of the superb speech, there is one slightly laced with regret (laced is
a metaphor taken from toddy and negus). Once in 1816, the extreme
Royalists, taking offence, walked out of the Chamber of Deputies. The
majority were about to vote when {68} De Serre[80] said: "Personne ne
croira que j'approuve, meme indirectement, l'espece de scission dont
nos yeux sont frappes en ce moment. Mais je demande s'il ne serait pas
de la sagesse, je dirai meme de la generosite de la majorite ici
constatee et qui pourrait deliberer tres legalement, de remettre la
seance a demain. Il importe qu'on ne puisse pas dire que vous avez
refuse d'entendre ceux de vos membres qui pourraient avoir des
observations a faire." And the debate was adjourned.
I like to quote De Serre, for though a Tory in those days, he would
have developed if he had lived; and there is no statesman in French
parliamentary history who has so much analogy with Mr. Gladstone.
Arrival of your letter from High Elms,[81] with enclosure--I was
surprised at those Irishmen going astray so hopelessly, when they had a
man amongst them who knows so much about parliamentary tactics as
Justin McCarthy. Their anger at the arrest of Davitt shows that it was
not properly deliberate. One argument with which you must have grown
familiar in the autumn comes to one's mind again since the Resolution.
Free government is government by consent; and consent is conveyed by
the choice constituencies make of their representatives. In a local
and circumscribed, not imperial question, legislation must, as a rule,
depend on the consent of those concerned, as represented in Parliament.
This argument is not conclusive against Coercion, because the Land
League has not even an Irish majority on its side. But it might apply
to the three quarter vote.[82] In a purely Irish question the {69}
whole Irish representation might be swamped and silenced by half the
House. I think the Irish might make some play here by insisting on the
distinction between wanton obstruction--stoppage of imperial measures
and paralysis of the House--and obstruction on their own exclusive
ground. Wanton obstruction cannot be tolerated in a Parliament that
legislates for one-fifth of mankind, although it was the method by
which Rome acquired liberty. But the Resolution makes even local
obstruction impossible to the unanimous people of Ireland. It
establishes a degree of subjection that did not exist before. As the
test of liberty is the position and security of minorities, it has to
encounter a very grave objection which is not felt in Mr. Gladstone's
time, but might be, under men like Harcourt, or the late Lord Derby, or
George Grenville.
As the police[83] are responsible, I hope Mr. Gladstone will always be
ready to listen to their advice. But he knows very well that it is the
function of the police to take fright, and to wish to be very much
indeed on the safe side.
I am glad you saw more of Lubbock, and liked him better. He has
astonishing attainments, and a power of various work that I always
envy. And he is gentle to the verge of weakness. He has something to
learn on the gravest side of human knowledge; apart from that he would
execute his own scheme[84] better than almost anybody. How I should
like to see my own List of Authorities drawn up by you! There was a
Pope who said that fifty books would include every good idea in the
world. Literature has doubled {70} since then, and one would have to
take a hundred. How interesting it would be to get that question
answered by one's most intelligent acquaintances: Winton,[85]
Dunelm,[86] Church, Stanley, Liddon, Max Mueller, Jowett, Lowell,
Freeman, Lecky, Morley, Maine, Argyll, Tennyson, Newman, W. E. G.,
Paget,[87] Sherbrooke, Arnold, Stephen, Goldwin Smith, Hutton,
Pattison, Jebb, Symonds, and very few others. There would be a
surprising agreement. One is generally tempted to give a preference to
writers whose influence one has felt. But that is often accidental.
It is by accident, by the accident that I read Coleridge first, that
Carlyle never did me any good. If I had spoken of him it would not
have been from the fulness of the heart. Excepting Froude, I think him
the most detestable of historians. The doctrine of heroes, the
doctrine that will is above law, comes next in atrocity to the doctrine
that the flag covers the goods, that the cause justifies its agents,
which is what Froude lives for. Carlyle's robust mental independence
is not the same thing as originality. The Germans love him because he
is an echo of the voices of their own classic age. He lived on the
thought of Germany when it was not at its best, between Herder and
Richter, before the age of discipline and science. Germany since 1840
is very different from that which inspired him; and his conception of
its teaching was a grotesque anachronism. It gave him his most
valuable faculty, that of standing aside from the current of
contemporary English ideas, and looking at it from an Archimedean
point, but it gave him no rule for judging, no test of truth, no
definite conviction, no certain method and no sure {71} conclusion.
