The sun., 1879-06-01
FRouDEs war or WRITING HISTORY.
One Reader Frees HIS Mind About the A uthor
or The EnEiish In Ireland"

To THE EDITOR OF THE SUN-Sir: havo
read The SUN closely for some years and have
found more that was congenial in It than any
other paper l ever saw. Thcro have been many
things. OF course. that ! did not like, but
never took pains to enter protest because n
man gets to feel toward favorlto newspaper
that general confidence in it's sense and honor
and that special liberation for it's foibles which
he foels toward friend 1t may seem that
have broken this rule OF reticence Tor q trivial
cause. when say that want TO put in decided
objection TO tho editorial on Tho Limits Of
Controversy" published on last Sunday morn
ing
That article givos an account Of the quarrel
between tho so-called historians Freeman and
Froude. and, not content with attributing the
honors OF the controversy to the latter. seems to
vouch in a general way for his scholarship and
honesty.
There Is no doubt that Mr. Froude has been
very fortunate in the upshot Of his quarrel with
Mr.. Freeman. lIe had been accused for years
OF naccuracy and ialsohood. and rested under
the chargcs. The bad taste and bad temper
shown by Mr.. Freeman in his stricturcs on tho
" Life and Times OF Thomas a Booklet" Il quote
tho tito from memory, gave Mr.. Froude an
opportunity to make cunning defence. and he
was not slow to avail himself Of II. by pleading
the hardships which he endured through his
abandonment OF the Ministry and the bitter
nocgssity Of writing history for living. by
showing instances OF vindictiveness on the part
OF his opponent. 10y making a frank acknOwl-
edgment Of some trivial blunders. and by
clinchng the controversy with n reference to
his brother. the tractaran. whose momory ho
had been accused OF assaiinR. ho contrivod to
make out good case against Mr. Freeman. II
shows how skilfully he planned his vindica-
ton that even THE SUN led awny on side issues
Is ready to accept the proof OF FreemHn's s rHncor
ship. although the author Of The Norman
Conquest virtually established the essential
points Of his charge to wit. that Froudc did not
know enough about the twelfth century to write
n history Of Thomas a Be 'kot. and had no pur-
pose to write candid history IL he had had tho
BE that as 4 mny. tho man who undertakes to
rehabilitaie Mr.. FrQude's reputation must deal
with other matters besides those touched by Mr..
Freeman. The book OF Col. Moline on tho
eccentricites OF the eulogist Of Henry VIII. In
tho matter OF inventing motives, mistrnnslAting
State papers. garblng authorities, and sup
pressing evidence. remains unrciutcd. His dis
comfiurc in the rough and ready encounter
with Father Tom Burke Is still unexplained.
And in the last work OF AN aber man than him
or Freeman-l mean the historian Lccky-there
stand unchallenged the grayest accusations
that one writer can bring against another In
a foot note England IN the Eighteenth Con-
ipry' vol. H., pgge iO4) II ,is said that Mr.
collect and aggravqte everything. that can bo
said against the Irish people" In a foot note
rp p1FGs o SySn 0aS 5G
the Irish rebellions as due to the religious per-
secutions which tho people suffered. the other
serting that the Irish rebelled out OF sheer
insolence and ingrntitude. due to over -tolcra-
ton. The contradiction is explained by tho
declaration that the latter book was intended to
blacken the character OF the Irish people. and
especially the Irish Catholics" In n foot note
at page 1859 an instance is given OF one OF Mr.
Froudes peculiarities in quotation, with this
comments: BY suppressng absolutely the
substituting for Il that of a Catholic copyisi
who never pretended 10 have himself examined
the original depostiops. and coupling the sub
preston Is given which IL ito use tho mildest
terml misleading" At page ls5 a long cata-
motives is given. The text from page 1928
contains the refutation OF Mr.. Froude's strange
ISLANDERS on the Irish Catholics in regard TO alb
ductions-one OF the most absurd and vicious
calumnies over put forward against tho charac-
ter OF a people, The foot note at page 4l0 gives
an example OF Mr.. Froudes style OF garbling a
State paper. ! cite such instances merely by
way OF illustration. and for the sake OF the great
name that voqches for them. But. no man who
references needs anything more than his own
experience to prove that .genteman's lack Of
conscientious research and lack OF integrity IN
As nm unpretentious student OF history /
would 10 content to consider. with amused in
terest the curious admiration for the eternal
verities and tho curious incapacity for telling
the simple truth which Mr.. Froude shares with
other disciples OF Carlyle; but as the son OF
Irish parents l cannot help regarding the
slanderer OF the Irish race somewhat in the
light OF personal enemy Shqllow and dis
honest in the treatment Of all topics. Mr.. Froudo
seems TO have learned enough Of Irish affairs
merely 20 enable him 10 lie about them with
some show OF verisimlitude. IL will not do for
the people whom no followed hither and mis-
repr esented 10 allow him to be set up ~ an
authority in history Of am. kind. The Irish
have suffered from oppression and its conse-
quences. the evil report Of the oppresser more
than any people in the world save the Jews /;
an d to-day they are more heavily Handicapped
in tho race OF life mere and elsewhere than the
jews themselves. Thcy have enough 10 endure
without having the caumnies OF the English
Eugene Lawrence sci up As preeumptive cyi-
dc nco against them.
This Is not the place for specific criticism
but at the risk OF trespassing on your valuable
space, ! am tempted to cite one point from Mr.
froude's defence in tho April number OF the
Nineteenh Century us an example OF his reck.
lessncss OF manner. In confessng that he did
not know who the Bishop OF Icxovia was re-
ierred to IN iont note to one Of the earlier
sumes great credit for tracing to tho hoarsay
evidence OF tho said Bishop. given in Jerome
Gardors h9955osc9pe @co Of Edward w.. the state
reign OF Henry VIII. He says:
No hearsay story told BY Bishop Of Lcxoyia wher
statement OF much historical cons quence Was NY
e t9d hy az iri,h s'shop that two million poor people
Sm%rSSd s II anpeared to e mat had done soue
In the original foot note he says:
Laxiy OF assertion in matters OF number is so aitna
A. to have lost the character Of alschood Men not re-
marAahy inaccurate viii speak oi thousands and when
while single cipher inserted by printers mistake be-
comes Ht once tentold cXaggeraton
Now. assuming. since Mr. Froude doesn't
quote State paper IN evidence. that there was
such person as this nameess Irish Bishop
ana tnat he was guilty Of the eXAggoration mon
uOucd-lor II Is an oNaggeratOn-What prO-
priety is thore in relegating the Irish famine TO
the region OF myths and legends That
calamity, tho most miserable, perhaps. In
tho history OF Europe is not "A mat
ter OF hearsay; and its Dimensions arc
sneer is put in such a way that the reader with
poor memory for stat lstlrs let's his Imagination
run away down from the Irish Bishops millions
into the tens OF thousands, the thousands or
even tho hundreds. Mr. Froude bonttles tho
Whole nilalr 10y insinuatlou in using an csti-
mate OF II as typical cHnard Let us test what
he sets up us the maximum OF widness in OK
NggeratlOn.
have no work on the Irish famine at hand
ana believe the loss of life in IL must be 10 "A
great extent matter Of conjecture. But on
cIal estimates and data for estimates arc not
wanting. The population OF ireland by the
census OF 1871 was Sl75l2i. The Census Com
mlssioners OF 1901 (quotod in Alesun's Fu-
rope. vol Nlll., y. 30 et SrQ.l estimated that the
population IN 1916 was actually S55S OSl and
WAl under ordinary circumstances ii would in
1901, nave amounted to 9OlS7gQ. BY the ctn-