred as Liberty to buy and sell and indulge appetite; generally\neccentric \"Liberals,\" who are in many respects too good not to esteem, and\ntoo intellectual to despise.\n\nOne of these some years ago opened attack on me in a private letter, which\nsummed up the arguments decisive with this class of \"advanced Liberals\";\nin whose hatred of _Over Legislation_ I heartily share. He taunted me for\nthinking that the State ought to concern itself about the drinks of\ncitizens more than about their dress; saying that I could not hold the\nState to have a control of public morals without, in logical consistency,\nadmitting the right of Parliament to forbid dancing and card-playing; or\nto command my attendance at any Church worship, or to fine and imprison me\nfor heresy. The double confusion here involved is wonderful from an\neducated man, and lowers his reputation for good sense. Religion is a\ntopic on which eminent persons and foremost nations widely differ:\nconcerning Moral Duty there is more agreement in mankind than perhaps on\nanything that is beyond the five senses. To argue that in claiming of the\nState an enforcement of duties cardinal to citizenship, we admit its right\nto dictate in religion, is a pestilent anachronism; it confounds Morals\nwith Religion just as did the ancient world, Pagan and Hebrew. Again, the\ntest of soundness in Morals is found in the agreement of the human race.\nThere is no nation, no elementary tribe of men, so ignorant or so\nbesotted, as not to condemn drunkenness as immoral and utterly evil. In\njustifying penalties against a vice condemned by all mankind, we justify\n(forsooth!) the punishing of amusements thought harmless by a great\nmajority everywhere. Such an assertion is not the less silly, even in the\nmouth of a disciple of John Stuart Mill. Of course we all know that Law\ncannot be made against every misuse of time, or of energy, or of money.\nThere is certainly no danger whatever that a modern Parliament, elected\nfrom very different circles and representing widely different elements,\nwill ever adopt as its measure of sound morals the special opinions of any\nhistorical sect, however virtuous and wise.\n\nNeither of an individual nor of a community does _the highest interest_\nconsist in Liberty, but in soundness of morals; without which Liberty only\nmeans licence to be vicious; licence to ruin oneself, and diffuse misery\nto others. To a man not proof against the omnipresent drinkshop, high\nwages are a curse; days called holy and short hours of work do but more\nquickly engulf him in ruin. But he pulls others too down in his fall. That\nnearly every Vice tends to waste, and preeminently intoxication by liquors\nor drugs, certain Economists are strangely slow to learn. Moreover, nearly\nevery widespread vice makes wealth and life less enjoyable to the whole\ncommunity. Confining remark to the vice of drunkards, it suffices to point\nin brief to the enormous extension which it gives to Violent Crime, to\nOrphanhood, to Pauperism, to Prostitution, to disease in Children, and to\nInsanity. Hence comes an enormous expense for Police and Criminal Courts,\nfor Jails and Jail-officers, for Magistrates and Judges, for Insane\nAsylums, and Poor Rates. Hence also endless suffering to the victims of\ncrime and to the families of criminals, and a grave lessening of happiness\nto innocent persons by the ribaldry of drunkards planted at their side,\nwith fear lest their children be corrupted; fear also of personal outrage.\nOur daily comfort largely depends on homely virtue in our neighbours. In\nevery great organization of industry the drunkenness of workmen is a\nfirst-rate mischief to others, crippling enterprise by increased expense\nand risk. From sailors fond of grog and tobacco, proceed fire in ships out\nat sea; and on foreign coasts, broils that disgrace England and\nChristendom, and lay a train which sometimes explodes in war. The\ndrunkenness of a captain has before now stranded a noble ship. On a\nrailroad, access of the engine driver to drink is a prime danger; and\nshall we say that there is no danger in Parliament legislating when half\nasleep with wine, and hereby open to the intrigue of any scheming clique,\nwho may wish to fasten suddenly on the nation fraudulent or wicked law?\nWisely does the American Congress forbid to its members wine in its own\ndining-room, because those who have to make sacred law are bound to\ndeliberate and vote with clear heads. Evil law is of all tyrannies the\nmost hateful, and makes a State contemptible to its own citizens--thus\npreparing Revolution.\n\nEnglish Statesmen have yet to learn Yankee wisdom; but no one who is, or\nhopes to be, in high office dares to speak lightly of drunkenness. The\ncelebrated Committee of 1834 advised Parliament to reverse its course,\nwith a view to the ultimate _extinction_ of the trade in ardent spirits.