But he had historic grasp--which is a rare quality--some sympathy with
things that are not evident, and a vague, fluctuating notion of the
work of impersonal forces. There is a flash of genius in "Past and
Present," and in the "French Revolution," though it is a wretched
history. And he invented Oliver Cromwell. That is the positive result
of him, that, and his personal influence over many considerable
minds--a stimulating, not a guiding influence; as when Stanley asked
what he ought to do, and Carlyle answered: "Do your best!" You see
that I agree with the judgment of the _Times_ (outer sheet); and the
_Daily News_, preferring him to Macaulay and G. Eliot, and
constructively to Mill or Newman or Morley, seems to me ridiculous. I
should speak differently if, reading him earlier, I had learned from
him instead of Coleridge the lesson of intellectual detachment.
* * * * *
How could you read Laveleye's foolish letters? Pray don't believe him.
His speech about Herbert Spencer is an after-thought. He said he
thought him inferior to Mill; the rest is padding. As he has emptied
his sack of compliments on me I am sorry to think of the other things
you would have him say, for they must be in the other key. Have you
read the _Nineteenth Century_ on Liberal Philosophy?[88] Mr. Gladstone
certainly would not allow the definition of Liberalism attributed to
him to stand alone. My book begins with 100 definitions,[89] but that
is not to be one of them, and I wish I knew of one fit to stand in your
father's name.
{72}
The royal dinner-party was evidently a high success, and, apart from
royalty, I was glad to think of Derby frequenting Downing Street. I
hope his time will come soon, although when he and Goschen are in the
Cabinet I am afraid I shall lose my tenant at Prince's Gate....
[Sidenote: _Cannes Feb. 16, 1881_]
Your kindness to B---- is like nothing but yourself--not only for
procuring him his innings so opportunely, but for interpreting so
generously his perplexity and irresolution. I dare say you are right
to lay the blame on me. It will be very amusing to get remonstrances
from bewildered friends, and I think I shall have to write to Arthur
Russell, as the most inquisitive and idle of them all, and therefore
the best to trust with a secret that is to be told. For pray believe
that there is no real truth in the report.
I paired for the Government with Lord Limerick against.[90] No doubt,
if he was present and voted, he would support the bill. Therefore, in
balancing or neutralising his vote, I am virtually pairing with a
supporter, not an opponent, and am myself practically opposing. But
that is only my metaphysical commentary, founded on the fact that an
Irish Conservative is sure to like the bill much better than I do.
There is no understanding of the kind between us, and neither of us
mentioned this particular measure to the other. I am simply in Cork's
list, paired with a good Tory. And it all comes to nothing, for none
of us expect a division on the second reading.
The only people with whom I need disclaim the impeachment would be
Morley & Co., as I should only be making Radical capital out of a
little joke. The {73} joke consisting in your representing me as a
worse enemy to Ministers than all the Tories and half the Irish.
I made out in the autumn that Blennerhassett laid a good deal of blame
on Forster's want of flexibility of mind and of _coup d'oeil_. I dare
say he is quite right. There is evident truth in one remark you quote.
The excuse for agitation is by no means always its cause; and I would
not be too hopeful of the effects even of the most perfect or most
popular Land Bill. Ultramontane priests will never, permanently, be on
the side of the State. To nurse their own influence and the religious
faith of the people, they always magnify antagonism and persecution,
which implies denunciation of antagonists and persecutors. And there
are deeper reasons still, why it is useless to apply to Irish measures
the usual test of success. However, I am more often angry with our
clergy for absolutism than for revolution, so that I will say no
more....
I never knew Amalie v. Lasaulx; but her brother was one of the best
friends I ever had. For two years I followed his lectures on ancient
literature, philosophy, &c., and he left his library to me when he
died. His whole mind was occupied with religious ideas and studies;
but it was an intellectual religiousness, without a notion of a church
or any fervour of prayer. His sister had his independence of mind and
the same generous idealism, and a humble piety which he had not, and
which is remarkably rare among intellectual Germans.
