Morning journal and courier., 1880-01-30
A New View of Thackeray.
MT. Yates Recalls a Famous. Club En ci-
 dent of Twenty Years Ago.

dent of Twenty Years Ago.
 Mir. Edmund Yates, in his magazine Time, gives the first authentic account of the incl dent which led to his expulsion from the Garrick Club 20 years ago. The synopsis of facts and comments thereon are from the London Standard of Jan. 13.
 'fIn the summer of 1858, the proprietor of little weekly periodical engaged Mir. Yates, then young mon of 26, with, as he says, 'all the rashness, the thoughtlessness, and, I dare columns. Iu the second week of his engage ment he furnished 8 short article under the leading Literary Talk on MT. Thackeray, as 8 pendant to one he had already written on Mr. Charles Dickens. This little compost tior, which contains the entire sum and sub stance of Mir. Yates ofense, is divided into three parts. In the first he describes the ap- pearancs, manner and conversation of the great novelist, remarking that 'his face is bloodless and not particularly impressivr, that shis bearing is cold and uninviting, his style of conversation either openly cynical or affectedly good-natured and benevolent The second portion consists of 8 sketch of Thaek- eray's career, and the third of some com ments on his success and an estimate of his popularity. The observations ranged under these heads ordinary enough, and what ever the flavor of impertinenee which Thack- eray's extreme susceptibility may have de- tected to them, it IS the impertinence not of personality but of fppant and superficial criticism. Mr Thackeray was informed thet Mr. Yates was the author both of this slight article and of another in the preceding mum Der of the periodical in question, and on the strength of this information, wrote to him letter, which every friend or admirer of Thack- cray must regret. As 8 matter of fact, MT. Yates had nothing to do with the earlier of the two compositions complained of, contain ing an incorrect account of my Mir. Thack eray's] private dealings with my publishers. But the comments of the young journalist on the social demeanor and talk of the thor of Vanity Fair are thus interpreted by their subject You impute insincerity to me when speak good naturedly in private assign dishonorable motives to me for senti- msnts which have delivered in public, and charge me with advancing statements which I have never delivered at all Mr. Thack cray then tells MT. Yates that he spoke of him very lately in the most friend ly terms to one of his employers and on the strength of this act of kindly not as offensive and unfriendly merely, but as slanderous and untrue. Finally, MT. Thacke ray says, we meet at club, where, before you were born, believe, l and other gentle men have been in the habit of talking, with out any idea that our conversation would SUD- ply paragraphs for professional vendors of literary talk, and do not remember that, out
 
 with you.' This letter, which it is certainly no violent assumption on the part of MT. Yates to suppose to be Intentionally arrogant and offensive,' was acknowledged in a brief note in which Mir. Yates emphatically depre- cated Mir. Thackeray's interpretation of his comments, and hinted that after MT. Thacke- rays strong language he was not prepared to retract what he had said. The correspon- dence was thereupon laid by MT. Thackeray before the committee of the Garrick Club, which adopted Mir. Thackeray's view that the practice of publishing such articles would be fatal to the comfort of the club Mir Yates offered to apologize to the committee The offer was refused; a general meet ing was held; the members of the committee, with a single exception, voted for themselves, and by majority of 70 to 46-the minority including such names as those of Mr. Justice Willes, Sir James Ferguson, Mr. Charles Dickens, MT. Wilkie Collins MT. Robert Bell, and Mr. Samuel Lover-certain resolutions were passed decid ing to support the committee, and giving MT. Yates the option of apologizing to MT. Thackeray or expulsion. MT. Yates selected the latter alternative.
 Many persons may think that, on the whole, MT. Yates would have been well ad- vised if he had expressed his regret to the great man whose pride he had wounded in terms which would have satisfied both him and the committee. Mir. Thackeray was 20 years older than his critic; his fame was es- tablished, and the younger man could not fail to be at a manifest and grievous dis advantage MT. Yates now shows an abundant sense of his own shortcom ings when he says: No can see more clearly than do the stiffness and bad taste of the original article" To censure it in terms more emphatic than this would be to break a butter fly on a wheel, and had MT. Yates said as frs Mr. Thackerav twenty if seems incredible that the entire incident should not have terminated. But it is our clear opinion that Thackeray, by the offensive tone of his complaint made 1t extremely diff cult, if not impossible, for an apology to be offered to him. What is really extraordinary is that the man whom the publication Of his earliest novel had brought to almost the first place in the front rank of English men of letters should have visited what he could we'll afford to have regarded as venial sin with such fierce and exemplary vengeance And it is strange that the committee of the Garrick Club should have considered that an offense which did not involve any charge of club confidence within the sphere of their jurisdiction. The former of these cir cumstances must be explained on the obvious hypothesis that Thackeray had an unusually large share of the weakness aud littleness which are too often attendant upon intellect uaI greatness. The attempts that have re- C6nlAy O00A LuduS Uy IuE AutuOuy 4IOuOpS, for example, in one of the fifty or sixty books he has manufactured, to represent the author of The Newcomes' as man of beaming be- nevolencs are slightly ludicfous. Thackeray was, in some respects, the greatest novelist England has ever produced, but he was often susceptible, intolerant and proud. The committee of the Garrick Club were probably dazzled by the lustre of genius, and they accepted the assumption contained in MT. Thackeray's letter that the crude criticisms of a young 1iterateur were sin against club etiquette and could not have been formulated without knowledge of the personal traits which the opportunity of club intercourse placed within the critlc's reach. As if Thack- eray's habits, his bearing, his talk, when he was at the zenith of his fame, were not mat ters of notoriety to persons outside as well as inside the Garrick Club, and as if MT. Yates might not just as easily have penned his pee cant sentences if he had never been @ mem Der of that establishment! Even Thackeray could scarcely have contended that member