\nThe advice was disgracefully spurned; yet neither the legislature nor the\nexecutive has ever dared to deny that drunkenness is a civil offence. Our\nopponents plead only for the _use_, not for the _abuse_ of intoxicating\ndrink.\n\nNo doubt, teetotallers maintain that all use of such liquors for drink is\nan abuse. The avowals of Dr. William Gull, who calls our view extreme,\nbeside those of Sir Henry Thompson and Dr. Benjamin Richardson, seem to\njustify the extreme view: so do the Parisian experiments of 1860-1. Yet it\nis not necessary to go so far _in a political argument_. I desire to\nobtain common ground with such men as my friend Mr. P. A. Taylor, M.P. for\nLeicester, and waive our difference with him as to _moderate use_. Let us\nadmit (that is, temporarily) that as Prussic Acid is fatal in ever so\nsmall a draught, yet is safe as well as delicious in extract of almonds\nand in custard flavoured by bay-leaf, so alcohol is harmless, not only in\nPlum Pudding and Tipsy Cake, but also in one tumbler of Table Beer and one\nwineglass of pure Claret. Let us further concede that the propensity of\nvery many to excess makes out no case for State-interference against the\nman whose use of the dangerous drink is so sparing, that no one can\ndiscover any ill effect of it on _him_. Nevertheless, irrefutable reasons\nremain, why we should claim new legislation, and a transference of control\nover the trade from the magistrates who do not suffer from it to the local\npublic who do.\n\nFirst of all, let me speak of undeniable excess. At one time perhaps it\nwas punished by exposure in the pillory or stocks; but for a long time\npast, the penalty (when not aggravated by other offences) has been at most\na pecuniary fine: five shillings used often to be inflicted. A \"gentleman\"\nwho could pay, was let off: a more destitute man might fare worse.\nInevitably, the vices of the eighteenth century affected national opinion.\nThe wealthier classes were so addicted to wine, that to be \"as drunk as a\nlord\" became a current phrase. From highest to lowest the drunkard was an\nobject more of merriment than of pity, and scarcely at all of censure,\nunless he were a soldier or sailor on duty. When a host intoxicated his\nguests, it was called hospitality; to refuse the proffered glass was in\nmany a club an offence to good company. Peers and Members of Parliament,\nofficers of Army and Navy, Clergymen and Fellows of Colleges--nay, some\nRoyal Princes--loved wine, often too much. Who then could be earnest and\neager to punish poorer men for love of strong beer? The preaching of\nWhitefield and Wesley began the awakening of the nation. A very able\nSpaniard despondingly said of his country: \"A profligate individual may be\nconverted, but a debased nation never\"; and the recovery no doubt is\narduous, when the national taste has been depraved and vicious customs\nhave fixed themselves in society. Even now, few indeed are able to rejoice\nin the punishment of mere drunkenness; for, the only penalty imagined is a\npecuniary fine, which never can prevent repetition nor deter others; when\nmost severe, it does but aggravate suffering to an innocent wife and\nchildren. To be \"drunk _and disorderly_\" is now the general imputation\nbefore a magistrate. Unless molestation of others can be charged, the\ndrunkard is very seldom made to feel the hand of the law. Hereby many\npersons seem to believe (as apparently does one bishop) that, as a part of\nEnglish _liberty_, every one has a _right_ to be drunk. While we complain\nthat authorities are negligent and connive at vice, after accepting and\nassuming the duty to prevent it; the _sellers_ of the drink are open to a\nseverer charge. A man too poor to keep a servant is glad to get a wife to\nserve him. She is to him housemaid and cook and nurse of his children. For\nall these functions she has a clear right to full wages, besides careful\nnurture during motherly weakness. The husband manifestly is bound to\nsupply to his wife _more_ than all she might have earned in serving\nothers, before he spends a sixpence on his own needless indulgences: and\nthe publican knows it; knows, sometimes in definite certainty, always in\nbroad suspicion, that he is receiving money which does not in right belong\nto his customer. Of course he cannot be convicted by law; but in a moral\nestimate he is comparable to a lottery-keeper who accepts from shopmen\nmoney which he suspects is taken from their master's till, or to a\nreceiver of goods which he ought to suspect to be stolen. Such is the\nimmoral aspect of traders, who now claim \"compensation,\" if the twelve-\nmonth licences granted to them as privilege, for no merit of their own,\nbe, _in the interest of public morality_, terminated at the end of the\ntwelve months. _In the interest and at the will of landlord magistrates_\nsuch traders have borne extinction meekly, over a very wide rural area.