... The Speaker[91] seems to be a physician as well as a statesman.
The victory over the disturbing Irish must bring your father immense
relief. It is twenty-one years since I met him at Brighton, horribly
jaded, {74} and getting rapid baths of sea-air. I hope he will benefit
this time.
You will have seen Scherer on Carlyle. The passage in Monday's _Pall
Mall_, exalting Arnold at his expense, only shows that his[92]
burlesque language provoked the rigid and highly white-chokered critic.
Froude will be a worthy biographer for so unscrupulous a hero.
[Sidenote: _Cannes Feb. 19, 1881_]
What I said of St. Hilaire has become a little obsolete since his
resolute denial that the Greeks have a European decision--or award, as
it stood in the English draft--in their favour. I cannot remember
whether I indicated the mental peculiarity which has developed into
such impolicy; but whatever I did say is for you to apply and employ
entirely as you please. The Arthur Russells, moreover, know him enough
to introduce the necessary vinegar.
The little joke about Forster is no deeper than AEsop. One said: "He
has a woman's heart with a lion's spirit." Somebody answered: "Rather,
a lion's skin."
It was reported that Ecuador[93] was preparing a Bark in defence of the
Pope. Your father suggested that it must be a vocal bark. Others said
it was probably Jesuit's bark (they prevail in Ecuador). And so it
went on--that it was worse than their bite, &c., &c., &c.
I thought the _World's_ apology to the Irish utterly impudent, but one
of the best strokes of wit I can remember in my time.
I meant it as you say; only the slightest tinge. One need only look at
them to see that generosity would {75} be as completely wasted on them
as on Salisbury, though there are three or four very much better than
others. De Serre was, except Chateaubriand, the only man with a streak
of genius among the politicians of Louis XVIII.'s reign; and he had
virtue and governing power, which that brilliant impostor had not. It
seldom happens that parliamentary debates cut down to the bone, or tap
the bed of principle. There are about half-a-dozen series of debates
that do, because they constructed a system of government from the
foundations--the French National Assembly, in 1789-1791 and 1848;
Frankfort, in 1848; Belgium, in 1831; the French Parliament, after
1815, are among the rare instances. And in that latter instance the
most eminent orator, the finest character, was De Serre. He stood
nearly where Canning stood at that time--between the parties, disliked
by both, persuaded, without the least prejudice or passion, that a
strong monarchy was necessary in the levelled society of France,
willing to make some sacrifice of strict principle in that cause, yet
looking forward to better times, which he did not live to see, for his
health broke down in 1822, and he died in 1824. One story will explain
the man to you. In one of his speeches he laid down that the bulk of a
representative assembly is almost always well meaning (an axiom of
constitutional philosophy). Furious outcries from all the royalist
benches interrupted him; shouts of: "Vous oubliez la Convention!" He
answered: "Yes, even the Convention! (order! order!) ... and if the
Convention had not voted under the terror of assassins, France would
have been spared the most terrible of crimes!"
Laveleye has great knowledge of Political Economy and of politics, and
his peculiarity is that he does not {76} think of party, or power, or
wealth, but is thoroughly anxious about the condition of society. That
separates him from orthodox Economists (Lowe, Mallet, Newmarch), who do
not attend to the problem of Distribution, and are not made sleepless
by the suffering and sorrow of the poor. He is slightly heterodox;
what Germans call Kathedersozialist, and what even Maine would call
downright Socialist. His chief work is an account of early forms of
property, an indirect and rather confused plea for common property in
land. Ingram,[94] Cliffe Leslie nearly represent him in England. He
is a special enemy of the Catholic priesthood, like M. Frere-Orban, the
Belgian minister, and Laurent of Ghent; but differs from them in the
wish to give the people something better than negations. He has
married a Protestant lady, and attends Protestant service; but whether
from any dogmatic conviction, or as a bulwark against Ultramontanes, I
am not sure. He is a very estimable man, well informed, earnest,
slightly tiresome, and not at all original.
