New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-11-23
"MR. FROUDES CHALLENGE.p


To the Editor Of The Tribune.
SIR: In your article of this morning headed
Mr. Froude's Fights" you ask: Why shouldjnot Mr.
Melne accept the challenge which Mr. Froude has just
uttered in BOstoni" l will very oheerfuly answer
your question. Waving comment upon the singular
term challenge" applied to Mr.. FrOude's proposition
beg leave to point out the fact that by It, he proposes
that issues already made be set aside and that
one should take the trouble to frame ones which
shall be restricted TO a certain designated class of cases
TO examined and decided upon "a Mr.. FrOude himself
suggests
II Mr. Froudo had been accused In merely general and
sweeping of bad faith in his treatment OF hstor
cal documents he might justly say that IT Ia impossible
for him reply to the vague and the indefinite and de-
mand something specific. But that is not his case Tho
charges made in the book to which you refer e. Mary
Queen Of Scots and her latest English Historian y are
clear and explicit in every instance, citing page and
volume, chapter and Wherever the historian Is
charged with unauthorized assertion suppression,
with Interpolation, with adjoining his own language
with inverted commas with changing expressions which
do not him for such do,every such Objectionable
passage ia designated by italics or otherwise, and
where he claims quotation, confronted with the original
In such manner as to leave possible room for mis-
take. Now these originals not always English State
papers. Many OF them are published works; some re-
late to French history TO the Smancus papers
very large number OF Mr. Froudes historical assertions
are totally without support of reference and what arc
charged as his gravest ofenses-hs suggestions, con
ceament nnuendo attrbuting OF motives pictorial ex
aggcraton and pretended psychological inrospecon-
are all matters which utterly cudo any such test he
proposes.
There are few indicted persons who specially admire
the indictment under which they stand charged. There
are probably still Tower who would prefer one drawn
accordance with their wishes and from which should
first Of all be excluded the larger part of the accusations
~ IA NJ tho CHI i'm
question: am perfectly well aware, and so state (p ~
believe have made them good IL is not mere at
tempt to show that certain passages as cited by the MS
torian do not agree with the originals It an arraisn
ment Of his historical method, his treatment OF author
tiles his want OF fairness his absence OF the Judicial
sense and what can only designate his intrepdity
of statement These not matters TO be measured by
anything in the State Paper Office, aud confess my in
ability 20 understand why IL should be "impOs
sible TO reply In detail" The work referred to
contains $40 pages. The inaccuracies charged
may possibly numbcr-fOr I have not counted
them-some 400 or 800. II Mr.. FrOudo were to select
from these a ew-say sixty or elghty-of the most
important. and refute them. the book with all its
charges would be injured beyond the power OF further
ANNOYANCE. He has in fact made a beginning in that
direction Why should he not continue In his eighth
volume he puts a sanguinarY threat In Mary Stuarts
mouth and cites as his authority letter, Randolph to
Cecil Oct 8 Scotch MSS, Rolls House" He told
that there was such letter i'm existence in or out OF
the Rolls House. Claiming that there had been either
by himself or cOmpositOr clerical error" he fell back
upon letter of another date from the Earl OF Bedford
Tho author OF the work you refer 10 then sent TO the
English Record Office for certified copy OF the Bedford
letter, which turns out to be-not Scotch but an En-
glish MS and falls depOrably short OF supporting Mr..
Froudes citation. part of this controversy
ried on in the columns Of paper in October. 1870
and Chapter VIII of the book referred TO gives In full
together with the Bedford letter.
cher interests in this matter than those
affecting any individual, and far as the writer's
humble participation IL concerned ne would, for the
sake OF historical TRUTH be glad TO be corrected he
has done the historian injustice. The labor Of following
Mr. Froude through the various paths OF his history has
not been very light Far from it; and should be very
unwilling to undertake the repetition of such task.
The book referred to makes against Mr.. FrOude
which it may or may suit him 10 notice. II he is
content 70 let it stand wered, also am but
distinctly decline any such allaciOus test that of the
Boston proposition. IL would 10 STRANGE indeed If any
man OF set Of could be found half capable Mr.
Froude himself OF making his defense against the
serious charges which he says brought against him.
Possessing perfect familiarity with his subject intimate
personal knowledge of authorities and MSS, style
iustiy admired wherever the English language is
spoken and "a prestige Of fame TO which none Of MS
critics can ever dare surely, II his be just
he need have the OF his Opinions To speak
and silence them forever. JAMES +, MELlNE
brooklyn, Nov. 81 1872