\nWhat made them _then_ so meek and unpretending? Apparently because against\npowerful Peers and Squires impudence was not elicited in them by the\nencouragement of a John Bright and a Gladstone.\n\nHow then ought the State to deal with a drunkard? Obviously by the most\nmerciful, kind, and effective of all punishments--by forbidding to him the\nfatal liquor. How much better than asylums for drunkards! asylums which\nmake a job for medical men, take the drunkard away from his family and\nbusiness, without anything to guarantee that on his release from prison he\nwill have a Will strong enough to resist the old temptation. Such asylums\nplease medical philanthropy; nor is any animosity displayed against them\nin Parliament. How can we account for the fact, that M.P.'s who strongly\noppose interference with the existing shops, and avow as much distress and\ngrief at drunkenness as is possible to any teetotaller, have never\nproposed to withhold the baneful drink from a convicted drunkard? Did it\nnever come into their heads? Had they never heard of it? This would\nconvict them of ignorance disgraceful in an M.P., still more so in a\nMinister. Perhaps someone charitably suggests: \"They think the prohibition\nnever could be enforced.\" To this pretence General Neal Dow makes reply:\n\"What we Yankees have done, you English certainly can do, WHENEVER YOU\nHAVE THE WILL.\" Nothing is easier, when anyone has been convicted of\ndrunkenness, than to send official notice to all licensed shops (say,\nwithin five miles) forbidding them to supply him, under penalty of\nforfeiting their licences. At the same time it should be a misdemeanour in\nanyone else to supply him gratuitously. (It would be pedantic here to\nsuggest after how long probation, and under what conditions, this stigma\nshould be effaceable.)\n\nThe misery which husband can inflict on wife, or wife on husband, by\ndrunkenness, has led many Yankees further, and--to our shame--we have as\nyet refused to learn from them. If a wife (with certain legal formalities)\nforbid the drinkshops to supply her husband, this should be of the same\navail, as if the husband were convicted of drunkenness before a\nmagistrate. Of course a husband ought to have the same right against a\nwife, and either parent against a son or daughter under age. Such an\nenactment, as it seems to me, ought to be _at once_ passed, as a law for\nall the Queen's realms, not as matter for local option. Passed over the\nheads of existing magistrates, it would remain valid over whatever\nauthority may succeed them.\n\nThis is no place to dwell on any details of horrors inflicted on the\ncountry by the present imbecile control. Of course, it is far better than\nthe _free trade_ in drink, towards which Liverpool twenty years back took\na long stride, with results most wretched and justly repented of. How\ndeadly is now the propensity of the country, will sufficiently appear from\nan experience of the late Sir Titus Salt in his little kingdom of\nSaltaire.\n\nFor a single year he made trial of granting to four select shops a licence\nto supply _table beer_ in bottles, delivered at the houses in quantity\nproportioned to the number of inmates;--a more severe limitation than any\npreviously heard of. Yet in the course of some months evil grew up and\nmultiplied. Something stronger than table beer (apparently) had been\nsubstituted. The liquor was smuggled into the works. Disobedience and\ndisorders arose; and at length a deputation of his own men complained to\nhim that their _women_ at home were getting too much of the drink. At the\nyear's end he cancelled the licences, and to the general content and\nbenefit restored absolute prohibition. Nothing short of this extinguishes\nthe unnatural taste. Female drunkenness is a new vice, at least in any but\nthe most debased of the sex: yet alas! courtly physicians now tell us that\nit has invaded the boudoirs of great ladies. Such has been the mischief of\nConfectioners' and Grocers' Licences.\n\nUnsatisfactory as has been the control of the drink trade by the\nmagistrates, their neglect has never been resented in higher quarters,\never since, by gift of the Excise, Parliament made the Exchequer a\nsleeping partner in the gains of the Drink Trade. The Queen's Exchequer\nhas hence a revenue of about thirty-three millions a year, of which\nprobably two-thirds, say twenty-two millions, is from excess: a formidable\nsum as hush-money. No earnest reformer expects the leopard to change his\nspots. A transference of power is claimed, chiefly under the title of\nLocal Option. To give the power to town councils has been proved wholly\ninsufficient in Scotland; though the Right Hon. John Bright seems\nobstinately to shut eyes and ears to the fact.