Don't mind coming to grief over parallels. A disposition to detect
resemblances is one of the greatest sources of error. To me parallels
afford a blaze of light, but they are rare, and hard to find.
... What you tell me of Mr. Gladstone's health is good news indeed; and
I hope you will not listen to his regrets about a measure contrary to
the law of freedom. As much authority as is wanted to protect the few
against the many, or the weak against the strong, is not contrary to
freedom, but the condition of freedom. The disease lies in society,
not in the state. The other view, that the only dangerous enemy {77} a
nation has is its government, is pure revolution, and was invented by
St. Just.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: _Cannes March 7, 1881_]
When the accident[95] happened, the Cardwells had a favourable telegram
from a friend of yours, and we learned the news and Paget's verdict
together. You must have passed through terrible moments at first. But
the best thing about it was your setting off to amuse yourself at
Oxford. All England has been made to feel the truth of what you say,
and Mr. Gladstone is almost the only man who does not ask the question:
What is to be done if he is disabled?
I must give up my friend Sir Bartle at last. I thought he had courage
and self-command; but he has been showing the mean spirit of recent
Toryism in a way I did not suspect.
Your father's resolute adherence to principle, and his ascendency over
weaker colleagues will be put to a grievous trial by the folly of the
hapless Jingo[96] Wolseley bequeathed to the new government.
I had a cousin who travelled beyond the Vaal, and at last died there.
He taught me to believe that the Boers were excellent fighting
materials. But Sir Garnet pretends that they are liars and cowards,
the only white race retrograding. So that Sir Bartle is not the only
South African authority I must relinquish.
I hope you really like Sir James Paget. You know that he is one of my
Blue Roses, and makes up for my manifold disbeliefs in great
contemporaries. The author[97] of the novel just mentioned is here,
and is {78} our amiable and hospitable neighbour. There has been such
a Whip for Candahar that five people asked to pair with me. They are
not, on the whole, interesting travellers, except one, with a handsome
and over-married wife. And we have had Sir Louis Mallet, very
interesting, and very sound about Afghanistan.
I am just off to Rome, to bring my mother-in-law away, who has spent
the winter there, and to see what ten years, and a new pope and new
king have made of it. I am only allowed a week's holiday, and must
crowd a good deal into it. The Sermons[98] will be my first resource
when I come back next week. Thank you, beforehand, so very much for
them. I did not guess the secret history, and, after your letter, the
Arms Bill was a disappointment. When in England I convinced myself
that there was, at that time, no threat of invasion or insurrection;
but when I saw the Bill going on, I fancied "Endymion" might be right
about that hidden danger.
* * * * *
Your letter came in the middle of this one of mine, and I can hardly
send a word of gratitude for such kindness. Until George Eliot I
thought G.S.[99] the greatest writer of her sex in all literature. I
cannot read her now. But that is individual taste, not deliberate
judgment. She is as eloquent as one can be in French--the unreal,
unhealthy eloquence that Rousseau brought in, that the Girondins spoke,
that Chateaubriand, Lamennais, Lamartine made so popular, that nobody
but Hugo strives after now, and that was modified in her case by Polish
influences. Some of these Frenchmen live on nothing else; and if one
plucks {79} them, or puts their thoughts into one's own language,
little remains. But she had passion, and understood it, and deep
sympathy, and speculative thought, and the power--in less degree--of
creating character. She could rise very high, for a moment, and her
best prose is like a passage from good poets. It is a splendid
exhibition, diffuse, ill-regulated, fatiguing, monotonous. There is
not the mastery, the measure, the repose one learns from Goethe and the
Greeks. She scatters over twenty volumes the resources her English
rival concentrates into a chapter. There is beauty, but not wisdom;
emotion, but not instruction; and, except in her wonderful eye for
external nature, very little truth. I would call her a bad
Second--such as Swinburne is to Shelley, or Heine to
Schiller--comparisons which involve a great deal of disparagement.
The conversation of those three great men[100] is very curious--I
should have liked to see and hear them.... If, by chance, there was a
message or a commission for Rome, I shall be at the H. d'Angleterre
until next Monday.
