The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-07-02
w. II. NIallock on London Society.

In the July number Of the North Ameri-
can Rerie,o Mr.. w. H. MALLoCK makes some
sensible comments on the article on London
society contributed by Lady JEUNE to for
mer number Of the same periodical. What
he says amounts to this. that Lady JEUHE
takes her subject much too seriously: that
what sho calls tho "smart set" Is by no
means coextensive with aristocratio So
ciety. nor even with that section Of it which
Is most distinguished on the score Of birth
and inherited wealth: and finally. that she
grotesqucly exaggeratcs tho Importance
OF this smart set and tho extent OF its influ-
ence on tho community ut largo. We may
add that the curiosity evinced about 1t and
about an analogous coterie in New York is
due to the absence Of any deeply and widc-
ly interesting topic. and that. should we
again be plunged In the vortex Of a civil war.
or should England have O Crimean war or
Indian mutiny on her hands. the function
Of tho society reporter would be gone.
Mr.. MALLoCK ridicules the notion that
London society Is a compact. homogeneous
body. governed by common motives and
principles and having common ideal Of
life. He computes at about five Thousand
the number Of persons entitled to be con-
sidered as belonging to society In O strict.
| conventional meaning OF the term. How
ludicrous Is the supposition that five thou
| sand persons. or any large proportion Of
| them. can know ono another Is made clear
by tho example OF q university containing
from ono thousand to two thousand stu
! dents. These arc always split up into o
multitude OF cliques. for the most part
strangers to each other. and characterized
by great diversity of principles. occupa-
tons. tastes. and habits. Take even q sin
gle class Mt Harvard College In our day:
docs anybody imagine that all the mem
bers OF 1t are known to one another by
name or even by sight How preposter-
Gus. then. to fancy that every men,
Der Of London society is known. by
name at least. to every otheri But
1t may DO said the smart set. while
not coextensive with society. is the
most exclusive and distinguished. It
certainly is not the most exclusive. or the
people connected with tho Tranby Croft
scandal could not have boon included In It;
and according to Mr.. MALLocK. 1t is very
far from being tho most distinguished on
the score of aristocratio quality. Flow
things" he says. "surprise Americans
moro than to learn. as they do learn when
they study English society on tho spot.
how many OF the wealthlest the most H.
lustrious. and the most powerful OF the old
families. Boosting the Hottest titles and the
most renowned names. mix with the smart
| set only In tho most accidental way. neither
by taste. habit. nor desire In any way be-
| longing to It," Lady JEUNE herself admit
ted. but Mr.. MALLocK complains that
she did not state tho fact with
sufficient emphasis. that "the section
OF society In which rank. birth. and vast
possessions fill their possessors with n
sense of their responsibilities. In which pri-
vnte life ID decorous and public duties are
faithfully discharged, IL larger and moro
important than the section In which de-
corurn and responsibility are forgotten"
The specific merit OF Mr. MALLoCK's arti-
Gle Is tho lucidlty and cogency with which
| he demonstrates that. 80 far as the smart
set In the London OF to-day differs from tho
most conspicuous section Of London society
at other epochs. tho difference is duo to tho
intrusion OF a democratic element. It Is
traccable to the invasion OF those hordes OF
nourea,lr riches. who are accountable for
tho fact that. whereas ut the beginning Of
the century two-thirds OF tho wealth that
paid tho income tax was derived from
| land now three-fourths OF 1t Is derived from
' commerce. Rich men, 1t is true, have always