\n\nAgain and again in crowded meetings the Resolution has been affirmed: \"The\npeople who suffer by the trade ought to have a veto against it.\"--Those\nwho seem resolved to oppose every scheme which seeks to break down and\nrestrict this horrible vice, tauntingly reply, that this measure would\nensure its continuance in its worst centres. They do but show their own\nunwisdom herein. The Publicans know far better, and they avow, there is\nnothing they so much dread as local option. In Maine itself, a State\nfrightfully drunken in the first half of the century, the opponents of\nNeal Dow in the State Legislature scornfully allowed him to carry a Bill\nwhich gave to each parish _Permission_ to accept his measure as law. They\nexpected that the drunkards would outvote it: but to their discomfiture\nfound that the drunkards were glad of his law, and nailed it firm. Let all\nsound-hearted Englishmen trust our suffering population to use their own\nremedy. Under Local Option we now embrace two systems which have been\nalready discussed in Parliament--that of Sir Wilfrid Lawson, and that upon\nthe outlines of Mr. Joseph Cowen's Bill.\n\nPersonally I yield to Sir Wilfrid Lawson the highest honour. Beyond all\nother men he is the hero in this long battle. If I account his Bill\ndefective, he will not blame me: for in its original form, which he would\nbe glad to carry, it closely resembled the Maine Law, and superseded the\nMagistrates. He has simplified it by making it only a half-measure. After\nParliament has been teazed by the drink question for more than twenty-five\nyears (one might almost say, ever since 1834), after candidates at every\nelection have been made anxious by it, we must calculate that all public\nmen will desire to make a _final_ settlement and get rid of the topic in\nParliament. But Sir Wilfrid's Bill, whatever its other merits (and I think\nthem great), will not set Parliament free. For so soon as any district\nadopts his permission to stop the Drink Trade, an outcry must arise from\nlocal medical men and chemists and varnishers, demanding new shops for\ntheir needs: and intense jealousy will follow, lest the new sellers,\nthough called chemists or grocers or oilmen, presently become purveyors of\ndrink; hence a fresh struggle must continue in our overworked Legislature\nconcerning the new and necessary regulations. Sir Wilfrid's half-measure\nsupersedes neither the Magistrates nor the Parliament, though for two\nhundred years the Nation has suffered through the laxity of both. Surely\nwe chiefly need real Provincial Legislatures, and, until we get _them_,\nLocal Folk Motes and _Local Elective Boards_ are our best substitutes.\n\nThis is the other and the complete measure: yet something remains to be\nsaid on it. The great evil is, that by reason of competition, a trade\ncannot live, except by pushing its sales. The Americans have wisely seen\nthat the necessary _sales_ must be effected by Agents publicly appointed,\nwith a fixed salary and nothing to gain by an increase of sales. Such\nAgents must receive public instructions. This was, in fact, Sir Wilfrid's\noriginal scheme, only that it forbad absolutely the selling wine or beer\nfor drink, _unless by medical order_; and the last condition would involve\nin Parliament endless contention. It is simpler, and I think far better,\nto give to an Elective Board a general free discretion. Parliament _might_\nindeed dictate that sales should go on through a public officer only.\n\nI, for one, should rejoice in this. But the most eager teetotaller will\nnot hope that in the present generation any English Parliament will be\n_more_ severe against a wine-loving gentry, and more dictatorial to\nmedical men, than is the law of Maine. If therefore it did command that\nsales should be _without gain_, it certainly would not allow an entire\nprohibition of selling alcohol as beverage to be imposed on the Agent for\nsale. It is not so in Maine; and this fact occasioned Mr. Plimsoll's\nstupendous blunder, who declared in Parliament that the Maine Law was a\ndead letter in Maine itself. The fact on which he built this outrageously\nfalse assertion was that when Mr. Plimsoll asked for Whiskey, the Agent\ninstantly sold it to him without a moment's hesitation. But why? \"Because\nhe knew that Mr. Plimsoll was an English M.P. and a teetotaller.\"","title":"Memoir and Letters of Francis W. Newman","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":120157}