[Sidenote: _Cannes March 25, 1881_]
Rome is the cause of all my delinquency. I remained a week, very ill
with sunshine and south wind, but very happy, and supremely grateful
for your letters and Illingworth's Sermons. Travellers' Rome is what
it was; but in the real city the change is like the work of centuries.
The religious activity and appearance that were of old are gone, and
their place is usurped by things profane. The State has so thrown the
Church into the background, that the Leonine city sleeps like a faded
and deserted suburb, and one must look behind the scenes for what used
to be {80} the glory and the pride of Rome. The bewildered
Girondin[101] at the Vatican, who stands so well with the Castle,[102]
I did not see, but heard much of his moderation, patience, and despair.
I think he is the first Pope who has been wise enough to despair, and
has felt that he must begin a new part, and steer by strange stars over
an unknown sea.
I found a British ambassador devoid of political influence and
understanding, but splendidly hospitable, and good-natured even to the
friends of his own government. Layard, after serving the Court as a
stick to beat Paget with, had left before I came. Almost all my time
was spent with the two friends[103] whom you remember at a memorable
examination at Venice, and seven days passed like hours. But why do I
write all this? Am I not going to see you soon? I hear of a friendly
yacht in the Mediterranean, and of his family accompanying the P.M.
That can only mean embarkation at Cannes. It will be a joy for us
indeed, and nothing shall be left undone to make your stay here as
pleasant and as long as possible. You will not take long to understand
that it is one of the sweetest spots in Europe. Let this be an assured
element in all your Easter plans, that you will find here a haven of
rest and friends not to be surpassed in affection by any elsewhere.
Tell me what rooms to take at a neighbouring snug hotel. Or do you
stay at Capodimonte? Nothing here spoken of must be to the detriment
of six weeks with the Professor[104] at peaceful Tegernsee, between
August and October.
Lecky seems to me to have composed unconscious of another tune running
in his head. The likeness is {81} greater in the description than in
the reality. Chatham had public virtue, genius, energy, coupled with
the magic power of transmitting it, the strength that comes with
unselfish passion, and a grand way of spending popularity that others
meanly hoard. He had few ideas, less instruction than Fox or
Shelburne, too little political knowledge for a clear notion of his own
place, of the stair he stood upon in history, or for any definite view
of the English or European future. I admit no comparison,[105] except
with the Burke of 1770-80. That early Burke would have made the peace
with the Africanders, which is the noblest work of the Ministry.
When you seem to doubt what I think of it, you mean that Coercion has
robbed me of my footing in your confidence. Four weeks ago a very
eminent foreigner wrote to me that the discovery of the Afghan papers
would chill your father's Russian sympathies. After explaining that
the discovery was not new for Ministers, I begged my friend to dismiss
sympathies for principles, and to understand that there are in the
world men who treat politics as the art of doing, on the largest scale,
what is right; and I informed him that he would presently see peace
made with the Boers on terms of great moderation, after disasters
unavenged, in defiance of military indignation, in spite of lost
prestige. You see that I knew what I was saying. Bearing in mind how
strong a weapon of offence is thus given to enemies at home,
considering the strength the offended feelings lately showed, and the
weakness that lies in the attitude of the Government down to the time
of our defeats, I declare that I rejoice in this inward victory with
heartier joy and a purer pride than {82} I have been able to feel at
any public event since I broke my heart over the surrender of Lee.[106]
Carlyle's two volumes are crowded with grotesque eloquence, but they
make him smaller in my eyes (nothing could make him worse). The
account of Southey seems to me to do him less harm than the rest.
"Common Sense" I read and recognised as Hayward. It seemed to me
nearly true; but I thought the _Times_ and _Temps_ near the truth.
Your question about my injustice to Germany before 1840 touches a vital
point, and you narrowly escape a very long answer. Scientific Germany
was hardly born in all those years when Goethe, Schleiermacher,
Schlegel, Richter reigned. The real, permanent, commanding work of the
nation has been done by a generation of men very many of whom I have
known. To me it seemed that Carlyle spoke of great men before
Agamemnon, and the bonfires that were good in the dark obscure the
daylight.