New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-01-15
NOTES FROM LONDON.
LOWELLS LETTERS-MR. w CRANE ON
AMERICA-"THE SATURDAY REVIEW"
AND DEAN STANLEY-PAN-
TONNES. ,

which Lowers Letters" have excited in Eng.
land not the least is the appearance of a sec
ond review In THE Times" and the second n
longer than the first. Like the first II Is appre.
ciative, with its due compliment to the editing
by Professor Norton; CT whose "concseness. dis
cretion and wise reserve too much can scarcely
be said" OF the Letters themselves it is said
they may perhaps come to be numbered among
the half-dozen treasures Of this order which the
language possesses" That. think, is what
Lowell would have liked.
Mr.. Walter Cranes American experiences
were not in all respects Of kind to proposes
him r favor of a country which would not ac-
cept him and his rather crude communism ct
his own valuation. Accordingly. he Is OF opin.
ion-he expresses it in THE New Review"-im.
proving on Mr.. Oscar Wilde. that In America
you meet for the first time the seamy side Of
the nineteenth century. Commercial individual.
ism'-whatever that may be-"stalks every.
where. naked and una shamed" The American
people, and more particularly the people Of
Boston, did not show sufficient anxiety about
social questions. and the condition Of the workers
to satisfy Mr.. Crane. In other words, they did
not take Mr.. Cranes views nor recognize Mr..
Crane apostle. He tells in his way
the story of the dinner to himself from which in
tending guests hosts withdrew their names
on hearing that he had signed a memorial and
made speech against the execution Of the Chi
cago assassins Mr.. Crane does not seem aware
Of the real nature Of the hostility he so wantonly
provoked. The people OF Boston resented his
expressions Of sympathy with Anarchists and
his impertnence in meddng-he, a foreigner
with a purely American question 1t was no
business of Mr.. Cranes whom we hanged or left
OK ia
and thin. like his art.
good specimen of the methods Of controversy
which still prevail in The Saturday Review" may
be seen in its review of Dean Stanley's Life"
Mr. Prothero. Stanleys biographer. refers to
"virulcnt' attack on Stanley which appeared
many years ago in this periodical. 1t is not the
habit of THE Saturday Review" to quote, or to
quote fairly what is said by those whom 1t de-
nounces nor does 1t in this instance quote the
language Of Mr.. Prothero In the interests OF
fair play all round. ii may therefore be we'll to
re-estabsh the omitted passage, and the facts.
The incident occurred not long after the publica-
ton of Essays and Reviews In 1860. Stanley
wrote article in the April number OF The
Edinburgh" 1861, in reply to Bishop W!lberforce's
in the January number Of THE Quarterly"
He had been stung and angered by the injustice
with which the authors of the book had been
treated. His article was fiery protest against
this injustice. resulting in a controversy which
lasted for years. Says Mr.. Prothero:
"In The Saturday Review appeared An attack
upon him Of so viruent nature that three Of the
staff. including the present Lord Justice Bowen.
withdrew from all connection with that journal"
a few pages later, he writes:
with the personalities OF the controversy. so
far as they affected himself, he concerned him.
self little. Even the savage attack OF THE Sat.
urday Review" he ascrbed 10 the stomach and
passed by"
In the absence OF contradiction, the interesting
statement in the first Of these quotations may
be assumed to be true Lord Justice Bowen-he
is now judicial step higher and Lord Bowen
was not then the very distinguished parsonage he
has since become. But he was then. as he has
remained. a man OF just and honorable nature.
with a refinement OF feeling which recoiled from
the brutalities practsed by THE Saturday" on
It's victims. Possibly he thought his protest
might have some practical effect; might mitigate
if 1t did not extnguish the love of this singular
periodical for the coarser forms of cruelty. The
singular periodical has taken, and continues to
take. pains to prove him wrong in this too hope
full forecast of a more respectable future Its
vndctveness is unabated, its methods are un-
changed its spirit is still that Of which the In
QUESTION and the North American Redskin have
supplied the world with so many brilliant ex-
ampes The attack on Stanley must, in any
case, have been virulent enough when the in
eliminated journal is driven to say:
without p,edgng ourselves to every word Of
what The Saturday Review then and long
afterward said of Stanley. have not the slight.
est intention of hauling down the flag under
which those comments were made"
IL then proceeds to reargue or restate Its 20.
sition from the High Church point Of view:
asking what warranty Of any actual. or posi-.
bic scripture in the documents. the archives,
the charters the formularies OF the Church had
Stanley for his Broad theory" and answering
absolutely none" SO far, good. We are then
told that 1t was impossible he should hold his
view Of the Church "as OF right" He might
hold 1t a private opinion. But when. as Q
dignitary Of the Church OF England, he pre-
sumed to differ from THE Saturday Review
in matters Of theology. OF ecclesiastical theory,
and of ecclesiastical practice. he forthwith be.
comes anathema:
I'VE cannot imagine how any man Of honor.
how any man Of decency, how any man with the
commonest notions of fair and seemly conduct
can approve his action"
This may be thought equivalent to saying that
Stanley had no honor. no decency, no notion OF
fair and seemly conduct II there be any doubt
about 1t. you have only to read what follows
Stanley is kened to a soldier inside be-
leaguered city who lets in the enemy at prvy
doors, and hands over his own quarter OF the
town to the foe. Then:
IF he may do this and bear any name but
that OF traitor, then we have nothing to say
against the sometime Dean OF Westminster
If he may motif in war; in politics, in private
business and friendship all men Of honor would
cry shame such conduct-then We shall be
satisfied with saying that such conduct was his"
Such is the language which THE Saturday Re-
view" still thinks 1t right to use toward an
opponent who is in his grave and cannot re-
ply. II men Of hono~ cry shame on such
language. what can We say except that 1t Is the
language of The Saturday Review?
The pantomime period is upon us. All sorts
of theatres break out ihto pantomime. This form
of entertainment Is supposed a find its natural