National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-05-13


The current number OF the Nineteenth
CntlDy contains an article from Matthew
Arnold on the decadence of English lib
erallsm under Mr.. Gladstoucs leadership.
Mr. Arnold says that Mr.. Gladstone is not
and never was statesman; that he Is
merely great parliamentary manager. Ia
the estimation Of the English poet and
critic no doubt the premier IS the direct sue
ecssor Of Lord Macaulay, whom Mr.. Arnold
used to laugh at so heartily, and whom he
was wont to describe as the supreme type
Of British Phi!istinism. Mr. Arnold is a
distinguished figure in his own "linc,n or,
as the French would call It, meter, but his
line Is certainly not politics.
When he dabbles in the art OF govern
mCut he merely puts his foot in it-not his
brains--and furnishes another fatal in
stance Of the mau eminenty successful in
one field of human effort who carries into
another and alien field no aptitude for his
new work, and all the prestige Of his legitl-
mate distinction. His argument in the
present instance is that the Irish should
not have a separate government merely
because they desire II so eagerly, and that
the Scotch and Welsh should each have q
parliament, because they don't banker
after It, and have not given so much trou-
bic to the English.
This remarkable statement looks like
paradox, but It is only nonsense, and sulta-
ble as q theme for the mock turtle in the
wonderland experiences of little Alice.
Literature Is not the only avocation that
sends failures to politics. Edmund Burke
used TO say that successful lawyers brought
to parliamentary life only the washings Of
their empty bottles. Lawyers are aptto
adopt views Of great subjects which are too
narrow, and the scientific man views that
are too wide. Erskine, the greatest OF
nisi prlus lawyers, was a conspicuous fail
ure in the house of commons. Mil and
| George Grote, from want Of severe training
| in the practical business Of ruling men-or
helping them to rule hemselves--degen-
Grated into hobby-riders, and each session
saw, with something like compassion. the
great philosopher bring on his woman fran
chise bill, and the great historian his ballot.
Neither man believed much in
parliamentary methods, and, though
they were both probably right
from the standpoint of archangels,
! poor humanity must continue to blunder
| on with political partiesand government by
expediency. Carlyle's opinion on living
| political issues was about as important as
! that of q nine.pound baby. But Carlyle
was, as he always called himself, "a man
| who wrote books,n and lis intimacy with
the eternities left 10 space for any kuowl-
I ~ Ia. 1arf .Ffnin a In1
men Ike Tyndall and Huxley have no such
| excuse. Their limitations are marked by
tine, and they express no yearnings for
eternity. Yet, like the men Of old, they
rush in where wise statesmen fear to tread,
and offer very dogmatic opinions upon sub
iects which never entered seriously into
their lives.
The opinions on practical politics of such
men as Matthew Arnold, Huxley, Tyndall,
Froude, Ruskin, and Leckey are not harm
ful II received as those Of units in society,
but when Mr., Tynd0ll expresses his opinion
on home rule he unfortunately carries into
politics his reputation In the laboratory
In the latter arena his opinion is worth, say,
mir ety-nye out Of a possible hundred; IN
politics It is worth something considerably
less than nothing at all. Similarly, Mr.
, Froude. in his own special branch Of max
: ing bad history glow in the flame Of ex
} cellent English, is unsurpassed, but wha
docs Mr. Froude know of the requirement
Of agricultural laborers and Irish peasant
who never read word Of Greek play ant
who don't care brass button whethe
Henry VIII was a saint or a snner9
We arc acquiring mighty lot Of knowl
edge, no doubt, in this wondrous age, bu
that is still profoundly true which was sal,
by them Of old about the cobber and hi
| last