, 1873-06-22

the same opinion. But he defends Henry VII:
and Elizabeth on the grodnd Of expediency, He
condemns universal suffrage. He thinks the
SUCCESS Of America is due to sudden wealth.
not to sound political principles. Of which, In
his opinion, ne have precisely the reverse. He
laughs at humanitarianism, and maintains that
equality dwnrfs men. He sppca1s to be willing
to be despot or serf, as the case may require
The book is one OF the most marvellous eccen-
tricities OF the age Il it be difficult to classify
Mr. Mill as philosopher, it is much more diff
cult to classify Mr. Stephen.
It is Of little consequence that Macaulay, as
Mr. Conway reminda US, pronounced Mills phi
losophy harmless cant,-"not much more
laughable than phrenology. and immeasurab1y
more humane than cock-hghting." The inlu-
ence Of what Hill has said and done in British
politics may not Cause monuments to 10 erected
to him in public squares devoted to the
emblazonment OF great British butchers.
But that influence has been signif-
cant in every constitutional widening Of
British! government It has bean signih-
cant--tho most significant influence Of
al-in the gradual attempts, comparatively sue
cessful as they have been aud must be within .
commonwealth that moves by conservative
marches only, toward universal 1unrnge. It
has been significant IN repudlstng Engliah
preceden,a IN Ireland, and substituting religion
almost free, and education somewhat less go.
It has been significant in furnishing schools and
building railroads in India at tho cost, in
deed, OF greater demand for artillery there,
aud with the consequence OF raising up Mr.
James Stephen, who, to carry out his political
principles consistently, and not Mr.. Mills, must
close the schools, devote the railroads solely to
tho transportation Of British troops, and, follow
ing the example Of an i1ustrious conservative
predecessor, constitute the artillery the teacher
Of the Sepoys, and finish their curriculum by
single lesson from the cannon's mouth. It is not
surprising that Macaulay should have failed to
comprehend Mill, or to measure hisinluence upon
the future Of English politics It is natural for
contemporaries in the same field to underyalue
each other. They are personally too near to OBJ
tain noutual perspective. Macaulay failed to
appreciate Mill, not because he was rival hua-
bandman tilling the same philosophical field,
but because he sat On the fence OF the field in
which Mill worked and his feld-g1aas, under
such circumstances, never failed to diminish the
object at which it Was leve1ed. It mag
nifed dead man only But Macau1ay
is not to be tried by special in
dictment for his 1idicule Of Mill. johnson saw
little merit in the writings Of any man ct his
time except his own, and was very bitter upon
Gray for being e t1iding and dull" Churchill's
line,
Who rules Ger freemen must himself be free,
he declared rank nonsense As sensible rs to
say:
Who s1ayB fat oxen must himself Be fat.
Corneil1e Was certain that Racine should aban-
don tragedy. Sir Walter Scott waa admoniahed
to stop writing; and criticisms OF Washington
Irving, written during his life, declare the
" Bketch-Book heavy and disagreeable." It
is not far from the truth to say that
Macaulays ponderous laughter at Mil1
reads as well in England to-day ao does the
gravity Of the English critic who robuked Mark
TwAin's ir1everence in " "1nnocents Abroad"
Whatever is good, whatever is robust, in the hu-
name specu1ations Of the gentle mind asleep in
Avignon, hss taken permanent hold Of English
soil and from thence shall grow great oaks Of
Eng1iah liberty. whose leaves will garland the
sghtless eyes Of John Stuart Mil.