The times., 1899-06-11

needed there as a representative of the
principles in which he believed. 1t often
happens that a bookish man, who has led
somewhat the life of a student and dream
er, is confused by being thus thrust into
prominence and does his own cause more
harm than good; but it does not appear
that Mil ever did this. The ways of an
English political meeting are not calcu-
lated to encourage a timid or unaccustom-
ed speaker. especially a man who first
entered political life at the age of sixty;
but Mill appears to have met the heck
ling with disarming and convincing
straightforwardness The following incl
dent is an example of his method of meet
ing difficulties:
On one occasion he was asked by some hostile
questioner whether he had not. in one of his es-
says, declared that the English poorer classes
were given TO telling untruths Mil came prompt
~ forward. and. without a word of excuse or ex-
pianation a preliminary to his reply, gave out
the distinct answer: ''fes, / did. Many OF
the London workmen who heard his words told
me afterward that they could not but admire
the man who gave brave and straightforward
answer TO a dangerous question. Then, after
lie had made his direct emphatic reply, Mill
gave his eNplanation-the explanation which all
who knew lin, or knew his writings, must have
anticipated. lie explained that the conditions of
the English poor, the manner in which they were
left wholly without education, the utter neglect
with which they were treated by the state, the
pitiful temptations to which they Were exposed
in the course of their days struggle for a liv
ing, the ignoble necessity for conciliatng the ia
vor Of those who could give them employment,
and OF their betters, as they were called gener-
ally-all these causes had rendered il hard, in
deed for the poorer class, a class, TO set up
too high and rigid a standard of truth. | am
sure Mil left the platform that day win pop
ularity distinctly increased by the effect OF the
question and the answer.
One of the few chapters which ap-
proaches criticism Of any particular per-
son is that devoted to Froude, and in this
Mr. Mccarthy contrives, while apparently
explaining and smoothing over the con-
duct of the English historian, to give
rather clever picture of Froude's inimical
attitude toward certain persons and par
ties. Anyone who is familiar with the
writings of the historian in question knows
that his remarks have to be taken with
grain OF salt sometimes, but the reason for
the salt has perhaps never been explained
so clearly as in this book. This is the
way in which Mr.. Mccarthy does it:
While he was engaged in writing history he
allowed his own theories TO carry him whittier
they would, and as he had constructed posi-
tive historical theory for himself about the work
ings Of Catholicism, it seemed to be an article
OF faith with him that history must shape itself
out in obedience to that theory. But II any
instance came under MS ONn personal ODstIEailOn
in which some living man was treated with in
justice because he happened to be a Catholic
then the historical theory was all forgotten, and
Froude became the fearless champion of the vic
Tin to a prejudice which he himself had done
most to foster. As he had theory about the
historical workings OF religion, SO he had a
theory about the historical workings of race
To the public in general Froude always seemed
TO be 4 writer who was filled with a positive
deiesiation of Irislnnen as a body. Most OF my
couutTymen at time regarded him a bit
ter and iuveterate enemy OF the whole Irish race
and, indeed, there were only too many eyi-
dences in some of his writings TO justify such a
belief. Yet Froude had many close Irish friends,
and used at time TO reside for a part OF
every year in Ireland, where he had some prop
erty, and ] believe his relations with the Irish
peasantry who lived near him always those
OF friendship and kindiness But he could not
restrain his pen and he always saying some
thing about Ireland and Irishmen which filed
the Celtic breast with a bitterness of resentment
that certainly did not seem unnatural or even un-
reasonable. The Spectator declared:
1T may be not unfairly said that Mr.. Froude
simply loathes the Irish people; not consciously.
perhaps. for he Processes the reverse. But a Ger
tain bitter grudge breaks out despite his will,
now and then. II colors all his tropes. II adds
a sting TO the casual allusions of his language.
When he wants figure OF speech 10 express the
relations between the two islands, he compares
the Irish to a kennel Of tox-hounds and the
English to their master, and declares that what
the Irish want IS 4 master who knows that he
Is a master, and means to continue master" In
his occasional studies Of contemporary Ireland
from the window of his shooting lodge in Kerry
Mr. froude exhibited the same strange mixture
OF candor as TO fact, and blind prejudice as to
conclusion which oddly characterizes his his
tory. lie recounis deliberately the most detesta-
bie projects-he himself calls them detestable;
the word IS not mine-avowed to him by the
agents of great Irish landlords and yet his
sympathy is wholly. with the agents and against
the occupiers. Mr. Froude seems to as
sociate in Ireland only with the agent class
and to take all his views of things from them
His testimony is therefore about as valuable
as that Of a foreigner who forty years ago,
should have taken his opinions on slavery in the
South from the Judgment and conversation of the
plantation oveTseers The Spectator observed
with calm severity that Mr. Froudc's unluckv &C.
counts of his Irish experiences were "a comical
example OF the way in which an acute and pro-
found mind can become dull to the sense of what
is manly, Just, and generous by the mere atmos-
/ phere OF association"
Then Mr. Mccarthy goes on to tell some
very pleasant and pretty stories of Froude S
/ personal character, of the interest which
he took in young authors, and of his ge-
niality as a friend. But the foregoing re-
| marks will probably be of more interest
\ 10 the public. in that they offer a COM
| mentary on and an analysis OF the writings
Of the historian.
The chapter on Positivsm in London al
SO throws some valuable light on English
/ thought of the present century. To the
/ general public positivism is perhaps, a
| sort OF combination of communism and
| wild morality, but It was a very well-de-
| fined thing TO the last generation of Lon
] doners. AS Mccarthy describes 1t. it was
/ absolutely opposed to the modern imperi-
aiistic principles Of which KiplIng is per-
haps the best-known exponent The mild
er positivism OF London numbered among
its adherents men like John Stuart Mil
1 Herbert Spencer, Huxley, and other great
thinkers; but the little body of me1
known definitely as positivists were g
school as distinct as the Boston trans
cendentalists. They were radical in the ex.
treme. and their politics were politics OF
| idea" Most Of them were university men
and all of them were rebels against thu
| Philistine on the one hand and the over
refinement OF Matthew Arnold on the 9th.
er. II cannot be said that they had a re.
markable influence. as a whole, upon Eng.
lish thought: they were rather amonf
those who awaken thought. who prick tht
bubbles of convention and make men think
A phrase which is used by Mr.. Mccarthy il
this connection is extremely happy. II,
speaks of one of the positivsts as uplift.
ing his voice honestly against
that social hypocrisy which Is the stain an
curse Of London society, and which Is never s,
happy as when II can find some chance OF de
nouneing sin or crime among republicans, o.
irishmen. workingmen.
There is some of that same hypocris,
here in America.
The picture which is here given of tn
London Positivist is this, and most of u
have known men who had in one way o
another elements of the character:
We're 10 set up a typical Positivist, In orde
10 make my present-day reader more readily an,